05. Feminist narrative(40-49) REVISTA AQUICHAN - ISSN 1657-5997 AÑO 4 - Nº 4 - 40-49 - BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA - OCTUBRE 2004 40 Running head: Feminist Narrative Interpretations Funding: National Institute of Nursing Research Grant K07 NR00037 ABSTRACT An affinity for narrative is shared by researchers across a broad ran- ge of disciplines. Narrative inquiry is an option for nurse researchers who are interested in using qualitative methods to explore experiences with nursing, health and illness. In this paper, we discuss the methodo- logical and epistemological challenges, tensions and opportunities we encountered in the process of developing feminist narrative interpreta- tions, an approach to narrative inquiry grounded in both nursing and feminist perspectives. KEY WORDS: Feminist research, narrative, narrative interpretation, nur- sing research, qualitative research methods RESUMEN La afinidad por la narrativa la comparten los investigadores de muchas disciplinas. Los estudios sobre narrativa son una opción para las enfermeras investigadoras interesadas en utilizar métodos cualitativos, para analizar sus experiencias en enfermería, salud y enfermedad. En este trabajo discutimos los retos metológicos y epistemológicos, las tensiones y oportunidades que hemos encon- trado en el proceso para desarrollar interpretaciones de una narra- tiva feminista, y la aproximación de los estudios de narrativa, basa- dos tanto en perspectivas feministas como en enfermería. PALABRAS CLAVE: Investigación feminista, narrativa, narrativa interpreta- tiva, investigación en enfermería, métodos de investigación cualitativa * Ph.D., RN Associate Professor College of Nursing and Women’s Studies Program University of South Carolina Columbia, SC Corresponding Author Information: Office Phones: 803 –777-0410; 803 -777-8423 E-mail: deanne.messias@sc.edu ** Ph.D., CNM, FAAN Professor Emeritus School of Nursing University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA DeAnne K. Hilfinger Messias* Jeanne F. DeJoseph** Recibido: el 4 de marzo de 2004 Aprobado: el 29 de abril de 2004 Feminist Narrative Interpretations 41 torytelling is at once an ancient human tradition and a postmodern art. At the beginning of the last century Virginia Woolf reflected the spirit of postmodern literary criticism when she pronounced the death of storytelling and the familiar features of plot, character, and narrative, because “real life was too complex and elusive to be captured in a conventional story” (Buford, 1996, p. 11). In contrast, at the beginning of the twenty-first cen- tury there is evidence of increasing inte- rest in storytelling across diverse discipli- nes, including nursing and other health professions. Commenting on this rene- wed attention to the narrative nature of human beings, Buford suggested that: Implicit in the extraordinary revival of story- telling is the possibility that we need stories – that they are a fundamental unit of know- ledge, the foundation of memory, essential to the way we make sense of our lives…We have returned to narratives – in many fields of knowledge – because it is impossible to li- ve without them.” (p. 12) Despite the ubiquitous nature and renewed scholarly interest in narratives and stories, there is little agreement about what constitutes either. Among re- searchers who engage in narrative in- quiry, there are also definitional and met- hodological differences. Accordingly, re- searchers from different disciplinary pers- pectives have constructed multiple ap- proaches to the analysis and interpreta- tion of narratives. Through both our nursing and femi- nist connections, we discovered an affin- ity for narrative and began to explore the possibilities of narrative within our re- search interests in the areas of women’s health, work, and transitions (Messias, 2001; 2002; Messias & DeJoseph, 2002a; 2002b). In the process, we drew on our previous experiences with other methods of qualitative analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and on the work of other narrative ana- lysts (Bell, 1988; Labov, 1972; Riessman, 1993; Stevens, 1995). At the same time, we struggled to find methodological ap- proaches that fit our philosophical and disciplinary perspectives. Although we were clear about our nursing and femi- nist bearings, we constantly challenged ourselves to incorporate these multiple perspectives and standpoints into the re- search processes. The approach we deve- loped is characterized by the co-creation, re-presentation, and interpretation of wo- men’s stories and informed by the multi- ple perspectives of nursing, feminism, and qualitative/naturalistic research met- hods we bring to our research. We consi- der this approach a form of feminist na- rrative interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to dis- cuss our responses to the various metho- dological and epistemological cha- llenges, tensions, and opportunities we have encountered as we explored and developed our approach to feminist na- rrative interpretations. We begin with a brief discussion of the connections and challenges to narrative research posed by both nursing and feminist perspectives, then