AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY: BUILDING AN IDENTITY

THROUGH THE STORIES OF

AN ITALIAN-AMERICAN FAMILY

by

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Speech Communication

Portland State University

1999

 CHAPTER I: DISCOVERING THE QUESTION

I was adopted when I was an infant. My birth father’s brother and wife adopted me, so my uncle became my dad and my birth father became my uncle. I maintained a relationship with my birth father through a niece-uncle relationship and we interacted as such throughout my childhood.

My relationship with my birth mother (a Siri family member), however, was different. Although my family allowed me to continue having contact with her side of the family, this contact was generally limited to holidays and infrequent visits. It was during these times that I became very aware of storytelling practices in different families, especially in the Siri family. I was overwhelmed by the communicative differences between the different parts of my ethnic background – Totten being German-English and Siri being Italian. This allowed me to pay close attention to how storytelling functioned in my family.

Since my contact was limited with the Siri family, I did not have the advantage of hearing family stories during daily conversations like many other members had. It seemed to me that storytelling practices in families helped children develop strong family identities, both for the individual and for the family as a group in a society. As I turned 18, I became much more curious about who I was in relationship to the Siri family, and so I began correspondence with my birth mother. Through the years, I heard stories and came to know each family member in a more personal way, spending time with them and learning more about the events surrounding my adoption. This seemed to help me develop a stronger sense of identity, and I began to seek out more family stories.

Since then I have spent many days, weekends, holidays and vacations with the Siri family. I have also spent some time with the Siri family in Italy – who are relatives of my great-grandfather, Nono, the only member to immigrate to America. These experiences have given me insight to the question: Who am I? The answer to this question has come from those storytelling practices, and continues to build my identity in many ways. Recently, my grandmother passed away, and the Siri family spent a considerable amount of time telling stories. In one instance, while meeting with Father Bob, who would conduct the memorial service, the whole family engaged in an interesting discussion about stories and what they mean to the family. Many members were visibly upset about my grandmother’s passing. They also showed signs of loss and anger because there were many stories which essentially "died" with her because they were never told. The stories that were told in that meeting seemed to give members a sense of security in knowing that the stories would continue to be a part of the family as long as they were passed from generation to generation; thus my grandma would live on in the stories.

The distinguishing feature about my interaction with the Siri family is not exactly the way in which the stories are told – although this is important – but what the stories mean to the family members as individuals and as a unit. This complex, interactive system includes: my own experiences, previous stories I have heard, beliefs I have about the future, and the assumption that someone will re-tell the story again. Storytelling involves the active utilization of both past experiences and future possibilities. The here-and-now meaning is created and sustained through interaction, and it could not exist without its past and future counterparts. Storytelling is the vehicle through which all intertwine (Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

This implies that communication is a very important element in the formation of an individual’s identity – and to the meaning given to the storytelling practices. As a family member tells a story, other members listen, question, and request more about particular aspects of the story. The storyteller, in turn, refashions the events in response to other members. To make the importance of the story or scenario real for the listeners, they expand on what the moment means in the larger context of life. By talking and listening, family members produce a narrative together, a story (Reissman, 1993, p.10).

The question then arises: What part does storytelling play in the development of identity in families – for the individual, for the family unit in relationship to itself, and for the family unit in relationship to society? These questions are similar to the questions I asked myself as I began to explore my identity as a Siri family member – as an Italian-American. My inquiry for this thesis focuses on what storytelling means to the Siri family members in relationship to their individual and communal identities, and where these stories fit into the interactive process of their family communication.

Many researchers, like Catherine Kohler Reissman (1993), point out that most family interaction and storytelling practices are not thought about reflectively; and that many family members take the experience for granted, not thinking about it and analyzing it. I will be taking this usually ‘invisible’ process and making it very ‘visible’ for the Siri family members, not looking for the specific way in which the stories are told, but for the meaning that each member gives to the stories themselves. This brings the storytelling practice to a conscious, cognitive level that it does not always achieve on its own.

This study is important because current research is beginning to focus on the building and maintenance of culture through narrative practices. Research is generally focused on: how family members produce and reproduce culture and identity (Baxter & Clark, 1996); narrative as a fundamental mode of discourse within families (Riessman, 1993); and how individuals create collective identities through communication (Braithwaite, 1997; Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

These researchers generally disagree on what approach narrative studies (storytelling practices) should take because there is not a single set of formal rules or any standardized researched procedures from which to work from. However, that the acceptance and integration of family stories is a meaning-making process for individual family members is widely agreed upon by many research scholars (Baxter & Clark, 1996; Braithwaite, 1997; Langellier, 1989; Leach & Braithwaite, 1996; Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Reissman, 1993; Seidman, 1991; Stone, 1988; Valentine & Valentine, 1992). This thesis examines the meaning-making process for Siri family members, and adds to the narrative research body of knowledge. In addition, this thesis becomes a historical archive for the Siri family.

The purpose of this study is to examine how an Italian-American family views their identity through storytelling practices. This study explores storytelling as a meaning-making process. Through interviews, artifacts, and personal experience, this study exclusively examines the Siri family, an Italian-American family (most members living in Portland, Oregon). This study seeks to enhance understanding of:

1. How individual family members may use storytelling to construct personal identities,
2. How family units may use storytelling to develop a family identity, and
3. What meaning is generated from family members’ storytelling practices.

