The Experience of Dying- Methodology- Reflective Topical Autobiogrpahy

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY, METHODS AND PROCESSES

I chose Reflective Topical Autobiography (RTA) as the research methodology for this project, as this thesis is a self-study, a personal narrative, which reflects on a significant time in my life (Johnstone, 1999). The aim of this research was to generate new knowledge and understanding by way of examining my lived and felt experience of dying. The RTA methodology that can effectively achieve this aim is described in the first section of this chapter.

This chapter also describes the methods and processes by which I undertook the project, mindful of the theoretical assumptions of the methodology. The methods and processes section of this chapter includes ethical clearance requirements, the autobiographical methods of reflecting on my experience and the processes I used to ensure the project’s quality and effectiveness.

Reflective Topical Autobiography

Reflective Topical Autobiography (RTA) is a research methodology advanced by Megan-Jane Johnstone, who defines RTA as “an autobiographical method”, which “belongs to the genre of testimonial research and is located within the (qualitative) postpositivist, interpretive research paradigm” (Johnstone, 1999, p.24). The following is a summary of the component parts of this definition.

The word “autobiography” comes from the Greek autos (self), bio (life), and graphos (to write), and can be translated literally as “self-life-story”. An autobiography is an account of a person’s life as lived, as experienced, and as recorded or told by that person (Denzin, 1989a). When utilised as a research method, the aim of an autobiography is not to achieve “truth” in absolute terms, but to render an account of the lived experience of the self that increases our understanding of the human experience. Writing an autobiography is itself a process of discovery, a way of knowing (Richardson, 2003). The researcher returns to the autobiography again and again to re-read, re-vision and re-tell the story in order to make changes that allow for new insights, understandings and interpretations of the meaning of the story. “Life and narrative are inextricably connected” (Ellis & Brochner, 2003, p.220). The self and story continue to evolve through ongoing lived experience.

The autobiography is “reflective” when it gives expression to a deep inner contemplation (introspection) of subjective experiences, and provides an interpretation of those experiences.

An autobiography can take one of three forms: (i) comprehensive, (ii) edited or (iii) topical (Berg, 1995; Denzin, 1989a). A comprehensive autobiography documents a person’s life story from recollections of the earliest memories to the time of writing. An edited autobiography gives a short, crisp, edited version of a person’s comprehensive life story. Of central concern to this research is the RTA, which focuses on a snap shot or a fragment of the person’s life story, that is of some topical interest (Berg, 1995). In essence, the RTA is an “excision from the life of the subject” (Denzin, 1978) and as such, “invites comparison with other (like) kinds of lives” (Berg, 1995), for the purpose of furthering our understanding of the life experiences of another (Denzin, 1989a).

The life-story that is presented ultimately is written not from an idea, but from one’s deep involvement with one’s whole state of being, in an experience or set of experiences, in particular, those involving existential moments of life discovery (Moustakas, 1973). That is, the life-story is written from the perspective of a storyteller, who has plunged deeply “into an intensive and timeless experience of the self” (Moustakas 1961, p.ix). The aim of the autobiography is achieved when “readers are able to read themselves into, and be touched by the final report which is characteristically presented as the formal telling of the self-life-story” (Johnstone, 1999, p.25).

RTA is a methodology that makes the researcher’s own experience a topic of investigation in its own right (Ellis & Brochner, 2003). This research design gives authenticity to researchers’ direct testimony of their lived experience and to the first-person voice. By so doing, RTA is a form of testimonial research and as such, does not follow the conventions of scholarly discourse, which gives weight to abstract, categorical knowledge, and reinforces the anonymous, neutral and passive, third-person voice. Like auto-ethnography and personal narrative, the goal in this research is “to write meaningfully and evocatively about a topic that matters and that may make a difference, to include sensory and emotional experience, and to write from an ethic of care and concern” (Ellis & Brochner, 2000, p.742).

Research methodologies address the issue of how we gain knowledge about the world. Logical positivism and postpositivism are two of the multiple paradigms – or basic belief systems – used today as ways of knowing the world within the qualitative research paradigm.