proceed with a more detailed des- cription of how we addressed these challenges. REVISTA AQUICHAN - ISSN 1657-5997 AÑO 4 - Nº 4 • BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA - OCTUBRE 2004 42 Narrative: Nursing and Feminist Connections and Challenges Nursing “is no stranger to narrative; it has always been a part of how we ha- ve explored the shared world of our pa- tients” (Vezeau, 1993, p. 213). Patients and clients often use stories to inform nurses about their experiences with health and illness. Storytelling helps pa- tients to find meaning in their experien- ces, gives them the opportunity to re- construct their lives, and can promote health and healing (Bartol, 1989; Sande- lowski, 1994). By listening to patients tell their stories, nurses gain an insight and understanding of the human expe- rience with illness that is different from the knowledge of illness conveyed th- rough decontextualized abstract labels or disengaged, analytical reasoning (Benner, Tanner, & Chesla, 1996). Nur- ses not only listen to patients’ stories, they also are storytellers. In communica- ting with each other about their expe- riences with patients, their families, and other health care professionals, nurses commonly use stories. They also in- corporate storytelling into health educa- tion and in helping patients and families explore ways to identify and cope with illnesses. We were attracted to a narrati- ve approach to research because sear- ching for and sharing stories was a natu- ral extension of our clinical nursing practice. Feminism supports diversity in ex- tending the methods of the qualitative traditions. Experimentation with diffe- rent forms and texts is one way feminists have found to express more fully the in- sights arising from transformations in re- search practice (Devault, 1990). Alt- hough there is no definitive, singular fe- minist research method, there are cer- tain features that characterize research processes as feminist (Bloom, 1998; De- vault, 1990; Hall & Stevens, 1991; Har- ding, 1987; Reinharz, 1992). Feminist methodologies allow for more interper- sonal and reciprocal relationships bet- ween researchers and the individuals whose lives and experiences constitute the focus of the research (Bloom, 1998; Lawless, 1991; 1993). These are similar to the relationships that nurses strive to develop with their patients and clients. The context for this paper is our qualitative research exploring women’s work during pregnancy. Because we were interested in exploring women’s work during pregnancy within multiple contexts, the women we invited to participate were situated in different contexts across multiple continua of weeks of pregnancy, age, race, educa- tion, national origin, partnered status, and current employment, economic and living circumstances. Rather than impo- se our definition of women’s work du- ring pregnancy, we simply asked partici- pants to define work and to share their perceptions and experiences concerning work during pregnancy. We interviewed 29 women at all stages of pregnancy and with diverse ethnic, socioeconomic, cultural, and demographic characteris- tics. (Three of the interviews were con- ducted with the women and their male partners, interjecting other dimensions into the research dialogues.) We antici- pated, and found, that these women de- fined, conceptualized, experienced, and interpreted work differently, and in di- verse personal and social contexts and environments. Staying open to the pos- sibility of “uncovering” or “discovering” diversity in women’s experiences with work during pregnancy was a key un- derlying assumption of the study. The recognition of diversities among women, (e.g. age, economic status, se- xual orientation, reproductive status, so- cial position or status, health status, ra- ce, ethnicity, political, and religious per- suasion) is another of the generally ac- cepted characteristics or criteria of femi- nist research (Reinharz, 1992). Much of the mainstream research in all disciplines (including nursing) has been blind to such diversities among women. We agree with Anderson (1985) that sound feminist analysis must entail an unders- tanding of race, class, and gender, and other axes of inequality, as researchers seek both the commonalities and the differences across women's experiences. However, narrative researchers differ in the extent to which they include and consider the larger social context in which narratives are embedded (Riess- man, 1993). At one end of the spec- trum, conversation analysts limit their focus to what participants say and do in a particular interaction. We situate ourselves more closely with other fe- minist narrative analysts such as the Personal Narratives Group (1989), in making a conscious effort to consider how race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, Feminist Narrative Interpretations 43 immigration status, and other contexts of diversity and inequality surface in re- search participants’ multilayered daily li- fe experiences, their telling of their sto- ries, and the multiple contexts within which these stories may be represented and interpreted. Like other feminist researchers who embrace interpersonal and