Narrative Research Methods, Particularly Focused upon Digital Technology Use in Everyday Life

  • Lelia GreenEmail author
  • Kathleen Van Royen
  • Anne Vermeulen


Narratives are an important part of how people make sense of their lives and how they find meaning in their world. Given this, increasing attention is being paid to all aspects of narratives in everyday life and to the prominence of narrative research. Areas of narrative research that currently attract attention include: collecting the narratives that people share with each other; analysis of what makes a compelling narrative; and evaluation of how to construct a good basic narrative and then make it more enticing and compelling for the target audience. All of these areas are addressed in this chapter, with most attention being paid to the kinds of narrative research methods of particular relevance to the investigation of digital technology use in everyday life. Narrative research is a qualitative methodology with a particular focus on individuals’ stories. It is focused upon uncovering the meanings that people assign to objects, events and behaviours. In this chapter, an overview will be provided into narrative research methodology including (online) narrative interviewing, naturally occurring data (e.g. online stories), participatory methods and mixed methods (combining offline and online environments).


  1. Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleakley, A. (2005). Stories as data, data as stories: Making sense of narrative inquiry in clinical education*. Medical Education, 39(5), 534–540. Scholar
  3. Booker, C. (2004). The seven basic plots: Why we tell stories. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  4. Burles, M., & Thomas, R. (2014). “I just don’t think there’s any other image that tells the story like [this] picture does”: Researcher and participant reflections on the use of participant-employed photography in social research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13, 185–205. Scholar
  5. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Scholar
  7. Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4), 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, H. (2009). The role of dimensions of narrative engagement in narrative persuasion. Communications, 34(4), 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jager, A., Fogarty, A., Tewson A., Lenette, C., & Boydell, K. M. (2017). Digital storytelling in research: A systematic review. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), Article 2, 2548–2582.Google Scholar
  12. Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step (3rd ed.). (Applied social research methods series, Volume 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Gail, L. M. (2006). Experiencing nursing education research: Narrative inquiry and interpretive phenomenology. Nurse Researcher, 13(4), 30–47. Scholar
  15. Green, L. (2010). The Internet: An introduction to new media. London: Berg.Google Scholar
  16. Gubrium, A., & Harper, K. (2013). Participatory visual & digital methods. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Heilferty, C. M. (2011). Ethical considerations in the study of online illness narratives: A qualitative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(5), 945–953. Scholar
  18. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Personal information of adolescents on the Internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 125–146. Scholar
  19. Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Hinyard, L. J., & Kreutr, M. W. (2007). Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education & Behavior, 34(5), 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hookway, N. (2008). ‘Entering the blogosphere’: Some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 91–113. Scholar
  22. Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research (NCRM Working Paper No. 2259). Retrieved from National Centre for Research Methods website:
  23. Jones, S., Millermaier, S., Goya-Martinez, M., & Schuler, J. (2008). Whose space is MySpace? A content analysis of MySpace profiles. First Monday, 13(9). Retrieved from
  24. Jorgenson, J., & Sullivan, T. (2009). Accessing children’s perspectives through participatory photo interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1). Retrieved from
  25. Jovchelovitch, S., & Bauer, M. W. (2000). Narrative interviewing [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Retrieved from:
  26. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Kraft, D. (2016). Upworthy’s Amy O’Leary on the art and science of engaging readers. Storybench,
  28. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet. The American Psychologist, 59(2), 105–117. Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurtz, C. F. (2014). Working with stories in your community or organization: Participatory narrative inquiry. New York: Kurtz-Fernhout Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lambert, J. (2013). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichterman, J. (2015). How Upworthy is using data to move beyond clickbait and curation. NiemanLab, July 8,
  33. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moen, T. (2006). Reflections on the narrative research approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–11. Scholar
  35. O’Donovan, C. (2014). You won’t believe Upworthy’s new way of measuring audience engagement until you read it. NeimenLab,
  36. O’Leary, A. (2015). Stories for a better world. Upworthy. Slideshare [slideshow].
  37. Pabian, S., Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Van Royen, K., Dare, J., Costello, L., … Cross, D. (2018). ‘Arguments online, but in school we always act normal’: The embeddedness of early adolescent negative peer interactions within the whole of their offline and online peer interactions. Children and Youth Services Review, 86, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pace, S. (2008). YouTube: An opportunity for consumer narrative analysis? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 213–226. Scholar
  39. Parker, I. (2003). Psychoanalytic narratives: Writing the self into contemporary cultural phenomena. Narrative Inquiry, 13(2), 301–315. Scholar
  40. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Hoboken: Wiley.
  41. Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, G. J. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 3–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art (fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative research, 1(3), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rathi, D., & Given, L. M. (2010, January). Research 2.0: A framework for qualitative and quantitative research in web 2.0 environments. Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
  45. Riessman, C. (2013). Analysis of personal narratives. In A. E. Fortune, W. J. Reid, & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 168–191). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Salmons, J. (2009). Online interviews in real time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Robinson, K. (2001). Unsolicited narratives from the Internet: A rich source of qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 11(5), 706–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In E. Hirsch & R. Silverstone (Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 15–31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Squire, C., Andrews, M., & Tamboukou, M. (2008). Introduction: What is narrative research? In M. Andrews, C. Squire, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Doing narrative research (pp. 1–21). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Stuhlmiller, C. M., & Thorsen, R. (1997). Narrative picturing: A new strategy for qualitative data collection. Qualitative Health Research, 7(1), 140–149. Scholar
  51. Sukalla, F., Shoenberger, H., & Bolls, P. D. (2016). Surprise! An investigation of orienting responses to test assumptions of narrative processing. Communication Research, 43(6), 844–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutherland, O., Breen, A., & Lewis, S. (2013). Discursive narrative analysis: A study of online autobiographical accounts of self-injury. The Qualitative Report, 18(48), 1–17. Retrieved from
  53. Thomas, S. L., Lewis, S., & Westberg, K. (2015). ‘You just change the channel if you don’t like what you’re going to hear’: Gamblers’ attitudes towards, and interactions with, social marketing campaigns. Health Expectations, 18(1), 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wakefield, M., Durrant, R., Terry-McElrath, Y., Ruel, E., Balch, G. I., Anderson, S., … & Flay, B. (2003). Appraisal of anti-smoking advertising by youth at risk for regular smoking: A comparative study in the United States, Australia, and Britain. Tobacco Control, 12(suppl 2), ii82–ii86. Scholar
  56. Witney, C., Green, L., Costello, L., & Bradshaw, V. (2012). Building an online community in the context of an existing social network site. In M. Strano, H. Hrachovec, F. Sudweeks, & C. Ess (Eds.), Proceedings cultural attitudes towards technology and communication 2012 (pp. 270–283). Perth: Murdoch University.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lelia Green
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kathleen Van Royen
    • 2
  • Anne Vermeulen
    • 2
  1. 1.Edith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations