Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Narrative inquiry is not a technique for analyzing stories that already exist — it is a research methodology in its own right, developed by D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly, in which the researcher enters a relationship with participants over time and the inquiry itself is understood as a co-constructed narrative. This distinguishes it from narrative analysis, which typically applies an analytic lens (thematic, structural, or dialogic) to a bounded, already-collected account such as a single interview transcript. Narrative inquiry is the broader methodological commitment; narrative analysis is one way of working with the texts it produces. This guide covers the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space that organizes the method, the field-texts-to-research-texts workflow, the restorying process used to build a coherent account, and the relational-ethics obligations that come with treating the researcher as a participant in the story rather than a neutral observer.
What Narrative Inquiry Is
Clandinin and Connelly set out the methodology in full in Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research (Jossey-Bass, 2000), building on their earlier work establishing narrative as both the phenomenon under study and the method of studying it (Connelly & Clandinin, “Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry,” Educational Researcher, 1990). Their central claim is that experience is inherently narrative in structure — people live and understand their lives storied — so a method that studies experience should itself be narrative, rather than converting lived experience into variables, codes, or themes before it can be analyzed.
Two features separate narrative inquiry from most other qualitative traditions:
- The researcher is “in the midst,” not outside looking in. Narrative inquirers typically spend extended time — weeks, months, sometimes years — alongside participants, in the settings where the experience under study actually happens. The researcher’s own narrative history and presence are treated as part of what shapes the inquiry, not a confound to be neutralized.
- The unit of study is a lived and told experience, situated in time, social relationship, and place — not an isolated data point. A single interview transcript can be narrative analysis’s raw material; narrative inquiry more often works from an evolving relationship that produces many kinds of material over time.
Because of this, narrative inquiry is most often used for longitudinal, relationally embedded studies — teacher and professional-identity research is where Clandinin and Connelly’s own work concentrated, and the method remains especially common in education, nursing, and other practice professions where identity and experience develop over a career rather than in a single sitting.
The Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry Space
Clandinin and Connelly frame every narrative inquiry around what they call a three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (sometimes described as three “commonplaces” of narrative inquiry, a term elaborated further in Clandinin and Jerry Rosiek’s 2007 chapter “Mapping a Landscape of Narrative Inquiry”). Any field text, and any moment in an inquiry, can be examined along three simultaneous dimensions:
- Temporality. Every experience has a past that led into it, a present in which it is happening or being told, and an implied future. Narrative inquirers ask not just what is happening now, but what came before it and what it seems to be moving toward — a single classroom moment is read against a teacher’s whole career trajectory, not treated as a standalone snapshot.
- Sociality. Experience is always both personal and social at once. Sociality covers the participant’s own feelings, hopes, and reactions (the personal condition) alongside the social, cultural, institutional, and relational forces acting on them (the social condition) — including the relationship between researcher and participant itself, which narrative inquiry treats as part of the data, not a methodological inconvenience to control away.
- Place. The specific physical and situational boundaries in which the inquiry happens matter to the story, not just to logistics. A narrative inquiry into teaching is shaped by the actual classroom, school, and district it happens in — the physical and institutional situation is part of the account, not a neutral backdrop.
A narrative inquirer moves along and among all three dimensions simultaneously when composing field texts and, later, research texts — inward and outward (personal and social), backward and forward (temporality), and situated in a specific place. A methods section that simply says a study “used narrative inquiry” without showing how the three-dimensional space actually organized the data collection and writing is usually not applying the method as its originators defined it — it is often closer to interviewing participants and calling the result a narrative.