The logical positivists believe in an external reality that can be understood by the methods of an objective science. Logical positivism is associated historically with the “traditional period” (1950-1970) and the quantitative research paradigm. In this period, the principles of scientific method, which were previously limited to the natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, an so on), were also applied to the human and social sciences. The qualitative researchers of that period attempted to justify their research methods in terms of the traditional scientific criteria of reliability and validity. Researchers sought to maintain a detached, objective stance towards the world and their objects of study. Their research methods were the (quantifiable) ways or means by which evidence about the world was collected. The “other” who was studied was alien, foreign, and strange (Denzin, 2001).

In contrast, postpositivists assert that there may be an external reality, but it cannot be known perfectly. Postpositivists are associated historically with the postmodern or the present moment (1990-present), which is defined by the refusal to privilege any method or theory, or methods claim to validity. Postpositivism is characterised by a sensibility, which doubts all previous paradigms. The search for grand narratives – or universal truth claims – is being replaced by more local, small-scale narratives (such as autobiographies) or theories fitted to specific problems and specific situations. Qualitative research is no longer viewed from within a value-neutral or a detached, objective perspective. Class, race, gender, and ethnicity now shape the process of inquiry, making research a multicultural and a multi-perspective process. While preoccupations with the representation of the “other” remain, new theories of knowledge are emerging from these previously silenced groups to offer solutions to this problem (Denzin, 2001).

Human science research is the study of meaning (van Manen, 2001). Human science research methodologies include interpretive studies, which produce descriptions and accounts about the ways of life of the writer and those written about (Denzin, 2001). In this respect, the fundamental research orientation of all human science is more closely aligned with the critical hermeneutic (interpretive or explanatory) rationality of the humanities and philosophy, than with the more positivist (observed and analysed) rationality of the cognitive behavioural or empirical-analytic science (van Manen, 2001).

Autobiography is one of multiple forms of interpretive research methods, which also include ethnography, participant observation, and case study. The aims of interpretive research methods (which are also common to the emerging field of the sociology of emotions) are: (i) to increase our understanding of lived experience and to make these subjective experiences more visible and intelligible, (ii) to increase our understanding of existential experiences and their meaning, and (iii) to move away from the (positivist) concept of “the detached observer”, thus paving the way for the admission of multiple realities and the multiple interpretations of lived experience (Ellis & Flaherty, 1992; James & Gabe, 1996).

The interpretive examination of lived experience implicates the totality of life, because “it relates the particular to the universal, the part to the whole, the episode to the totality” (van Manen 2001, p.36). When applied to this research, an interpretive research methodology makes possible a more holistic interpretation of events.

The RTA method relies heavily on the theoretical underpinnings of the qualitative research paradigm. A definition of qualitative research is taken from the article entitled “The Disciplines and Practice of Qualitative Research” written by authors/academics Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (2003). In their article, these authors emphasise that qualitative research operates in a complex historical field, and any definition of qualitative research must work within this field. Nevertheless, they offer the following generic definition:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview; artefacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals” lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study (Denzin & Lincoln 2003, pp. 4-5).

The RTA as a research methodology shares the strengths of research located within the qualitative research paradigm by including the use of “inductive” reasoning (that proceeds from a specific case or cases to a general rule) and “abductive” processes of reasoning (to the best explanation). Both are used to investigate topics not otherwise amenable to investigation by other research methods, for example, by experimental research with its emphasis on measurement and causal explanation.

The RTA also shares the theoretical assumptions underpinning the sociology of subjectivity and, more recently, the sociology of emotions. Both are largely influenced by the school of thought known as “symbolic interactionism”, which takes as its maxim: “human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them” (Blummer in Ellis & Flaherty, 1992, p.2), and its counterpart “interpretive interactionism”, which speaks to the interrelationship between private lives and public responses to personal troubles, and attempts to make the private world of lived experience accessible to others (Denzin, 1989b; Ellis & Flaherty, 1992; James & Gabe, 1996).

The RTA Method

RTA adapts heuristic and phenomenological research approaches that emphasise critical self-reflection, reflexivity and total immersion in the research experience (Crotty, 1996; Moustakas, 1990; Van Manen, 2001). Johnstone suggests that the procedure for writing a RTA may involve taking the following steps (Johnstone, 1999, pp.28-29):

Choosing RTA: The researcher chooses RTA when it is an appropriate research design for investigating the (already) selected research topic.