reciprocal re- lationships with those they study, we were challenged by “concerns about et- hics, reflexivity, emotions, positionality, polyvocality, collaboration, identification with participants, intersubjectivity, and our own authority as interpreters” (Bloom, 1998, p. 2). Some of the ten- sions we had encountered in other qua- litative approaches led us to experiment with different forms of narrative analysis, which we found posed other challenges as well as opportunities. Heeding Sande- lowski’s (1991) forewarnings, as nurse scholars engaged in exploring narrative inquiry, we understood the need to address the ambiguous nature of truth, the metap- horic nature of language in communicating a putatively objective reality, the tempora- lity and liminality of human beings’ inter- pretations of their lives, the historical and sociocultural constraints against which indi- viduals labor to impart information about themselves to other individuals, who, in turn, labor to listen. (p. 161) In addition to grappling with issues of ownership, truth, temporality, and the social and environmental issues su- rrounding the creation and interpreta- tion of stories within nursing research, underlying our ongoing collaborative ef- forts to develop this feminist narrative interpretative approach were several questions we felt compelled to attempt to answer: How does this approach to narrative reflect both nursing and femi- nist perspectives? What is our “working definition” of story? What is the position of the researcher in the co-creation of women’s stories? How useful are narra- tive analysis techniques in feminist na- rrative interpretations? What are possi- ble forums and formats for adequately and ethically re-presenting these co- created stories? In the remainder of this paper we discuss how we have respon- ded to these tensions, challenges, and opportunities in developing our approach to feminist narrative interpretations. Developing a Working Definition of Story In colloquial usage, “story” can mean fantasy, truth, lie, or almost anyt- hing in between. The terms story and narrative are frequently used interchan- geably and there are no definitive defini- tions of either (Poirier & Ayres, 1997; Polkinghorne, 1988). Therefore, one of our main challenges has been to deve- lop a working definition for “story” wit- hin the context of feminist narrative in- terpretations. How we defined “story” was a key to the way we approached both the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. In developing our wor- king definition, we dealt with the pro- cesses of eliciting stories in the context of research, the structure and function of stories, and the gendered nature of narratives. Some qualitative researchers and na- rrative analysts ask participants to cons- truct a story in response to a specific re- search question; others elicit the telling of a person’s life story (Benner, Tanner, & Chesla, 1996; Bloom, 1998; Lawless, 1991; 1993). We felt that because each individual can have their own unique definition of “story,” requesting a re- search participant to “tell a story” could miss some of the richness of their expe- riences around particular topics. Bell (1988) suggested that within an in- depth interview, “people spontaneously tell stories to tie together significant events and important relationships in their lives, and to ‘make sense’ of their experiences” (p. 10). Therefore, rather than asking for specific stories, we en- couraged participants to talk about their work during pregnancy in whatever way they chose. The conversations that oc- curred in the course of research inter- views were the direct result of shared moments and experiences that occurred between a storyteller and listener-resear- cher-interpreter. Because we found their experiences were more naturally expres- sed and more clearly understood during guided conversations, we moved from a more traditional interview format to a style that resembles more a “conversa- tion” (Riessman, 1992, p. 58). We found that having a focused conversation allo- wed for a free flow of thoughts and en- couraged participants to participate more fully in the research by offering their own interpretations of their life experiences and contexts. REVISTA AQUICHAN - ISSN 1657-5997 AÑO 4 - Nº 4 • BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA - OCTUBRE 2004 44 In both our research and our nursing practice, we have come to view women’s stories as representations of their experiences. We approach stories as interpretations of experience, reinterpre- ted with each telling-hearing-reading. Therefore, we were not comfortable with the notion of story as an “accurate” or “true” account of what “really” happe- ned. In each co-created research conver- sation a woman can only share what is “real” and “true” for her at that very moment. That reality can be shaped by, for example, her physical feelings, the weather, what she had for breakfast, how she reacts to the researcher, what she perceives the researcher wants to know, or any number of other environ- mental or contextual factors. Likewise, the researcher may be affected by similar factors. These resulting research narrati- ves are conversations