Interpreting Static Images:

Toward Understanding the Development of Narrative Proficiency

in Pre-school Children

A Research Proposal

Phillip J. Hutchison

University of Utah

Abstract

The author investigates how children aged three- to- five use narrative devices to interpret static images. The author hopes that specific answers to this question will help researchers and theorists, who represent diverse epistemological and ontological viewpoints, better understand how humans use narratives to interpret the social world.

The author proposes an experiment in which children aged three, four, and five will be shown a series of four static images, each depicting a different narrative theme (comedy, irony, romance, and tragedy). To assess the children’s use of narrative devices to structure their interpretive strategy, the children will be asked to three questions about each image’s content. Researchers will classify these responses based on established standards for classifying narrative themes, structures and formal devices. By better understanding the evolution of a child’s nascent use of narrative devices to interpret the social world, the researcher hopes to provide new insights into far-reaching questions about the confluence of narrative, socialization and cognitive development.

 

Introduction

Narrative and human consciousness

For at least the last 30 years, theories that articulate the centrality of narrative in human communication have been pervasive throughout the humanities and social sciences. Despite great epistemological and ontological diversity among these theories (Boje, Alvarez and Schooling, 2001; Richardson, 2000), few—if any—researchers would argue against the claim that narrative is fundamental in structuring human consciousness. Yet, notwithstanding this nugget of consensus, there appears to be little consensus about how narrative functions in this manner.

This reality is underscored by the fact that narrative theory did not evolve chronologically from a fixed epistemological base. Instead, it is better understood as an amalgam of several theories and paradigms. Boje, Alvarez and Schooling (2001) note that multiple theories of narrative abound, each representing different epistemological and ontological perspectives. These researchers note that these often-divergent viewpoints represent diverse characterizations of the relationship among narrative form, function, and human consciousness.

These perspectives—the research implications of which will be addressed later—range from realist perspectives (i.e., narratives mirror reality), to strucuturalist perspectives (i.e., narratives represent sign systems that are separate from knowledge) to post-structuralist and critical theory perspectives (i.e., narratives are social constructs that represent and reproduce various systems of power). Additionally, some theories view narrative as unique form that differs from other distinct forms of discourse. Other theories, conversely, argue that narrative implicitly structures all human action and discourse.

Yet, as noted previously, some commonality conjoins this diversity. Most researchers acknowledge that, despite different perspectives of narrative form and function, narrative is fundamental to both human communication and knowledge. Additionally, researchers representing the full spectrum of epistemologies and ontologies, which Boje, Alvarez and Schooling (2001) identify, acknowledge that narrative is socially learned and functions socially.

Consequently, much of the ongoing debate about the relationship between narrative and human consciousness centers on this latter question: how is narrative learned and how does it function socially? Polkinghorne (1988, pp. 113) notes that since few scholars dispute that narrative is fundamental to structuring human consciousness, many researchers have sought insights into the genesis and function of narrative by studying how children acquire narrative proficiency.

Children and narrative proficiency

Although most of this research is conducted under rubric of child cognitive development research, the insights resulting from monitoring nascent narrative skills in children indicate broader ramifications. The point at which a child begins to demonstrate narrative proficiency presents researchers with a valuable—and possibly unique—vantagepoint for monitoring the confluence of socialization and cognitive development. Insights into this relationship may bring clarity to longstanding scholarly discussions about narrative, socialization and human knowledge.

Throughout the past 30 years, a wide range of studies has documented facets of the development of narrative skills in children. Assorted researchers including Applebee, (1978), Kemper (1984), Sutton-Smith (1986), and Engel (1994) have offered various findings and theories regarding these issues. Although their respective conclusions represent diverse views, these researchers seem to agree on a common point: children exhibit tangible narrative skills by age three. This consensus, thus, establishes useful parameters for targeting future research into the acquisition of narrative skill.

Although researchers have developed some consensus about when and how children begin to generate and understand narrative discourse, this consensus is clouded by the sorts of epistemological and ontological issues that Boje, Alvarez and Schooling (2001) identified. Much of this lack of consensus can be traced to fundamental questions about what exactly constitutes a narrative. Arguably, existing research into children’s development of narrative proficiency does not adequately address this controversy. Instead, most of the existing research implicitly aligns itself with conventional "formal" perspectives of this on-going debate.