Choosing a topic: The researcher begins with a “question” (a memorable life event) that has been “a personal challenge and puzzlement in the search to understand one’s self and the world in which one lives” (Moustakas, 1990). These events are often moments of crisis “in which individuals are so powerfully absorbed that they are left without an interpretive framework to make sense of their experience” (Ellis & Brochner, 1992, p.80). The “epiphany” or “existential moment” that emerges from the crisis is often a “turning point experience” (Denzin, 1989, p.70).

An existential moment is defined as:

The researcher moves from a position of not being able to make sense of the experience, to one of being able to understand the experience, and finally to being able to give meaning to the experience.

Immersion: Once the topic has been chosen, the researcher plunges deeply into “an intensive and timeless experience of the self”, living this total immersion in waking, sleeping and dreaming states. The researcher continues to concentrate on the project of self-investigation. The strategies used to maintain and sustain focus include “deep and systematic introspective narrative and self-dialogue” such as those used in heuristic psychology (Ellis & Brochner, 1992; Moustakas, 1990). Through the use of these strategies, the perceptual, emotional and cognitive details of the researcher’s lived experiences can be explored, identified, and described.

Data collection: Once immersed in the experiences of the self, the researcher documents the key elements of the epiphany, or existential moment, that was a turning point in the researcher’s life. This involves providing a rich description of: (i) the salient event itself in which a “collision” with a conflicting idea, attitude, or world view etc. took place; (ii) the process of decision-making required as a result of this collision; (iii) the emotions associated with the decision-making process; (iv) the strategies used for coping with and adapting to the stresses associated with the epiphany or the existential moment; (v) the symbolic environment in which the epiphany or the existential moment took place; (vi) the problems experienced; and (vii) the knowledge or skills that resulted from experiencing the memorable life event. The sources of data collection include: personal journals, letters, self-dialogues (especially using the recursive questioning technique), dream analysis, essays, photographs, visual artwork (for example, drawings and paintings), and literary works (for example, creative fiction and poetry). These may all be used to describe, explain, and give meaning to the particular life event being examined.

Incubation: This is a process in which the researcher “retreats from the intense, concentrated focus” of the research project to allow a deeper level of knowing and understanding to develop. The period of incubation “allows the inner workings of the tacit dimension and intuition” to continue to clarify and to develop understanding on levels outside the immediate awareness (Moustakas, 1990, p.28).

Illumination: occurs when the researcher experiences a breakthrough into conscious awareness of the essential and distinguishing attributes of the memorable life event, and then groups these qualities into themes. The illuminations experienced will set the parameters for writing the final RTA.

Contemplation: Once illumination has occurred, the researcher then fully examines “what has awakened in consciousness, in order to understand its various layers” (Moustakas 1990, p.31). This step requires deep introspection (contemplation) and reflective examination of the meanings uncovered. The researcher then selects from this contemplation the themes, the qualities of the experience, the meanings and understandings gained, the rich descriptions and representations (for example, artwork and photographs) of pertinent images that are to be used to write the RTA.

Writing the RTA: The way a RTA is written is not restricted to any particular discipline. However, there are three considerations or guidelines. First, is the challenge to all researchers of subjectivity to “learn how to write visually, in a way that reflects how what is seen is felt, knowing then that seeing is feeling” (Denzin, 1992, pp.24-25). Second, is the challenge to tell “mystory” in a way “that would avoid the risks of dissolving the lived experience in a solution of impersonal concepts and abstract theoretical schemes” (Ellis & Bochner, 1992, p.98). Third, is the challenge of being willing to engage in this experiment of writing in a way that affirms the self-narrative” as a mode of inquiry that should be judged not so much against the standards and practices of science as against the practical, emotional, and aesthetic demands of life” (Ellis & Brochner 1992, p.99).

The reflective topical autobiographer takes the risk of writing expressively and creatively, using multiple modes of expression (such as poetry, photographs, paintings), and resists the orthodox expectations of academic scholarship “to write papers in prose, reference others, place our work in a lineage, objectify the topic, and focus on the expressed topic rather than on the self-as-producer” (Richardson 1992, p.125).