bounded by the context (i.e., persons, place, time, inte- ractions, and imbued meanings) of the research interview. We view stories as so- cially constructed tapestries that weave together unique threads of personal, re- lational, and cultural realities, percep- tions, and experiences, in the process of facilitating the creation of fluid meaning (Bruner, 1986; Riessman, 1989; Richard- son, 1990). As other narrative analysts (Poirier & Ayres, 1997; Lawless, 1993) have noted, people do not necessarily tell their stories in chronological or thematic order within the narrative texts of research conversa- tions. Within the narrative texts transcri- bed from our research conversations, only rarely have we identified a temporal sequence of plots or found stories that were plainly bounded or had clear indi- cations of a beginning, middle, and end (Riessman, 1993). Therefore, a definition based on the expectation that stories told within the context of research inter- views necessarily have a pre-existing structure was not appropriate for femi- nist narrative interpretations. Engaging in this research process from a feminist perspective presented us with the challenge of recognizing and rupturing of our pre-conceived notions of story and narrative. Although feminist scholars have embraced narrative forms and inquiry, they have not done so uncri- tically. Smith (1987) and de Lauretis (1987) both expressed misgivings about autobiographical narrative forms based on their association with patriarchal cul- ture. Other feminist scholars have propo- sed that because stories are gendered, the structure, style, form, and content of women’s stories need to be considered differently from those of men. A major hurdle is recognition of the distinct cha- racteristics of women’s stories. Lawless (1993) suggested women’s difficulties in identifying and constructing their own stories as women’s stories stemmed from the application of male constructs to women’s stories, noting the critical need for models and scripts that would fit the wholeness and complexity of wo- men’s lives as they experience them. As one of the participants in Lawless’s study of women clergy noted, “We don’t know what a woman’s story sounds like be- cause we’ve never heard one…we can’t even tell them” (p. 79). Another woman reflected a similar state of unknowing, but welcomed the challenge and opportunity to explore her own gende- red stories: “I must say, I don’t know what a woman’s story sounds like…I’m sitting here saying I can’t believe I told my story that way. On the other hand, I’m glad I was asked to” (p. 57). One of the ways in which we have at- tempted to create the opportunity for women’s stories to surface in our re- search is not anticipating or imposing a pre-conceived structure or form on the stories women tell us. For the purpose of our research, we have come to identify stories as the unfolding of a description of a particular woman’s experiences around a focused topic of the research (e.g. her health, pregnancy, work, employment, or migration). Each story is a dynamic re- presentation of a particular woman's ex- periences around a focused topic as identified and interpreted by both the woman and the researchers. These sto- ries unfold within the original narrative of the research conversation, but not ne- cessarily in any particular order or for- mat. The focus of these stories may be events, relationships, emotions, or envi- ronments. Some stories are more “fac- tual” accounts, others more personal re- flections. Throughout the research inter- views there are also fragments of stories, some of which are unfinished, others which serve as support or corroboration. The stories that provide us insight into our research interests and questions exist within the various contexts of each par- ticular woman’s experience, the re- searchers’ research context, and the sha- red context of the research interview. This contextual definition takes into con- sideration the temporal and transitory Feminist Narrative Interpretations 45 nature of stories created in the process of our research. The Co-Creation and Interpretation of Stories: The Interconnectedness of Researchers and Research Participants As Reinharz (1992) noted, there is a broad continuum of the degree of femi- nist researcher involvement in the lives of the people they study. Feminist narrative interpretation shares with other qualitati- ve and interpretative research the as- sumption of intersubjectivity between re- searcher and participant and the mutual creation of data. We agree with Olesen’s (1994) notion that the women who participate in research are actually doing research in their daily lives, as they cons- truct the meanings of the experiences that later become the data that resear- chers interpret. This approach is also ba- sed on the premise that storytelling is a mutual process (Bruner, 1986, Griffin, 1994). We approach each research interview opportunity as a challenge to create an interpersonal environment of respect, shared information, openness, and clarity of communication. We also assume that each study participant has experiences concerning the focused area of interest, viz. work during pregnancy, and