Issues of form and audience

As Polkinghorne (1988) explains, there are several distinct perspectives about what constitutes a narrative. Traditionally, literary formalists (Frye, 1957) and assorted structuralists (Polkinghorne, pp. 79-94 cites Vladimir Propp, Tzvtan Todorov and Roland Barthes as exemplars) sought to identify characteristics that distinguish narrative from other forms of discourse. Others, particularly psychologists (Bruner, 1986; Sarbin, 1986), argue that narrative is a fundamental form of organizing human consciousness and all ensuing social interaction. Others yet, including MacIntyre (1981) and Fisher (1987), argue all forms of discourse, in essence, are narrative and, as such, humans cannot know anything except through narrative.

Existing research into children’s development of narrative proficiency has not sought to directly engage this debate in detail, although—because it monitors nascent development—it appears well suited to do so. As the upcoming literature review will seek to demonstrate, this claim seems especially valid if the research moves beyond the formal, message-centered conceptions of narrative that dominate existing research into childhood narrative development. Polkinghorne (1988) notes that some approaches to narrative research diverge from conventional views that narrative meaning is represented by narrative form, which allows it to be passed—and understood—from a source to an audience. Among these divergent approaches, Reception Theory stands as one of the most well-established perspectives that narrative cannot merely be thought of as a self-contained message.

Reception Theory addresses the role the audience plays in "producing meaning in interaction with a written text" (Polkinghorne, 1988 p. 96). Reception Theory pays more attention to the process of interpreting a narrative rather than to the narrative text itself. Polkinghorne (p. 97) explains that when readers interpret a narrative, they do so in the context of both applying socially learned narrative conventions and by mobilizing general social knowledge.

The idea that the audience plays a pivotal role in constructing the meaning of a narrative by interpreting discourse greatly expands the parameters of what can constitute a narrative. Reception Theory allows for the possibility that narrative "trajectories" (Newlyn, 1999; Kafalenos, 2001) can exist without narrative form. From this perspective, a narrative represents more of a social ritual than a formal text. In the context of this research, this approach allows researchers to address broad theoretical questions relating to how narrative structures human consciousness by examining how humans use narrative to interpret the social world.

Such a viewpoint problematizes some of the existing research into the development narrative proficiency in children. A less message-centered view of narrative represents broader ramifications than conventional views that narrative proficiency is merely the articulation of narrative form (i.e., the extent to which a child creates "compete," self-sufficient narratives as defined by longstanding formal standards). Rather, researchers might seek to identify broader interpretive processes through which a child learns to apply narrative devices—even if they are applied in a seemingly fragmentary manner—to interpret the social world. From this perspective, a child may interpret events or texts by implicitly and explicitly utilizing narrative devices (e.g., tragedy, irony, comedy, foreshadowing, etc.) without using these devices to construct a formally complete narrative (i.e., a story complete with beginnings, endings, clear character differentiation, a clear plot, etc).

A schism exists between the previously noted views of narrative. The formal view indicates that narratives comprise specific formal conventions that differentiate it from other forms of discourse such as exposition or argumentation. From this perspective, when these narrative conventions are fragmentary or incomplete, they function as something other than narrative (White, 1987).

The emergent perspective indicates that narrative functions not only formally, but it represents a fundamental means of structuring and framing the social world both temporarily and physically. From this perspective, narrative devices can be present implicitly or explicitly in any form of discourse; or, such devices may be applied—even idiosyncratically, or without any real sense of completeness in a formal sense—to interpret any form of discourse.

This latter perspective, as recently exemplified by the research of Newlyn (1999) and Kafalenos (2001), differs from the formalist conceptions of narrative that dominate existing research in children's narrative development [which will be described in the following literature review]. This schism between narrative theory and its practical application in empirical research, indicates the need for research that addresses how a child learns and applies narrative devices—as opposed to conceptions of more complete narrative form—to interpret the social world. Such research would address in more detail how children create narrative meaning as they interpret discourse that might not resemble conventional conceptions of narrative form.

