include: confusion understanding the subject due to the inarticulateness; a general unresponsiveness of the inarticulate subject to questioning; an overemphasis upon the concrete; and difficulties with the concept of time.
According to Booth and Booth (1996), all of these problems can be overcome, thereby allowing the inarticulate person to serve as a subject in ongoing narrative studies. The study's strength is in the fact that it deals with a topic that is and should be of concern to those interested in narrative research, especially when one considers that there are entire populations or large segments of certain populations that tend to be fairly inarticulate, e.g., children with language difficulties, individuals with brain disorders, and so forth.
However, the study also has a weakness which is the fact that it attempts to generalize strategies that worked with a single individual to narrative studies in general. Further, some of the strategies developed by Booth and Booth (1996) appear to be sound recommendations; however, they would be quite difficult to put into practice. For example, one of the major strategies offered is "attending to what goes unsaid." Not only is such a strategy difficult to put into practice, it introduces a subjective element into the research in that the researcher is in danger of generating his own idiosyncratic speculations as to what has not been stated.
Booth and Booth (1996) conclude that:
...researchers should put more emphasis on overcoming the barriers that impede the involvement of inarticulate subjects in narrative research instead of dwelling on their limitations as informants. (p. 55)
Clearly, attempts should be made in future research to strike down barriers to the participation of inarticulate subjects; however, it should also be pointed out that there is value in determining the boundaries or limitations of a given research methodology. In other words, investiga...