thus, has stories of interest to us in our re- search endeavors. However, we acknow- ledge that the women we interviewed may not have considered or conceptuali- zed their experiences either as “work” or as “stories” that they would tell others or that others would want to hear. We also recognize that some participants may be more willing or comfortable in telling their stories, and that we might perceive them as “better” storytellers. Similarly, some women may be more at ease with the interviewer as “listener” than others. In any case, the quality and substan- ce of the data produced at the moment of each researcher-participant interaction is dependent on the interpersonal quality of that interaction, as well as the partici- pant’s perceived value of the experience and its retelling. Mutuality refers to the efforts taken to identify and reduce the power inequalities among researchers and participants (Hall & Stevens, 1991). In creating spaces for women’s stories th- rough our research, we have found that we are inviting anticipated, as well as unanticipated, disclosures (e.g. regar- ding sexuality, race, immigration status, physical or emotional health, and perso- nal and family relationships). Disclosure is a quality of researcher engagement re- lated to mutuality and trust, and refers to the authentic revelation of the marginali- zed identities and experiences of research participants, in ways that are understan- dable to the research audience (Meleis, 1996). Our approach to the interactions and “data” produced by researchers and re- search participants reflects our ontologi- cal and epistemological standpoints (Gu- ba & Lincoln, 1994). Our ontological po- sition is that realities are multiple, multi- layered, and fluid; as such, they are cons- tantly shaped by perceptions and con- texts that include, but are not limited to, gender, class, culture, race, politics, and economics. Our epistemological stance is based on the premise that the relations- hips between knower and what is to be known are subjective and interactive. We recognize that our values, as well as tho- se of the women we interviewed, inevi- tably influence the inquiry. Therefore, the resultant knowledge (e.g. the “findings” of the research) is mediated by and inex- tricably intertwined with the interactions between and among the investigators and the women who participate in the study. In essence, ontology and episte- mology are fused. A story is not the work of the storyte- ller only, but requires that there be a lis- tener or reader, unless it is to remain an “untold” story. Audience is crucial to the story and influences how stories are told; it is, therefore, a key element in narrative research. For example, the story a wo- man tells an investigator in the context of a research interview will not necessarily be the same story that she would tell her best friend, a prospective employer, or a relative. When stories are co-created in the process of research, the initial audien- ce consists of the actual investigator(s). However, by giving her consent and par- ticipating in a research interview, the study participant agrees to her stories about a focused research question being shared with a broader audience (e.g. ot- her women, researchers, nurses, health professionals and the general public). Alt- hough we recognize the potential value in taking qualitative data “back” to research participants, we have opted to REVISTA AQUICHAN - ISSN 1657-5997 AÑO 4 - Nº 4 • BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA - OCTUBRE 2004 46 take the stories from our research “for- ward” to these other audiences. Challenges and Opportunities in Narrative Analysis, Interpretation, and Representation As we developed our approach, we found feminist narrative interpretations well suited to collaboration. Other met- hodological challenges and opportuni- ties we experienced included sorting th- rough and critiquing the appropriateness and fit of various narrative analysis tech- niques and experimenting with diverse forms and venues for presenting the re- sults of our research. Interpretation as a collaborative effort. Although the process is more complex, having more than one inter- preter involved in the research process broadens the dialogue and enriches the process and the products. As co-interpre- ters, we often initially review the research texts independently, then meet together to direct our focus to the stories. This co- llaborative process of identifying and lo- cating stories contained in each inter- view text occurs not only in interaction with the texts but also as a result of the dialogue between interpreters/resear- chers. When we meet, we share with each other the stories we noticed or created, and compare how story lines are similar or different within each partici- pant’s narrative and across several parti- cipants’ narratives. We periodically re- turn to the interview transcripts to refine the stories we have already identified and to locate other stories. While each story can stand alone, we also look for connections or contrasts between stories within each narrative and across groups of narratives. Together, we then examine ways in which these stories expand