Such research potentially can address previously elusive issues and, ultimately, may point toward more instrumental theories about how narrative structures human consciousness. As such, an empirical study that utilizes tenets of Reception Theory to augment existing theories of the development of narrative skills in children can provide useful insights into how narrative, when viewed as an interpretive device that serves to frame reality, functions in this manner. Such insights, in turn, may help inform on-going scholarly discussions about the confluence among narrative, cognitive development and socialization.

Literature Review

Audience interpretation and Reception Theory

Recent approaches to narrative theory and research provide promising tools for better understanding the enigmatic relationship between narrative meaning and socialization. Several recent studies reflect emerging insights that may help empirical researchers identify more instrumental methods of measuring a child’s emergent narrative proficiency.

As noted previously, proponents of Reception Theory argue that narratives cannot be reduced to basic form; rather, they result from an audience’s interpretive interaction with a text. This perspective opens the door to the possibility that discourse, which bears little or no resemblance to any accepted form of narrative, can function as narrative through interpretive processes.

It should be noted that Reception Theory does not imply a naïve subject. Instead, Reception Theory proponents imply that, through social encounters with narratives throughout their lives, a reader (or listener) learns to apply interpretive narrative devices (as they occur explicitly and implicitly in discourse) in specific ways. This noted, Reception Theory is represented by extremes that allow for both idiosyncratic and almost deterministic application of socially learned interpretive strategies.

These extremes represented in a debate between Iser (1981), one of the leading proponents of Reception Theory, and Fish (1981), who, although not a proponent of Reception Theory per se describes interpretive processes that some scholars view in the context of Reception Theory. Iser argues that narrative interpretation is determined by an audience’s socially learned ability to recognize embedded narrative cues in a text. The process is completed when the audience applies this knowledge (in predictable manners) to fill in gaps in the text. Fish describes more idiosyncratic interpretive processes in which there is little link between authorial intent (embedded cues) and how a reader applies interpretive devices.

In the context of this research, it is not necessary to resolve this debate. Rather, it is important to note that audiences play a role in providing meaning to a text. In some instances, this process can be guided by implicit or explicit cues in the text—assuming that the audience has been socialized to recognize and interpret these cues. In other instances, an audience member may idiosyncratically apply socially learned interpretive devices. In both extremes, the interpretive devices are viewed as socially learned; the key difference is the extent to which their application might be determined by textual clues.

Newlyn (1999), who identifies implicit narrative structure in nineteenth century women’s cookbooks, aptly demonstrates a facet of these dynamics. As Newlyn (p. 35) notes, although cookbooks appear "innocent of narrative force, . . . they contain an implicit narrative structure and wealth of socio-historical material." In her analysis, Newlyn demonstrates how cookbooks "adhere to many of the organizational principles central to conventionalist approaches to narrativity . . . a recipe is an ‘embedded discourse’ that contains not only an implicit narrative strategy, but a cast of characters, and a central narrator or ‘persona’" (p. 36).

In this context, Newlyn seeks to demonstrate the idea that "narrativization" occurs when "texts are formed, and then re-formed and reshaped in their communal circulation" (Newlyn, 1999 p. 43). These observations underscore the integral relationship among a text, its audience and socialization in creating social knowledge that is understood and shared through narratives.

Interpreting static images

Newlyn’s demonstration and analysis of these interpretive dynamics is complimented by Kafalenos (2001), who explains how audiences use narrative skills to interpret static images. Compared to Newlyn, Kafalenos portrays socially learned interpretive processes that, because they indicate (arguably) innate mental structures, are more open to idiosyncratic application. However, in the context of this research, both perspectives are useful in helping identify the integral relationship between socialization and interpretive processes.

Kafalenos argues that viewers interpret static images, not as static entities, but in the context of temporal factors they project into the interpretive process. As she notes:

Compared to Newlyn, Kafalenos seeks not so much to identify narrative cues imbedded in a text [although such cues may be present], but to specifically characterize the narrative tools an audience member brings to this interpretive process. Kafalenos argues that the perceiver engages the image by "establishing and forgetting a fabula." In this context, Kafalenos (p. 139) defines a fabula (a longstanding element of structuralist theories of narrative) as a "chronologically ordered sequence of events that a perceiver constructs in response to a representation."