Data Analysis

The data of human science research are human experiences (Van Manen, 2001). We collect the data of lived experiences, because we have the potential to develop a greater understanding of our humanity. When human science research is not restricted to the description of human behaviour alone, it can be marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering. I take the view that sound scientific research shows evidence of both moral and intellectual advancement.

In this research, I used descriptive and explanatory analysis to describe the essential features and meaning of the text. A descriptive analysis was used to describe events, the sequence of events, and the contents of the artwork. An explanatory analysis was used to interpret the events, the artwork, and the research findings.

Limitations

Carey (1989) writes an articulate response to some of the challenges faced by qualitative (interpretive) studies in general:

These resistances to qualitative inquiry reflect an uneasy awareness that its traditions commit one to a critique of the positivist project. But the positivist resistance to qualitative research goes beyond the “ever-present desire to maintain a distinction between hard science and soft scholarship” (Carey, 1989, p.99).

The positive sciences (physics, economics, and psychology) are often seen as the crowning achievements of Western civilization, and in their practices it is assumed that truth can transcend opinion and personal bias (Carey, 1989, p.99).

Qualitative inquiry is seen as an assault on this tradition, leading some positivists to retreat into a “value-free” objectivist science’ model to defend their position … But these critics seldom attempt to make explicit, and critique the “moral and political commitments in their own contingent work” (Carey 1989, p.104).

Denzin (2001) asserts that the opposition to positive science by the postpositivists and the poststructuralists is seen as an attack on reason and truth. At the same time, the positive science attack on qualitative research is regarded as an attempt to legislate one version of truth over another (Denzin, 2001, pp.7884-7885).

The following is my response to what I perceive as the main concerns raised by adherents of the (positivist) scientific paradigm:

A value-free, objective science: In human science research, objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive categories (van Manen, 2001). Both find their meaning and significance in the personal orientation the researcher establishes with the object of inquiry. Thus, “objectivity” means that the researcher is oriented to the object under study (Bollnow in van Manen, 2001). In human science research, “objectivity” means that the researcher remains true to the object. The researcher guards and defends the true nature of the object, remains faithful to it – aware that one is easily misled, distracted, side-tracked, or enchanted by extraneous elements. “Subjectivity” means that one needs to be as perceptive, insightful, and discerning as one can be, in order to show or disclose the object in its full richness and in its greatest depth. Subjectivity means that we are strong in our orientation to the object of study in a unique and personal way – while avoiding the danger of becoming arbitrary, self-indulgent, or of getting captivated and carried away by our unreflected preconceptions (van Manen, 2001).

Thus, the postpositive approach taken in this research does not support the positivist scientific imperative that researchers take the role of detached observers when conducting (all) scientific research. The qualitative research approach taken in this research, questions the validity of utilising distance and objectivity to reduce bias in human science research. Rather, it “emphasises personal wisdom, lived experience, and knowledge as rich sources of material that inform writing and research” (Rosenau, 2001, p.11869). Authentic experience – like its kin “reality” and “life” – is the “ground of being in which the self is embedded” and in this research is essential to “full engagement with existence” (Lears, 2006). Consciousness itself, by definition, is:

The ability to generalise the research findings to the larger population: The methodology for this research is an autobiography. Like a case study design, which also focuses on the personal experiences and perspectives of a single individual, a RTA may be seen as limited by adherents of “the scientific method”, in that this research does not involve a representative sample of the target population (people who have lived through the experience of dying), and therefore the results cannot be generalised to the larger population.

The RTA is a research methodology that does not seek to generalise. RTA is situated within the postpositive, qualitative interpretive research paradigm, and as such, the utilisation of “the case study of one” is not only regarded as acceptable, but as “eminently justifiable”, where the case in question “is a rare or unique event” or “serves a revelatory purpose” (Yin, 1994, p.44). Furthermore, as in the classic case study method, an individual person (or life history) can stand as “the primary unit of analysis” (Yin 1994, p.21). I support the view that the two pathways of inquiry from “experience through explanation to general theory; and from experience through expression to myth and archetype” (Reason & Hawkins, 1988, p.85) are as valid as the use of theory as the starting point of inquiry. Some of the most illuminating researchers have used both, for example, psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud (in his use of the Oedipal myth), Carl Jung (in his use of archetypes such as the Wounded Healer and the Great Mother), and scholar of mythology Joseph Campbell (in his use of myths such as the Hero’s journey) (Cherry, 1999).