or challenge our current understanding of the phenomenon of interest. In develo- ping our “findings,” we challenge oursel- ves and each other to bring multiple perspectives to our interpretations. This process of co-creation recognizes the ac- tive, participatory relationship between and among researchers. Each time we re- visit the data individually or together, the possibility exists for the discovery of new stories or new interpretations of stories previously identified. Sorting out techniques of narrati- ve analysis. Another methodological challenge was to determine the useful- ness of narrative analysis techniques for feminist narrative interpretations. Similar to other approaches to narrative analysis, searching for story lines is key to our in- terpretive approach. Some narrative re- searchers analyze one story within an in- terview, others look for and analyze se- quences of stories. Bell (1998) extended story analysis by considering how se- quences of stories can provide insight in- to personal experience. This process in- volves reducing the interview data to a core or skeleton narrative, then restoring a complete version of the stories. In the process, the storyteller becomes the ana- lyst and the stories are told in the third person (Bell, 1998). Other approaches to narrative inquiry include within- and across-case identification of common or prime story lines (Bottorff, Johnson, Irwin & Ratner, 2000) or types of stories (Ay- res, 2000). We differ from those narrative ana- lysts who define stories in terms of struc- tural elements such as orientation, episo- de, coda, abstract, evaluation, and/or re- solution. Our approach to analysis and interpretation began to flow from our working definition of story as unfolding around a focused topic. Not surprisingly, because we did not define story in terms of structure, we chose not to adopt analytic approaches that focused on structural forms or components of narra- tives. However, for some of our initial analyses, we did experiment with a mo- re structural approach, based on Labov’s (1972) functional categories, but found such techniques to be reductionistic in both process and results. Like others who have used narrative analysis in health research, we concluded the use of certain structural narrative analysis techniques contributed little in terms of illuminating our understanding of the stories (Crepeau, 2000). We deci- ded these structural analytic techniques were analogous to diagramming senten- ces: although they may be useful to na- rrative researchers in the process of iden- tifying the structure or function of sto- ries, they contribute little to furthering understanding of the underlying mea- nings. Similarly, some qualitative and na- rrative analysts reduce and decontextua- lize the stories that participants tell th- rough coding and categorizing schemes. Feminist Narrative Interpretations 47 Rather than override the women’s expe- riences with our own codes and catego- ries, we strove to preserve the saliency of women’s own words in the presentation of their stories. As listeners/interpreters, co-storytellers, in the processes of co- creating and re-presenting these stories, we identify the story lines and weave to- gether the stories that we have identified as providing insight to our research ques- tions. In the process, we actually may in- troduce some elements of structure (e.g. order of presentation) into these stories. For example, in re-presenting stories in written form, we occasionally “edit out” certain repetitive aspects of oral speech (e.g. um, like, you know) and also impose conventions of written speech, such as punctuation. The construction of composite narratives is another approach to narra- tive analysis (Stevens, 1995; Stevens, Hall, & Meleis, 1992). One of the advan- tages of such an approach is that the re- searcher does not have to worry about confidentiality or identity disclosure in a composite story, because there is no “real person” behind the story. Although we have not adopted the composite narrati- ve approach, we did experiment with synthesizing the various stories contained in an interview narrative into one integra- ted “core narrative” for individual partici- pants. However, the resulting synthesis often proved too long and unwieldy. One of the ways in which we have addressed this challenge is to identify several story lines within each participant’s narrative, recognizing that there often are connec- tions and overlap within these story lines, because they are part of women’s “lar- ger”life stories. Representing results. The challen- ge of large texts is one that is not unfami- liar to qualitative researchers in general, across disciplines and methodological persuasions. The intent of our approach to stories is to display the results of our interpretive research processes in a form that more closely reflects the participants whose stories the research is intended to present. Sometimes we weave the co- created stories and narrative interpreta- tions together, alternating stories and in- terpretations. Different stories or different storytellers may lend themselves to diffe- rent forms of re-presentation. By re-pre- senting both