Kafalenos argues that a fabula represents the fundamental element of narrative that allows perceivers to interpret events. As such, fabulas function as transient, quickly forgotten narratives that frame understanding in a broader context. Creating fabulas requires basic narrative proficiency and reflects specific patterns of socialization. As Kafalenos explains:

From the perspective of theory, Kafalenos’ research is useful in several respects. First, it identifies the key relationship between fabulas and interpretation. Second, it links the socially learned narrative devices that make up fabulas with interpretive mental structures and processes. As such, her research implicitly identifies and characterizes the relationship between the socially learned dimensions of narrative and those that appear to represent fundamental mental structures.

Finally, this approach differs significantly from the expanisive body of existing research into "visual literacy" (Hagan, 1974; Hochberg, 1984; Messaris, 1994), which traces how humans learn to read or "decode" images. Thus, instead of studying how a child learns to read and recognize images as messages comprising of visual codes, Kafalenos’ approach allows researchers to assess broader interpretive processes (i.e., how children interpret—instead of merely recognizing—images). This latter process includes a child’s ability to provide implied motives and temporality by utilizing a repertoire of socially learned narrative devices to create interpretive fabulas.

Kafalenos’ research not only identifies useful theories of interpretive processes, but it also demonstrates the unique value of static images to research that addresses narrative interpretation. Kafalenos argues that the hermeneutic process of creating fabulas is ubiquitous; it represents a fundamental means through which humans understand the social world. She notes that in the case of visual images, this interpretive process is framed by "one constant:"

This relationship between a visual image’s fixed nature and its corresponding openness to interpretation indicates its value to research into narrative interpretation. Kafalenos, in similar fashion to Newlyn (1999), identifies tangible communication artifacts that do not represent conventional narrative form, but require that the audience supply narrative devices to interpret them. These factors, combined with the theories that outline their function as narrativizing devices, can provide researchers with a potentially valuable research tool.

Kafalenos’ theories specifically address several key issues that are implicit in many theories and research questions about the relationship between narrative and human consciousness. These issues include the implicit relationship among narrative structures (e.g. beginnings, endings, scene, heroes, villains, momentum shifts, tragedy, comedy, irony, etc.), audience interpretation, and socialization and how their convergence establishes narrative meaning. Kafalenos’ work not only identifies a theoretical perspective for such research, it also identifies tangible practices and artifacts that can be applied and evaluated in an experimental environment.

Kafalenos’ conception of the relationship between fabulas and interpretation implies a generic audience. That is, she assumes the audience has adequate narrative proficiency to instinctively construct interpretive fabulas. However, Kafalenos does not address how the audience gains this capability. Thus, she did not specifically differentiate potential audiences based on specific levels of socialization or narrative skills.

An audience of children

The extensive body of existing research into the development of narrative proficiency among children addresses such issues in detail. By its nature, such research assumes that audiences are at various stages of both cognitive development and socialization. Thus, researchers identify and carefully differentiate audiences and their capabilities. The researchers who conduct these studies monitor the development of narrative proficiency among age groups in hopes of better understanding how and humans develop these capabilities.

In the past 30 years, various researchers, primarily representing psychologists and educators, have studied these issues in detail. This body of research has applied a wide variety of both empirical and critical research methods and has generated a variety of theories. Existing research, although thorough and diverse, appears somewhat tethered to formalist epistemologies about narrative. Additionally, this research has been applied more to generate theories that address children’s cognitive development than to generate broader theories into narrative’s role in structuring human consciousness.

In reviewing this expansive body of research, a useful starting point is Applebee (1978), an oft-cited study that addressed a wide range of issues. As noted previously, Applebee, as with much research in the genre, closely links narrative proficiency with narrative form. Thus, he assesses how, and at what ages, children clearly demonstrated the ability to distinguish truth from fiction and literal versus figurative narrative representations. His research closely links narrative proficiency with a child’s ability to construct, summarize, classify and evaluate narrative form (i.e., discourse that basic attributes that differentiate it from other types of discourse). This work is significant in that it demonstrates, what by now has been widely accepted and collaborated, that children began demonstrating crude proficiency with narrative form by age two and progressively continue to develop and refine these skills through adolescence.