Methods and Processes

This section describes methods and processes, including ethical clearance considerations, and the autobiographical methods and processes I used for reflecting on my experience and ensuring the project’s quality and effectiveness.

Ethical considerations

This project received institutional ethics approval from the HREC at Southern Cross University. Ethical issues are the concerns, dilemmas, and conflicts that arise over the proper way to conduct research (Neuman, 2003). Ethics define what is or is not legitimate research to do, or what “moral” research procedures involve. In general terms, the potential benefits of social science research – such as increasing people’s understanding of social life, improving decision-making, or helping research participants – must be weighed against any potentially harmful consequences of the research – such as a loss of dignity, self-esteem, privacy, or democratic freedoms. Staging qualitative research as fiction frees the author from some constraints, protects the author from criminal or other charges, and may protect the identities of those studied (Richardson, 2003); however, the intention in this thesis was to give a true and accurate account of my life story. In so doing, I considered and responded to the ethical concerns that arose from undertaking this research.

The data for this PhD thesis are within my autobiography, which comprises of writing stories from my memory. Although I have written stories, the people within the stories have a right to confidentiality and anonymity. There is a risk that they may be identified. Because of this potential risk, people and places referred to in this thesis were de-identified. For example, people and places within the health care system were identified as “the doctor”, “the hospital”, etc. Family members were identified as “my sister”, or “my brother”, etc. In all cases where the participants in this autobiography may be identified, including family members, they were given the opportunity to review the stories in which they appeared, and their written permission for inclusion in this thesis was sought. Where names were necessary because of the frequency in which those people were referred to in this thesis (for example, my partner’s name) their written permission to use their first name or a pseudonym was sought.

An Information Sheet and an Informed Consent form were sent to the participants after my first draft (Appendix A). They were encouraged to edit the material; that is, to make changes related to the accuracy of the write-up, and to elaborate on information that may have been omitted or that may have needed clarification. The conditions specified in the Informed Consent form included the participants’ right to withdraw from the study at any time, without prejudice. The final draft of this thesis includes only those participants, who have voluntarily given their permission for inclusion.

As a human science researcher, I am aware that the contents of this research may have certain emotional effects on the people involved. While they may feel a level of discomfort, because my personal story and other information that might be disturbing at times, they may also experience increased awareness, insight, and feel a sense of hope and liberation. It may be possible that personal health practices and institutional health practices are challenged and, I hope, improved as a result. A list of free counselling, information and support services was attached to the Information Sheet and Informed Consent form (Appendix A).

In terms of (myself) the researcher and author, I was fully aware that others may have been concerned about my revisiting traumatic events in my life. Notwithstanding, this story needed to be told, from the point of view of the experiencing individual. I agreed to contact my mentor, Professor Beverley Taylor, or trusted friends and family members, who were available at any time if I experienced any catharsis, which I could not manage myself. Also, my private GP was aware of this research and fully endorsed it. He was available to me for consultation at any time it may have been necessary. I had unequivocal support from my husband, Michael, who is my greatest ally. He was fully supportive of this project and its processes. He was my primary support, and had knowledge of other counsellors if his support was insufficient.

The Autobiographical Methods and Processes

I applied the steps for writing a RTA suggested by Johnstone (1999, pp.28-29) in the following manner:

Choosing RTA: I chose RTA because it was an appropriate research design for investigating the selected research topic. The justification for the choice of RTA is given in the first section of this chapter.

Choosing a topic: My “question” (a memorable life event) that was “a personal challenge and puzzlement in the search to understand” myself and “the world in which I live” (Moustakas, 1990) related to my experience of dying. This event was a powerful moment of crisis needing “an interpretive framework to make sense” of my experience (Ellis & Brochner, 1992, p.80). The “epiphany” or “existential moment” that emerged from the crisis was the “turning point experience” (Denzin, 1989, p.70) that my experience may be of benefit to other people facing death.