Its Deweyan Roots: Continuity and Interaction
The three-dimensional space is not an arbitrary framework — Clandinin and Connelly ground it explicitly in John Dewey’s theory of experience, particularly his criteria of continuity (every experience grows out of prior experiences and leads into further ones) and interaction (experience is always a transaction between the person and their environing conditions, internal and external). Temporality is narrative inquiry’s operationalization of continuity; sociality is its operationalization of interaction (the personal/internal and social/external sides of Dewey’s transaction); place supplies the situational specificity Dewey’s own writing treated as inseparable from experience. Reviewers and committee members who ask “why Dewey?” in a narrative inquiry proposal are asking a legitimate methodological question, not a tangential one — the three dimensions are a direct translation of a specific philosophy of experience, not a generic three-part checklist borrowed for structure.
From Field Texts to Research Texts
Clandinin and Connelly deliberately avoid the word “data” for what a narrative inquiry collects, because “data” implies something extracted and separate from the relationship that produced it. They use a three-stage vocabulary instead:
- Field texts — the raw material gathered while the researcher is in the field alongside participants: interview transcripts, but also field notes, journals kept by researcher and/or participant, letters, photographs, artifacts, documents, and autobiographical writing. Field texts are understood as already co-constructed and interpretive, not a neutral recording of events — the relationship and the researcher’s presence shape what gets said and written down.
- Interim (research) texts — the researcher’s early interpretive accounts, written and shared back with participants for response as the inquiry proceeds. This step is central to the method’s relational commitment: participants see and can respond to how their experience is being represented before the account is finalized, not only after publication.
- Research texts — the final, public account: the dissertation chapter, journal article, or narrative case that presents the inquiry to an audience beyond the participants themselves, organized along the three dimensions above.
The movement from field texts through interim texts to research texts is iterative and negotiated, not a one-way pipeline — an interim text shared with a participant can send the researcher back into the field for further conversation, and the three-dimensional space is used throughout to check that temporality, sociality, and place are all still represented as the account narrows toward its final form.
The Restorying Process
Restorying is the practical work of turning the collected field texts into a coherent narrative account rather than a list of excerpted quotes organized by theme. The term and a widely cited worked comparison of two restorying approaches come from Ollerenshaw and Creswell’s 2002 methodological article in Qualitative Inquiry, which built directly on Clandinin and Connelly’s three-dimensional framework. In practice, restorying typically means reorganizing the field texts around a small set of narrative elements:
- Setting — the time and place(s) the story occurs in.
- Characters — the participants and other people who figure in the account.
- Problem or tension — the issue, conflict, or question the story turns on.
- Action and sequence — what happens, typically reordered into a chronological sequence even when it was collected out of order across multiple conversations.
- Resolution — how the story is currently sitting, without implying a false sense of closure the participant’s own life may not yet have reached.
The restoried account is then checked against the three-dimensional space — does it show temporal movement (past shaping present shaping anticipated future), does it hold both personal and social conditions in view, and is it anchored in a specific place — before it is shared back with the participant as an interim text.
Illustrative composite: restorying a set of field texts
The following is an illustrative composite constructed to show the mechanics of restorying, not a real study, participant, or institution. A narrative inquirer studying early-career teacher identity gathers field texts over one school year: five recorded conversations with a first-year teacher, the teacher’s own reflective journal entries, the researcher’s classroom observation notes, and a handful of curriculum documents from the school. Restorying this material does not mean quoting the most vivid lines from each source under a “challenges” heading. Instead, the researcher reorders the material chronologically (temporality) — the teacher’s pre-service expectations, the first weeks’ disorientation, a mid-year turning point tied to a specific class, and the shift into the following year’s planning — while keeping the teacher’s own stated feelings (sociality: personal condition) alongside the school’s timetable, curriculum mandates, and mentoring structure (sociality: social condition) visible at each point, and consistently naming the actual classroom and school context (place) rather than presenting the account as if it could have happened anywhere. The resulting interim text is then given back to the teacher to review before it becomes part of the final research text.