Kemper (1984) both reviews previous research on narrative development in children and reports her own research findings. She asserts that research up to that point indicates that narrative is a primary means through which children are socialized. She argues that storytelling is one of a child’s first uses of language and, by age three, a child exhibits basic narrative skills. Kemper’s research compliments Applebee (1978) by demonstrating that these skills, as measured largely by proficiency with narrative form (i.e., completeness and consistency in identifying, replicating, and utilizing established narrative form), progressively develop well into a child’s teenage years.

Transcending formal conceptions of narrative

By the mid-1980s, theories of narrative had become pervasive throughout the humanities and the social sciences (Bruner, 1986, Sarbin, 1986; Fisher, 1987, Polkinhorne 1988). By this time, as Reid (1992) notes, many researchers had become dissatisfied with the sorts of formalist/structuralist conceptions of narrative [as articulated under the then dominant rubric of "narratology] that underscored the research that Applebee (1978) and Kemper (1984) address. "Despite its notable successes, there is increasing disappointment with mainstream narratology . . . as narratology burgeoned through the 1960s and 1970s, most theorists took it for granted that a text's structure is operationally separable from its linguistic 'surface’" (Reid, p. 21).

Chambers (1984) offers the idea that there was a pragmatic dimension to a text. This perspective opened the discipline for deeper critiques and pointed toward the need for a broader, deeper conception of narrative. Chambers argues:

By the mid 1980s, research into narrative skills among children broadened its scope to reflect such concerns. As an exemplar of this research trend, Sutton-Smith (1986) transcended longstanding formal conceptions of narrative to better address narrative skills among younger children (less than age four). Sutton-Smith notes that young children seem to understand narrative, but rarely articulate formal stories. However, if asked to make up a story, children readily will. The author argues that the issue seems problematic only if research is constrained by rigid formal conceptions of narrative. By conceiving of narrative as theatrical performance, Sutton-Smith views early childhood play as a type of performance based on a rudimentary narrative structure.

His research establishes that, although such performed play often takes the form of lyrical, rhythmic interaction (i.e., rudimentary songs and poems), it often is not expressed through formal narrative devices. Yet, such action demonstrates theme and variation structure that organizes behavior around distinct characters and central action. Initially, children perform these narratives as rhythmic, lyrical form (i.e., similar to basic poetry or songs) and gradually transform their narratives into more conventional stories as they get older.

Sutton-Smith demonstrates that two-year-olds demonstrate only limited competency at utilizing the logical dimensions of stories, but are "relatively advanced at staging their stories in a dramatic way" (p. 79). Even at this early age, children’s lyrics have constant characters and actions that occur in a rudimentary chronological sequence.

Such research allows researchers to more forthrightly address theories that a child’s narrative skills are not only structured verbally, but are enacted. That is, children do not merely "tell" stories, but they use narrative structures (e.g., temporal relations, basic themes, character differentiation) as the basis for acting out perceptions of self, ideals and values in various situations. From this perspective, narrative not only reflects the social world, but it also structures its performance at an early age. McAdams (1993) addresses this development from the perspective a child’s evolvement of a sense of "self." McAdams argues that we come to know ourselves by creating a lived story in which we cast (both perceive and perform) ourselves as protagonists. Thus, narrative represents an essential human capability that structures human development and self-identity.

As McAdams describes it, this process begins in infancy with "attachment" to caregivers and the environment. Attachment, then, serves as a basis from which a child develops "attitudes" that reflect rudimentary awareness of the tone and themes implicit in human interaction. By age three, children understand the world in the context of "images," which are more concrete representation of the attitudes they have encountered and developed. This imagery begins in the world of make-believe, but is informed by the structures culture provides.

Toward understanding how children learn narrative skills

As noted previously, myriad research has indicated that these dynamics clearly become evident by age three, then progress rapidly. Other key research that supports this observation includes Engel (1994, p. 16) and Dunn (1988, p. 231). Both researchers note rapid development of narrative skill beginning at age three. More specifically, these researchers demonstrate that by age three a children a tangible sense of the past (Engel, p. 128) and they begin to borrow narrative devices, which address temporality and differentiate and value social forces, to construct unique narratives (Engel, p. 170).