the co-created stories (which preserve individual women’s words) and our interpretations of the contexts and meanings of those stories, we allow other audiences the opportu- nity to follow, challenge, or extend our interpretive weavings. In representing women’s stories, maintaining a balance between the voi- ces of researchers and participants is an ongoing challenge in feminist narrative interpretations. The ways we choose to re-present women’s stories involve com- plex issues of “ownership.” We speci- fically want to privilege the women who shared their experiences and perspectives with us in the course of our research, rat- her than totally privileging our “overwri- ting” of their words and expressions. At the same time, we need to acknowledge our role and active engagement in the co-creation and interpretation of these stories, and the re-presentation of these stories to other nurses, researchers, and women, in furthering women’s health and well-being. Another challenge is not to privilege one type or format of story over another. The choices of whose sto- ries to “move forward” and re-present to other audiences has implications in terms of our role as feminist researchers with an obligation to combat the social and inter- personal structures that perpetuate the oppression of women. Inherent in the process of women researching other wo- men is the danger of reproducing exis- ting structures of inequality and power (Patai, 1988). We have had the occasion to re-tell participants’ stories in several different formats and forums. These include the more conventional format for research, in which we re-presented individual wo- men’s stories within published research reports. However, we have also re-pre- sented women’s stories orally at research conferences, in classroom presentations, and as case studies for health care provi- ders. From both our personal perspecti- ves and our observations of the reactions of our audiences, telling stories has been a meaningful and effective way to re-pre- sent the results of our research. Summary and Conclusions Virginia Wolff had a point in conten- ding that life is complex. An illustration of REVISTA AQUICHAN - ISSN 1657-5997 AÑO 4 - Nº 4 • BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA - OCTUBRE 2004 48 that complexity is the way health issues are embedded in the multiple contexts of women’s lives and work. We believe that stories can help nurse researchers make sense of and interpret the meaning of women’s health and illness related expe- riences. In this paper we have described and illustrated an approach to research that incorporates both nursing and femi- nist perspectives in the co-creation, re- presentation and interpretation of sto- ries. Feminist narrative interpretation is a complex and dynamic research process that involves asking, listening, reading, looking for, identifying, locating, co-crea- ting, re-presenting, and interpreting sto- ries. These interpretive processes begin with development of the research project and continue with guided research con- versations around a focused topic, viz. the research question(s). Our approach to women’s stories is predicated on seve- ral underlying assumptions. We situate ourselves in the position of listener/con- versationalist/interpreter to collect our research narratives. We define stories in terms of the interpretive interaction of re- searcher(s) and narratives, not in terms of form or structure – a distinction from ot- her forms of narrative analysis. Each story is a dynamic, unfolding representation of a particular woman’s experiences. How a story unfolds is a function of the interac- tion of the past and present experiences, perspectives, interests, and perceptions of both the narrators and the listeners. The resulting co-created stories are re- produced and re-presented in other mo- ments and other forms through the re- searchers’ analyses, synthesis, and inter- pretations. Like other methodological standpoints, feminist narrative interpre- tation is, “by definition, partial, incom- plete, and historically contingent” (Riess- man, 1993, p. 70). Research approaches such as feminist narrative interpretations both confirm and expand the applications of stories in nursing practice and research. Boykin and Schoenhofer (1991) suggested that stories are valuable as an approach for illuminating “the uniqueness, subtlety and depth of nursing knowledge” (p. 245) generated through nursing prac- tice. The opportunity to witness, inter- pret, and represent other women’s sto- ries certainly is a privilege. Through re- search that furthers the sharing of co- created and re-presented stories, nurses may also find knowledge, inspiration, and guidance for the transformation of nursing practice. REFERENCES Ayres, L. (2000). "Narratives of Family Caregiving: Four Story Types." Re- search in Nursing & Health 23, 359-371. Anderson, J. M. (1985). "Perspectives on the Health of Immi-grant Wo- men: A Feminist Analysis." Advances in Nursing Science, 8(1), 61-76. Bartol, G. (1989). "Story in Nursing Practice." Nursing and Health Care 10, 564-565. Bell, S. E. (1988). "Becoming a Political Woman: The Reconstruction and Interpretation of Experience through