My existential moment at the point of realising the certainty of imminent death gave me “a sudden understanding of life”, and a “new conviction or commitment” to write my life story of dying. This decision led to this RTA, in which I experienced moments of “searching, struggling, feeling, asserting, yielding, facing, and choosing a direction that challenges and enhances realizations of potentialities” both in myself and in my “growing relationships” (Moustakas, 1973, p.2).

Through writing the RTA, by making reflective journal notes, undertaking the art work and reflecting on their meaning, I moved from a position of not being able to make sense of the enormity of the dying experience, to one of being able to understand the experience, and finally to being able to give meaning to the experience.

Immersion: Once the topic had been chosen, I plunged deeply into “an intensive and timeless experience of the self”, living this total immersion in waking, sleeping and dreaming states. I continued to concentrate on the project of self-investigation, resting when I needed a break from the writing, reflecting and imaging. My concentration was assisted by phone calls and emails to the University, rather than attending in person each fortnight. This directed my energy towards the RTA itself, rather than travelling a one-hour round road trip.

I maintained regular contact with my PhD Supervisor and relied heavily on my own sense of wellbeing and of keeping my interpersonal boundaries, to sustain my reflective efforts over time. I had an unspoken agreement with my Supervisor to make progress as quickly as possible, but I was careful not to overload myself at any time with social and intellectual activities. For example, if I experienced negative emotions in any of the writing, such as in reading and critiquing the biomedical model literature, I paced myself so that the task did not deplete my energy unnecessarily. At times, I moved between the tasks of academic writing, reflecting and making images, so that I could enjoy the process as much as possible without undue stress. Through these strategies, I explored, identified, and described my lived experiences of dying.

Data collection: Once immersed in my experiences, I documented the key elements of my existential moments of awareness in the dying process, including: conflicting ideas, attitudes, or world views; the process of decision-making required; the emotions associated with the decision-making process; the strategies I used for coping with and adapting to the stresses associated with the process of dying; features of the symbolic environment; the problems experienced; and the knowledge or skills that resulted from experiencing the life event of knowing I was dying. The sources of data collection included: a personal journal, self-dialogues, discussions with family and friends, my own dream analysis, and visual artwork, such as drawings and paintings. I also used literary works, such as music and poetry, in public and professional presentations of my research project (Zammit, 2007a,b; see also Appendices B and C). These assisted me to describe, explain, and give meaning to the particular life event I examined.

Incubation: From time to time, I retreated “from the intense, concentrated focus” of the research project to allow myself a deeper level of knowing and understanding. I practised meditation regularly and enjoyed continued participation in my personal interest groups, thus giving me a period of incubation to allow “the inner workings of the tacit dimension and intuition” to continue to clarify and to develop understanding on levels outside the immediate awareness (Moustakas, 1990, p.28).

Illumination: I experienced illumination when I was undertaking the research activities, such as writing, reading and in doing the art work. I experienced a breakthrough into conscious awareness of the essential and distinguishing attributes of my own dying processes, and these have been recorded in this document in Chapter Four. The illuminations experienced set the parameters for writing the final RTA.

Contemplation: Once illumination occurred, I examined fully that which “awakened in consciousness, in order to understand its various layers” (Moustakas 1990, p.31). This step required deep introspection (contemplation) and reflective examination of the meanings uncovered. I then selected from this contemplation the images and reflections that speak of the qualities of the experience and the meanings and understandings I gained.

Writing the RTA: In writing the RTA I began from the standpoint of understanding and applying the challenges of subjectivity, so that I could write in the deepest and most revealing way, thereby writing visually, in a way that reflected how “what is seen is felt, knowing then that seeing is feeling” (Denzin, 1992, pp.24-25). This meant that I when I was working actively on writing I plunged my reflections to the deepest parts of my memories, being as honest with myself as I could possibly be, in order to recapture the essential aspects and messages of my memories. As this was a deeply intense experience requiring considerable cognitive engagement, I rested when necessary, or played music, meditated, or simply took time out on the back patio with my partner, looking at the rainforest and birds in our backyard.