This research consistently indicates that children learn narrative skills through social interaction. However, the process and timing through which they learn specific skills (e.g., when and how a child can differentiate between past and present, comedy and tragedy, or heroes and villains) is less clear. This latter relationship between socialization and children’s use of narrative devices to structure their realities, again raises an issue that is central to informing broader theories of how narrative structures human consciousness. The significance of these issues indicates the need to examine these dynamics in more detail.

Existing empirical research, in part because it has relied heavily on formal conceptions of narrative, has examined these dynamics primarily as a child ages and formal skills become more apparent. However, the more rudimentary sensemaking processes that Kafalenos (2001) discusses, when conjoined with the findings of researchers such as Sutton-Smith (1986) and McAdams (1993), indicate that these dynamics are present by age three.

Such findings imply the potential to uncover valuable insights about the relationship between human socialization and narrative skills by monitoring the beginnings of developmental process in children. By tracing these abilities closer to their genesis, researchers may gain valuable insights into how narrative skills; cognitive development and socialization are related.

On a practical level, Kafalenos (2001) implicitly illustrates the value of using of static images to gauge interpretive processes. This tool, combined with the methods and insights of earlier studies, point towards promising research methods to better assess how narrative, when viewed as an interpretive device that serves to frame reality, is learned and functions in this manner.

Proposed Methodology

Approach and Research Objectives

As Kafalenos (2001) demonstrates, static images represent unique and valuable research tools because of their fixed nature. Thus, any sense of temporal meaning inherent in a static image is not represented by the image itself, but is provided by the audience. A wide range of existing theories indicate that this interpretive process represents a confluence of socialization and cognitive processes. Consequently, this research seeks to gain insights into these dynamics by focusing on the narrative skills present in children’s interpretation of static images to interpret events.

To achieve this objective, the research will be conducted in an experimental setting and will consist of presenting a series of four static images to children ages three through five.

As noted in the previous section, existing research consistently indicates that children begin to demonstrate clear narrative skills at age three. Thus, a fundamental research objective will be to monitor the nascent development of these skills using age three as a reference point. Consequently, a total of approximately 60 of test subjects will represent three groups of approximately 20 each: age three (34-36 months old), age four (46-50 months old), and age five (58-62 months old). These age groups were selected based on the previous findings of rapid narrative skills development during this period (Applebee, 1978; Keper, 1984; Engel, 1994). Since this research seeks to assess socialization, the test subjects should represent a culturally (to include socioeconomic level) homogeneous group.

Test subjects will be recruited from the University of Utah day care center and preschool. This process will be somewhat simplified by the fact that parents who utilize these facilities have signed agreements to allow children to be observed and participate in select University-approved research. Prior to selecting any children as subjects, parents will be sent approval forms that specify the purpose of the research and the extent of each child’s participation. It should be noted that because the nature of each child’s participation is relatively limited (answering three questions after being shown four images) and because the researcher will work with facility personnel to help ensure and oversee participation, resistance to participation should be limited.

Test protocol will consist of presenting each child with a series of four static images. To better ensure a variety of responses, each image will be designed to represent what McAdams (1993) presents as the one the four basic narrative structures (as adapted from Frye, 1957): comedy (things work out); romance (excitement, adventure, conquest); tragedy (decline, downfall, failure); irony (the triumph of chaos, the unexpected). This variety of images is not designed to elicit particular responses; rather, it has been selected to elicit different responses that may require using different interpretive devices. These responses may bear no resemblance to the suggested interpretive cues in the images.

In an effort to gauge each age group’s respective use of narrative devices to interpret temporal meaning from these images, an examiner will ask each respondent the following questions: (1) What is happening in this picture? This question is designed to elicit an overall interpretive response (2) Why is it happening (this way)? This question is designed to elicit potential causal factors and temporal references to the past. (3) What will happen next? This question is designed to elicit responses that reflect temporal and consequential references to the future.

Since a fundamental research objective will be to classify the narrative devices the children employ to interpret the images, researchers will use a descriptive method of classifying responses. Because, as Kafalenos (2001) notes, interpretive fabulas are fragmentary in nature, data interpretation will focus on describing evidence of apparent interpretive devices—even if used more implicitly than explicitly. This approach differs from efforts to rigidly classify responses among the sorts of coherent, consistently used formal standards that Applebee (1978) and Kemper (1984) employed.

