The big story about small stories: Narratives of crime and terrorism

John Wilson, Karyn Stapleton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 'big story/small story' distinction has emerged as a discrete approach to narrative analysis. Proponents of this approach are critical of the 'big stories' elicited by structural analysts, which they see as highly structured narratives of past experiences, typically elicited in an interview context. In contrast, they highlight the importance of studying the fragmented, contextualised 'small stories' that arise in everyday conversation/interaction. We question the basis of this distinction and we suggest that it unnecessarily proliferates analytic categories. Further, we suggest that the methodologies followed by 'small stories' analysts are often similar to those used to elicit 'big stories' and are hence open to similar criticisms; in particular, a failure to fully consider the issue of (contextual) naturalism. Drawing on interviews of crime/terrorism in Northern Ireland, we show how these data comprise both 'big stories' and 'small stories' within the same context and often within the same narrative.
LanguageEnglish
Pages287-312
JournalJournal of Sociolinguistics
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

terrorism
offense
narrative
naturalism
interview
conversation
criticism
methodology
interaction
Small Stories
Crime
Terrorism
experience

Keywords

  • Big stories • small stories • narrative • interview • contextual naturalism • observer's paradox

Cite this

@article{457c9dd985974d4ab42375bf36a99fd3,
title = "The big story about small stories: Narratives of crime and terrorism",
abstract = "The 'big story/small story' distinction has emerged as a discrete approach to narrative analysis. Proponents of this approach are critical of the 'big stories' elicited by structural analysts, which they see as highly structured narratives of past experiences, typically elicited in an interview context. In contrast, they highlight the importance of studying the fragmented, contextualised 'small stories' that arise in everyday conversation/interaction. We question the basis of this distinction and we suggest that it unnecessarily proliferates analytic categories. Further, we suggest that the methodologies followed by 'small stories' analysts are often similar to those used to elicit 'big stories' and are hence open to similar criticisms; in particular, a failure to fully consider the issue of (contextual) naturalism. Drawing on interviews of crime/terrorism in Northern Ireland, we show how these data comprise both 'big stories' and 'small stories' within the same context and often within the same narrative.",
keywords = "Big stories • small stories • narrative • interview • contextual naturalism • observer's paradox",
author = "John Wilson and Karyn Stapleton",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00446.x",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "287--312",
journal = "Journal of Sociolinguistics",
issn = "1360-6441",
number = "3",

}

The big story about small stories: Narratives of crime and terrorism. / Wilson, John; Stapleton, Karyn.

In: Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2010, p. 287-312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The big story about small stories: Narratives of crime and terrorism

AU - Wilson, John

AU - Stapleton, Karyn

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The 'big story/small story' distinction has emerged as a discrete approach to narrative analysis. Proponents of this approach are critical of the 'big stories' elicited by structural analysts, which they see as highly structured narratives of past experiences, typically elicited in an interview context. In contrast, they highlight the importance of studying the fragmented, contextualised 'small stories' that arise in everyday conversation/interaction. We question the basis of this distinction and we suggest that it unnecessarily proliferates analytic categories. Further, we suggest that the methodologies followed by 'small stories' analysts are often similar to those used to elicit 'big stories' and are hence open to similar criticisms; in particular, a failure to fully consider the issue of (contextual) naturalism. Drawing on interviews of crime/terrorism in Northern Ireland, we show how these data comprise both 'big stories' and 'small stories' within the same context and often within the same narrative.

AB - The 'big story/small story' distinction has emerged as a discrete approach to narrative analysis. Proponents of this approach are critical of the 'big stories' elicited by structural analysts, which they see as highly structured narratives of past experiences, typically elicited in an interview context. In contrast, they highlight the importance of studying the fragmented, contextualised 'small stories' that arise in everyday conversation/interaction. We question the basis of this distinction and we suggest that it unnecessarily proliferates analytic categories. Further, we suggest that the methodologies followed by 'small stories' analysts are often similar to those used to elicit 'big stories' and are hence open to similar criticisms; in particular, a failure to fully consider the issue of (contextual) naturalism. Drawing on interviews of crime/terrorism in Northern Ireland, we show how these data comprise both 'big stories' and 'small stories' within the same context and often within the same narrative.

KW - Big stories • small stories • narrative • interview • contextual naturalism • observer's paradox

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00446.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00446.x

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 287

EP - 312

JO - Journal of Sociolinguistics

T2 - Journal of Sociolinguistics

JF - Journal of Sociolinguistics

SN - 1360-6441

IS - 3

ER -