Narrative Inquiry at Scale: Methodological Adaptations In a Study of 60 Social Workers

Background: Research in service of democracy has long focused on elevating the voices of working people (Terkel, 1974). Narrative inquiry is a research approach that lends itself well to this endeavor. Narrative inquiry is a qualitative research design that utilizes participants’ stories or narratives as its primary data source (Polkinghorne, 1995). These narratives are grounded in human experience and are used to develop deeper understandings of history, culture, identity, lifestyle, and other aspects of the human condition (Butina, 2015; Polkinghorne, 1995). A key distinction between narrative inquiry and other qualitative designs (e.g., grounded theory, ethnography, case study) is its central focus on the story (Creswell, 2016). Polkinghorne (1995) differentiates stories from other forms of discourse by their organization of events and actions into a coherent plot with a beginning, middle, and end. Narrative inquiry assumes that meaning and understanding emerge through attention to how individuals make sense of their everyday experiences through storytelling. This method is most often used with small samples (typically 3–10 participants). However, less is known about how narrative inquiry can be adapted for larger samples. This paper examines the methodological considerations required to scale narrative inquiry to a study of 60 participants. Drawing on our study of the working conditions of licensed social workers, we describe how narrative inquiry was adapted to examine the experiences of managerialism, professional discretion, and resistance as reflected in participants’ professional stories. This study builds on a prior statewide survey examining these same constructs.

Methods: This paper presents the methodological considerations and processes used to scale narrative inquiry for a larger-than-typical sample, conducted by a research team of three. Theoretical sampling guided the selection of four waves of participants across key categories, including urban/rural location, sector (non-profit/for-profit/public/private), practice setting, and demographic characteristics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 licensed social workers randomly selected from a statewide licensure list in Minnesota. Data were managed and analyzed using Dedoose, with analytic procedures grounded in narrative inquiry and thematic analysis. The research team first collaboratively engaged in story demarcation, followed by story-level thematic coding and memoing, and concluded with the development of narrative thematic profiles for each participant. Regular analytic meetings were held to refine codes and examine patterns across stories and sampling waves. An inductive approach to coding was used, supported by an initial codebook that was iteratively refined throughout the analytic process.

Results: Through a collaborative and iterative analytic process, the research team developed a structured yet flexible system for managing and analyzing a large narrative dataset. Key methodological adaptations included wave-based sampling to organize data collection, systematic story demarcation and narrative profile writing procedures, and team-based analytic meetings to ensure coding consistency while preserving the depth of individual narratives.

Conclusions and Implications: This paper provides practical insights into how narrative inquiry can be adapted for larger qualitative samples without losing its emphasis on story and meaning-making. By outlining these processes, we offer guidance for researchers interested in scaling narrative methods while maintaining methodological rigor and depth.