Thus, the research will seek to identify the presence of devices including implied motives, mental states, temporal structure, basic thematic elements (comedy, tragedy, irony, romance), character differentiation, scene, and other such devices that are apparent in responses.

To accomplish this research objective, this research will utilize coding criteria that comprise narrative structures at three levels. To address the most fundamental level (i.e., the implicit manner in which a respondent temporally and physically frames implicit action) the coding criteria will utilize Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad (Burke, 1945). The pentad is based on a theory that human action reflects fundamental dramatic (i.e., narratives that are acted out in lived social interaction) structures. These structures include: an "act" (what happens); an "agent" (who performs the act); a "scene" (where the act occurs); "agency" (some means to accomplish the act); and a "purpose" (why the act occurred).

The coding criteria also will seek to address the extent to which structures, if present, may reflect implicit thematic coherence (i.e., a thematic tone that underscores the use of the pentad’s framing devices). To assess this dimension of responses, the coding criteria will utilize the four fundamental narrative forms that Frye (1957) identifies: comedy (things work out); romance (excitement, adventure, conquest); tragedy (decline, downfall, failure); irony (the triumph of chaos, the unexpected).

Additionally, the coding criteria will seek to represent the extent to which responses reflect specific narrative devices that are fundamental to more formally—and intentionally—constructed narratives. To help achieve this objective, the coding criteria will reflect basic elements of a formal narrative taxonomy presented by Berger (1997, pp. 67-70). These selected devices include:

Climax or Crisis: The turning point of a story; when the most important matter is somehow decided, setting the stage for the resolution of the story. Complication: The introduction of opposition and conflict into a story after the exposition. Dramatic irony: A state that occurs when a story resolves itself in ways not anticipated. Frame: A story that provides the means of telling other stories within it. Exposition or rising action: Information provided to the reader about what is going on; characters are introduced and readers get a sense of what their relationships are. Flashback: A return in a story to events that took place at an earlier period than the one being presented. Jeopardy: Danger; characters who are in danger of some kind are said to be in jeopardy. Placing characters in jeopardy is a device used to create interest and suspense in readers. Motivation: The reasons characters behave as they do. Plot: The way an author tells a story and arranges for events to occur. Resolution or denouement: The way things turn out in a story after the climax. The resolution should fit the nature and scope of the action that has occurred before it. Stock characters: Characters who are recognizable as particular types, stereotyped figures whose natures are easily recognized by readers. Subplot: A secondary plot involving minor characters and their relationships. Time: Along with place, one of the basic orientation devices found in texts. Tone: The attitude or feeling displayed by the author toward the readers and what occurs in the text. Voice: The persona of the author displayed in the text.

Prior to coding, coders will be trained to classify which of these devices are present in subject responses. Responses will be coded based on the basis of "thought processes" (Auld and White, 1954). This approach holds that if the thought can stand alone and be understood, then it is one thought unit.

Additionally, to help ensure the reliability of the coding process, researchers will use intercoder reliability, to include a Cohen’s kappa.

It should be noted that although the images will seek to represent the extremes of basic narrative structure, the choice of images is designed to elicit a variety of responses. Because of idiosyncratic nature of children’s narrative skills (Sutton-Smith, 1986; Engel, 1994), as noted previously, primary research objectives will not seek to correspond responses to the designed meaning of each image. Instead, researchers will seek to classify the repertoire of interpretive devices each age group employs.

The research will be complied and presented as a descriptive analysis. The study will describe the relationship between the presence of various interpretive devices with the respective age groups. For this reason, the specific frequency of a particular response—although not insignificant—will be considered tangential to the primary objectives.

Advantages and Disadvantages

A key advantage of this proposed research and its design is that it is based on an expansive body of existing research into narrative development among children. This allows researchers to restrict and target both research questions and research subjects.

The proposed experiment has been designed to target specific interpretive processes, which have not been adequately addressed in previous research. By limiting research objectives in this manner, the research design minimizes alternative explanations for potential findings. More specifically, test results, because they carefully associated with specific theories, are less likely to become mired in related—but in the context of this inquiry, divergent—interpretive theories. These divergent perspectives include a wide range of theories that address perception and interpretation of both images and verbal material, including gestalt, perceptual and memory theories.

Additionally, since this research posits a synergistic relationship between cognitive development and socialization, it does not become mired in either-or perspectives that differentiate the cognitive from the critical/social extremes of this issue. Thus, the research can be expected to classify the repertoire of interpretive devices that each age group utilizes to interpret static images. Based on previous research, it is expected that as a child ages, this repertoire will become broader and more applied more intricately. As such, these findings may represent a foundation from which researchers may formulate additional questions addressing why these devices were evident; however, the nature of this study is too specific to answer such an expansive question.

However, because this proposed study is limited in scope, several limitations are implicit in the research design and objectives.

First, this proposed this research is designed to generate initial observations about very specific phenomena involving the use of narrative devices to interpret static images. Although this restricted nature of the study is intended to limit alternative hypotheses that might explain test results, the study is being conducted within a theoretical territory that comprises multiple theories. It should be noted that because these theories are so diverse (e.g., gestalt theories, a host of cognitive perception theories, structuralist theories, and a variety of critical theories), test results cannot address each element of the full spectrum of alternative hypotheses. Most notably, because, it might not address what may turn out to be germane cross-cultural issues.

Additionally, as noted in the previous section, this research will utilize flexible data interpretation and coding standards to accommodate the fragmentary nature of the narrative devices that comprise interpretive fabulas. Although useful in the restricted context of the stated research objectives, this inherent "flexibility" presents greater potential for experimenter bias when test data is interpreted. Also, because data interpretation standards are comparatively less referential than the sorts of formal standards that Applebee (1978) and Kemper (1984) utilize, replication and cross verification with future studies will be less reliable.

These problems noted, however, the specific nature of research questions and objectives, combined with the new, and potentially valuable, insights it may provide indicate the value of selected research method. This prospectus acknowledges that the proposed research addresses issues that, in many respects, have addressed from multiple epistomological and ontological perspectives. Consequently, the selected methodology has been designed to balance—although not necessarily resolve—the many interests that are implicit in its research questions. Thus, its potential findings, though initial, may provide valuable theoretical perspectives that have eluded the net of previous inquiry.

Works Cited

Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story: ages two to seventeen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Auld, F. Jr & White, A.M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 42. 273-281

Berger, A. (1997). Narratives in Popular Culture, Media and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boje, D. M., Alvarez, L.C. & Schooling, B. (2001). Reclaiming story in organization narratologies and action sciences. In R. Westwood and S. Linstead (eds.) The Language of Organization. (pp. 138-166). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Chambers, R. (1984). Story and situation: Narrative seduction and the power of fiction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Engel, S. (1994). The stories children tell: Making sense of the narratives of childhood. London: W. H. Freeman.

Fish, S. (1981). Why no one's afraid of Wolfgang Iser, Diacritics, 11, 2-13.

Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Frye, N. (1957). The anatomy of criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hagan, M. A. (1974). Picture perception: Toward a theoretical model. Psychological Bulletin 81, 471-497.

Hochberg, J. (1984). The perception of pictorial representations. Social Research, 51, 841-862.

Iser, W. (1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Publishing.

Iser, W. (1981). Talk like whales: A reply to Stanley Fish, Diacritics 11, 82-87.

Kafalenos, E. (2001). Reading visual art, making—and forgetting—fabulas. Narrative, 9 (2), 138-145.

Kemper S. (1984). The development of narrative skills: Explanations and Entertainments. In S. Kucaj (Ed.), Discourse development: Progress in cognitive development research. (99-124). New York: Springer-Verlag.

MacIntyre, A. (1990). After virtue. London: Duckworth. (Original work published 1981).

McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York and London: Guilford Press.

Messaris, P. (1994). Visual literacy: Image, mind, and reality. Bolder, CO: Westview Press.

Newlyn, A. K. (1999). Challenging contemporary narrative theory: the alternative textual strategies of nineteenth-century manuscript cookbooks. Journal of American Culture, 22 (3), 35-47.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing in the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Reid, I. (1992). Narrative Exchanges., London and New York: Routledge.

Richardson B. (2000). Recent concepts of narrative and the narratives of narrative. Style, 34 (2), 168-196.

Sarbin, T. R. (1986). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In T. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. (pp. 3-21). New York: Praeger.

White, H. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Home