I was mindful of the challenge to tell “mystory” in a way “that would avoid the risks of dissolving the lived experience in a solution of impersonal concepts and abstract theoretical schemes” (Ellis & Bochner, 1992, p.98). I did this by reminding myself of the aim and objectives of the project, so that these intentions could be fulfilled most faithfully. I faced the challenge of being willing to engage in this experiment of writing by making it “mystory”, by owning my actions and emotions and always trying to affirm my self-narrative as writing that could be “judged against the practical, emotional, and aesthetic demands of life” (Ellis & Brochner 1992, p.99). As I wrote the RTA, the meaning of my experience became illuminated progressively, and I was aware increasingly of the importance of the practical, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of my life.

As mentioned previously, I was willing to take the risk of writing expressively and creatively, using multiple modes of expression, such as poetry, reflections and paintings. I developed my artistic ability when I worked as a graphic artist and illustrator early in my working career. It was a kind of apprenticeship – I would learn skills at the studios that interested me, such as fashion illustration, photo-restoration, and airbrush art. When I became proficient in these areas, I would then move to work elsewhere to develop other techniques and thus continue to refine my skills. My career culminated in my eventually working as a storyboard illustrator at an art studio in the heart of London. My artistic career came to an abrupt end after this when I could no longer ignore the soulless nature of working in advertising. I decided to change directions. I wanted to go to University to undertake a Bachelor of Arts degree in Behavioural Studies, a psychology-based course. I have since then also attained a Masters degree in Art Therapy, a course of study that enabled me to create art as an expression of my inner life. Since undertaking my University studies, I have worked as a counsellor mainly in the areas of drug-addiction, domestic violence and family therapy.

When I became very ill and unable to work professionally, friends and family suggested that I return to artwork as a hobby. I believe they were suggesting that I produce “pretty” pictures of flowers, landscapes and such, representative artwork that comes from the “outside-in”. Except perhaps for portraiture, this type of artwork has never interested me greatly. Since I gave away producing artwork for advertising purposes those many years ago, I became increasingly interested in looking beneath the surface of things, beneath the superficialities; also in producing work that was beneficial to our community. I subsequently became determined to only produce words and pictures that were meaningful, that communicated something of importance. The methodology I chose for this doctoral thesis has given me the opportunity to express myself in this way, to finally produce words and art that came from the “inside-out”.

In the artwork I created for my thesis, I wanted primarily to convey the emotional journey. This was because I discovered that how I was feeling emotionally during my illness and treatments did not generally concern those to whom I turned for assistance. Yet, my emotional state was as real to me as my physical state. Furthermore, I believe that one of the major causes of my illness was the fact that I had ignored my emotional reality. I had focused on “doing” and “achieving”, in spite of how I was feeling. For example, I ignored how stressed I was feeling when I was working in very difficult areas of counselling, and studying at the same time.

It was also important to me when I rendered my drawings for this thesis that I actually captured the emotion that I wanted to convey. I decided to test the effect of each drawing on family and friends. For example, when I created the two drawings entitled “Morphine” and “Withdrawal/Emergence”, I made a point of not showing them to my partner until they were finished. Then I watched his reaction. Michael’s response was quite emotional and he responded in a different way to each of the drawings, affirming to me that I was successful in achieving the emotional tone that I had wanted to communicate.

Even though I had academic qualifications, I resisted the orthodox expectations of academic scholarship “to write papers in prose, reference others” and place my work in a lineage, which might “objectify the topic”. Rather, even though it was the most personal and urgent life topic that I could possibly relate, I nevertheless focused on the experience of dying, rather than on (my)”self-as-producer” (Richardson 1992, p.125).

Criteria for Ensuring the Quality and Effectiveness of the Project

In terms of analysing this research project for its quality and effectiveness, I was guided by the criteria established by Dr Laurel Richardson: Professor Emerita of Sociology, Professor of Cultural Studies in the College of Education, and Graduate Professor of Women’s Studies at the Ohio State University (in Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). She has written extensively on qualitative research methods, ethics, and issues of representation. The following is Dr Richardson’s criteria for evaluating creative analytic practices (“CAP” ethnographies, including auto-ethnography and personal narrative):

1. Substantive contribution: Does this piece contribute to our understanding of social life? Does the writer demonstrate a deeply grounded (if embedded) social scientific perspective? How has this perspective informed the construction of the text?