Relational Ethics in Narrative Inquiry
Because the researcher is a participant in constructing the narrative rather than a neutral analyst working on data collected elsewhere, narrative inquiry’s ethical obligations extend past a single up-front informed-consent form. Clandinin and Connelly’s own writing, and the methodological literature that has built on it, treats the following as ongoing commitments rather than one-time compliance steps:
- Negotiated, renewable consent. Because the relationship and the account both develop over the course of the inquiry, participants need real opportunities to review and respond to how their experience is being represented at the interim-text stage, not only via a single consent form signed at the start.
- Care in how identity is represented. Because narrative inquiry ties personal experience to specific places, institutions, and time periods, protecting anonymity can be harder than in thematic coding, where a quote can be stripped of identifying context. Composite or pseudonymous accounts, and explicit negotiation with participants over what level of detail is shared, are common responses.
- Attending to the researcher’s own narrative history. Because the researcher’s presence and background are treated as part of the inquiry rather than bracketed out, reflexive attention to how the researcher’s own story shapes what gets noticed, asked about, and restoried is a methodological requirement, not just a positionality footnote.
An institutional review board or research ethics board application for a narrative inquiry typically needs to describe this ongoing, relational consent process explicitly, not just the standard one-time consent-and-withdrawal language written for a single-session interview study — reviewers unfamiliar with the method sometimes ask for that language to be added.
When to Choose Narrative Inquiry vs. Related Methods
| Method | Typical unit of study | Researcher’s role |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly) | An evolving, relationally embedded experience studied over time | Active participant in co-constructing the account, present in the field over an extended period |
| Narrative analysis | An existing bounded story, often a single interview or written account | Analyst applying a structural, thematic, or dialogic lens to material already collected |
| Case study research | A bounded case (a program, organization, or event) studied in depth | Investigator triangulating multiple evidence sources around the case’s boundary |
| Autoethnography | The researcher’s own experience, analyzed for its cultural significance | Researcher as primary subject, not a separate participant relationship |
Where the research question is about how a person’s or small group’s experience develops relationally over time, and the study can genuinely accommodate the extended fieldwork the method calls for, narrative inquiry is the closer methodological fit; where the question is about the structure or meaning of a story that already exists, or a single interview round is realistic given project constraints, narrative analysis or another qualitative tradition, such as grounded theory or a case study design, is usually a better-justified choice. See Qualitative Research Methods: The Major Methodologies and How to Choose for the full landscape these traditions sit within, and the Qualitative Research dictionary entry for the broader definitional context.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is narrative inquiry the same as narrative analysis?
No. Narrative analysis applies an analytic lens to a story that already exists, most often a single interview transcript. Narrative inquiry, as Clandinin and Connelly defined it, is a broader methodology in which the researcher is present in the field over time and the inquiry itself is a co-constructed narrative relationship, organized around the three-dimensional space. A study can use narrative-analytic techniques within a larger narrative inquiry, but the two terms are not interchangeable in a methods section.
What are “field texts,” and why not just call them data?
Field texts are the raw material a narrative inquiry gathers — interviews, field notes, journals, documents, and artifacts. Clandinin and Connelly avoid the word “data” deliberately, to signal that this material is already co-constructed through the researcher-participant relationship rather than a neutral, extracted recording of events.
What is restorying?
Restorying is the process of reorganizing collected field texts into a coherent narrative account, typically structured around setting, characters, a central problem or tension, a chronological sequence of action, and a resolution, then checked against the three-dimensional space (temporality, sociality, place) before it becomes a shared interim text and, ultimately, a research text.
Do I need to cite Dewey directly if I use narrative inquiry?
It is standard practice to explain the method’s Deweyan grounding — continuity and interaction — since the three-dimensional space is a direct methodological translation of those two criteria from Dewey’s theory of experience, not an independent framework Clandinin and Connelly invented from scratch.
How long does a narrative inquiry typically take?
There is no fixed duration prescribed by the method, but because temporality and an evolving researcher-participant relationship are central to the three-dimensional space, narrative inquiries are usually designed around extended fieldwork — commonly a full school year, program cycle, or multi-year period — rather than a single-session data-collection round.
