The Injury

stories? I will consider reflective questions like; what is influencing my interpretations? What

is the large cultural story that is making men say what they say and say it that way? I will

collect the video tapes and written narratives for me to review and analyse.

The transcription of the narratives and the co-researchers’ reflectivity is an interpretive

practice and this underscores the epistemological assumptions about the research (Arvay,

2003). Arvay (2003) relies on the models of transcription described by Susan Chase (1995)

and Catherine Kohler Riessman (1993). In light of the theoretical and epistemological

assumptions about what research is, it is important to recognize three things about the

transcription process. First, an exact reproduction of the co-researcher’s experience and

process of reading the text through the transcription process is impossible (Arvay, 2003).

Even though co-investigators narratives are in written form, the actual lived story of the

participant is being changed through the process of the research. Second, their stories are not

an exact reproduction or a mirror of past events (Arvay, 2003). The co-researchers themselves

are reporting their own subjective perspective and not a set of objective facts about their

experience. Third, because the process of transcription is interpretive, the person of the

researcher continues in this process their role as a co-constructer of the narratives and the

performances. As I review the videotapes and written narratives, I code the written narrative

transcripts for tone, gestures, volume, inflections and silences. I consider and make notes

about what is said and what is not said.

Stage 4: The collaborative interpretive reading of the narratives (Arvay, 2003, p.

169 -- 171).

In this stage Arvay (2003) emphasises the collaborative participation between the co-

investigators and the researcher to engage the narrative text in a meaningful way.

Fundamentally, I will rely on my own transcription and reflections from stage three to guide

this process but I anticipate that it will follow similar procedural steps as Arvay (2003, p. 169 -

121). In the stage co-researchers are asked to engage in their own text in a meaningful way and

interpret their own transcript in four readings. I have videoed the co-investigators reading their

narrative and will include watching this reading as part of the interpretive process.

In the first reading, co-investigators will be asked to read for the content and to

comment on any changes or additions they may want to make. I will ask them if they thought

about the changes they made or did not make after the group interview and what they think

about those decisions now.

In the second reading, co-investigators are asked to read for the narrator’s self. That

means that they read for the narrator’s various I positions and how they situate themselves in

the story. During this reading I will play the video of this co-investigator as they read to the

group and to read along in the text. I will ask them to consider what parts of themselves they

recognize in the narrator’s voice, appearance, tone and gestures. I will ask them to comment

on what he is feeling in the story? What is it like to tell the story? What they are feeling as

they read the narrative? What does the narrator want the reader to know? Who is the person in

the story? The co-investigator reflects on the self that is being constructed through the

dialogue with other men who have a similar experience of gender-role trauma and recovery.

In the third reading, I ask co-investigators to read their narrative for the research

question and their response to it. Again I will review with them the video of the reading and I