2. Aesthetic merit: Rather than reducing standards, CAP ethnographies add standard. Does this piece succeed aesthetically? Does the use of creative analytic practices open up the text, invite interpretive response? Is the text artistically shaped, satisfying, complex, and not boring?

3. Reflexivity: Is the author cognizant of the epistemology of postmodernism? How did the author come to write this text? How was the information gathered? Are there ethical issues? How has the author’s subjectivity been both a producer and a product of this text? Is there adequate self-awareness and self-exposure for the reader to make judgements about the point of view? Does the author hold him or herself accountable to the standards of knowing and telling of the people s/he has studied?

4. Impact: Does this affect me? Emotionally? Intellectually? Does it generate new questions? Move me to write? Move me to try new research practices? Move me to action?

5. Expression of reality: Does this text embody a fleshed out, embodied sense of lived experience? Does it seem “true” – a credible account of a cultural, social, individual, or communal sense of the “real”? (Richardson, 2003, pp. 522-523)

Richardson notes that research practices are essentially concerned with enlarged understanding. Science offers some research practices; and literature, the creative arts, memory work, and introspection offer still others. She suggests that science is one lens through which to look and see, creative arts is another: “We see more deeply using two lenses. I wanted to look through both lenses, to see a ‘social science art form’” (Richardson 2003, p.523). In this sense, science and the creative arts are no longer considered to be mutually exclusive and incompatible. They are seen as mutually enriching: one form of knowledge and practice informs the other.

From my point of view, it is clear that images and symbols communicate in a different way to the spoken and written word. They speak to our unconscious needs and desires and in this way are powerful forces, much used today to shape human behaviour. The integration of the creative arts with science offers a way towards ensuring that the images and myths we create are (more) accurately interpreted and their meanings (more) clearly understood.

The extent to which I have achieved the criteria for the quality and effectiveness of the project, probably lies with the reader, rather than with me, as the author of this text. This fits with the postmodern idea that we are all interpreters of life texts, and our own “reading” is of value (Rosenau, 2001).

During 2007 I presented the project to various audiences (Zammit 2007ab). After the first presentation (Zammit 2007a, Appendix B) I realised that the work had such a profound effect on people, that I needed to allow time at the end of the presentation for debriefing of the audience, so they had time to express their emotional responses to the artwork and reflections (Zammit 2007b, Appendix C). In each presentation, the audiences were silent throughout the session and at times I noticed tears in people’s eyes as they listened to my story, and possibly revisited their grief from their experiences of loss, dying and death of people and relationships. Although I did not evaluate the responses in an objective way to ascertain the audiences’ answers to the specific quality and effectiveness questions (Richardson, 2003), I could infer that my life story resonated with many people, some of whom came up to me later to tell me of the impact my artwork and reflection had on them personally.

Summary

In this chapter I described RTA as the research methodology for this project, as a self-study, personal narrative, which reflected on a significant time in my life (Johnstone, 1999). The aim of this research was appropriate for a RTA approach, because it had the potential to generate new knowledge and understanding by way of examining my lived and felt experience of dying.

This chapter also described the methods and processes by which I undertook the project, including ethical clearance considerations, the autobiographical methods of reflecting on my experience, and the processes I used to ensure the project’s quality and effectiveness. Ethical considerations recognised the confidentiality and anonymity of “characters” within my stories and I made every attempt to protect these rights, by the careful application of processes described within this chapter. The autobiographical methods and processes of reflecting on my experience of dying were congruent with Johnstone’s (1999) steps of writing a RTA and the epistemological assumptions of qualitative research described in this chapter. I used Richardson’s (2003) questions to assess the quality and effectiveness of the RTA. My informal process of listening to responses from audiences at my project presentations leads me to assume that my artwork and reflections were judged at high levels of appreciation, in relation to my RTA’s substantive contribution, aesthetic merit, reflexivity, impact and expression of reality.