Stories." In A. D. Todd & S. Fisher (Eds.), Gender and Discourse: The Power of Talk (pp. 97-123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers. Benner, P., Tanner, C. A., & Chesla, C. A. (1996). Expertise in Nursing Prac- tice: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics. New York: Springer Publishing. Bloom, L. R. (1998). Under the Sign of Hope: Feminist Methodology and Na- rrative interpretation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bottorff, J. L., Johnson, J. L., Irwin, L. G., & Ratner, P. A. (2000). "Narra- tives of Smoking Relapse: The Stories of Postpartum Women." Research in Nursing & Health 23, 126-134. Boykin, A. & Schoenhofer, A. O. (1991). "Story as Link between Nursing Practice, Ontology, and Epistemology." Image: Journal of Nursing Scho- larship 23(4), 245-248. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press. Buford, B. (1996, June 24 and July 1). "The Seductions of Storytelling: Why is Narrative Suddenly so Popular?" The New Yorker, 11-12. Crepeau, E. B. (2000). "Reconstructing Gloria: A Narrative Analysis of Team Meetings." Qualitative Health Research 10(6), 766-787. de Lauretis, T. (1987). Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Feminist Narrative Interpretations 49 Devault, M. L. (1990). "Talking and Listening from Women's Stand- point: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis." Social Pro- blems 37(1), 96-116. Griffin, J. (1994). "Storytelling as a Scientific Art Form." In M. Madrid & E.A.M. Barrett (Eds.), Roger's Scientific Art of Nursing Practice. New York, National League of Nursing Press. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). "Competing Paradigms in Quali- tative Research." In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research 105-117, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hall, J. M. & Stevens, P. E. (1991). "Rigor in Feminist Research." Advan- ces in Nursing Science 13(3), 16-29. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Labov, W. (1972). "The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax." In W. Labov (Ed.). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, (pp. 354-396). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lawless, E. J. (1991). "Women’s Life Stories and Reciprocal Ethno- graphy as Feminist and Emergent." Journal of Folklore Research 28(1), 35-60. Lawless, E. J. (1993). Holy Women, Wholly Women: Sharing Ministries of Wholeness through Life Stories and Reciprocal Ethnography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Meleis, A. I. (1996). "Culturally Competent Scholarship: Substance and Rigor." Advances in Nursing Science 19(2), 1-16. Messias, D. K. H. (2001). "Transnational Perspectives on Women’s Do- mestic Work: Experiences of Brazilian Immigrants in the United Sta- tes." Women & Health 33(1/2), 1-20. Messias, D. K. H. (2002). "Transnational Health Resources, Practices, and Perspectives: Brazilian Immigrant Women’s Narratives." Journal of Immigrant Health 4(4), 183-200. Messias, D. K. H. & DeJoseph, J.F. (2002a). "The Work of Pregnancy: Becoming a Mother, Growing a Baby, and Making a Ramily." Manus- cript submitted for publication. Messias, D. K. H. & DeJoseph, J. F. (2002b). "Creating Communities: Women’s Work during a First Pregnancy." Manuscript submitted for publication. Olesen, V. (1994). "Feminisms and Models of Qualitative Research." In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 158-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patai, D. (1988). Brazilian Women Speak: Contemporary Life Stories. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Personal Narratives Group (Ed.). (1989). Interpreting Women's Lives: Fe- minist Theory and Personal Narratives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni- versity Press. Poirier, S. & Ayres, L. (1997). "Endings, Secrets, and Silences: Overrea- ding in Narrative Inquiry." Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 551-557. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Ox- ford University Press. Richardson, L. (1990). "Narrative and Sociology." Journal of Contempo- rary Ethnography 19(1), 116-135. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sandelowski, M. (1991). "Telling Stories: Narrative Approaches in Qualitative Research." Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship 23(3), 161- 166. Sandelowski, M. (1994). "We are the Stories we Tell: Narrative Kno- wing in Nursing Practice." Journal of Holistic Nursing, 12(1), 23-33. Smith, S. (1987). A Poetics of Women’s Autobiography: Marginality and the Fictions of Self-representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Stevens, P. E. (1995). "Structural and Interpersonal Impact of Hetero- sexual Assumptions on Lesbian Health Care Clients." Nursing Research 44(1), 25-30. Stevens, P. E., Hall, J. M., & Meleis, A. I. (1992). "Narratives as a Basis for Culturally Relevant Holistic Care: Ethnicity and Everyday Experien- ces of Women Clerical Workers." Holistic Nursing Practice 6(3), 49-58. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Vezeau, T. (1993). "Storytelling: A Practitioner's Tool." MCN: American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing 18(4), 193-196.