Based on the foregoing, the following research questions were formulated:

1. What meaning does each member of the Siri family give storytelling practices?
2. Does being Italian-American play a significant role in storytelling themes?
3. How central is family membership to each member’s identity?
4. How might family units use storytelling to develop an identity in relationship to society?

The answers to these questions are important to this study because they help emphasize the significance of storytelling within the context of families. Implied in these questions is the importance of communication in the formation of identity in individual family members and to the family unit in relationship to society. This study attempts to answer these questions.

This chapter presents the theoretical framework of ethnography, the theoretical background of the research field, and contextual perspectives of this study.

Most research scholars recommend that an individual determine first what it is they care about, independent of method, and then start researching there. It is called "starting where you are" and reflects the assumption that a particular research area is best studied by someone who is most excited about it (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Unless the researcher is emotionally engaged in their work in a meaningful way, boredom, confusion, and frustration with rigorous scholarship will endanger the completion and quality of the project. Therefore, the personal involvement of the researcher is key. The ethnographic researcher is an expert about what only they can verify – a self report of personal experiences (Crawford, 1996). Starting where you are is the best route in ethnographic study: storytelling and family identity were both areas which motivated me the most.

It was this motivation which led me to ethnography. Since I was already curious about how my identity as a family member was built through stories, it was an area which described ‘where I was.’ In this ‘place’ I desired to interact and engage myself through inductive study. Ethnography seemed like a natural fit because it allows me, the researcher, to become an expert through a self-report of personal experiences. This is called the process of inscribing the lives of others, and of ourselves, into our ethnographic expressions (Crawford, 1996). This method of research is significant because it allows me to ‘gain access’ to another world through participant observation – participating in the event and experiencing it in order to understand the event at a deeper level.

Current ethnographic research recommends "taking a turn" and abandoning traditional roles of research in the social science field (Crawford, 1996). It is defined by most scholars as the use of a variety of methods which allow prolonged engagement and gradual acquisition of the knowledge of a particular culture (Lindlof, 1995). Ethnography generally favors inductive inquiry, which allows the data to slowly resolve into concepts and specific research questions through the researcher’s own understanding. It is only near the end of the project that one learns what the study is all about, however, "just as objectivist science cannot be exclusively deductive, qualitative analysis is not wholly inductive in its inferential process" (Lindlof, 1995, p. 56). The interpretive process results in later examination of literature to test the concepts and propositions suggested by the researcher’s field experience.

Participant observation in ethnography is necessary because it involves the interweaving of looking and listening, of watching and asking (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Because I am a member of my family and part of the family structure, I have experienced what it is to BE one of them. This is important for two reasons. First, I am able to have a better understanding of the family dynamics, personalities, and history because I have been a participating member before this research began. I can include my own thoughts and observations as a member within the research data, and it becomes part of the research process (through a personal journal). Second, I am a member of the larger culture (American) that my family (Italian) is a part of. I am able to contextualize the events within the family structure.

Typically, ethnographic researchers have a difficult time fully comprehending what it is to be a member of a specific culture (e.g., Italian, Japanese) because they are only able to observe and interact with that culture (Valentine & Valentine, 1992). Although I can only fully describe my own experience, I am more able to understand and inquire about other experiences within my family because I have similar experiences. I become a significant member in the authorship process of this research – a true participant observer in the ethnography process. It is important to emphasize that typical ethnographic research encourages the "self as author (Crawford, 1996)." This position is beneficial because it produces rich data that reveals certain aspects of a population, which may have gone undiscovered by a non-participant observer (Lofland & Lofland, 1996). However, a limitation of this method is that it lacks the external validity, which is seen by traditional research canons as a necessary component of a research method (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Crawford (1996) describes the author and researcher as "a voice from behind the curtain, or a figure with the edges blurred, so that the ethnographer’s perspective is merely one of many. More meaningfully, the ethnographer does not speak for others (p. 169, emphasis added)." This means that I, the author and researcher, must be careful of making generalizations of my findings into other populations or settings – in this case, the Siri family.

To counter this limitation it is important that I, the researcher, clearly lay out the theoretical parameters of the study while also addressing personal biases, validity, and reliability. I must ask and answer self-reflective questions such as: What do I already bring to the research? What do I already know? What do I think I will find out? Is this process changing the dynamics of the population? What kind of data am I looking for, and what will I do with the data once I have it? It is important to answer these questions within the study so that the limitations are clearly defined (see Chapter III).

In essence, narrative theory attempts to describe what people do when they communicate, not dictate what they should do or how to do it (Littlejohn, 1992). I am operating within the narrative paradigm which states that human beings are inherently storytellers who have a natural capacity to recognize the coherence (making sense) and fidelity (truthfulness) of the stories they tell and experience (Fisher, 1987). I believe that we interpret and evaluate new stories against older stories acquired through experience, and that this is how members typically evaluate the coherence and fidelity of any given story. Although I am not measuring these elements in this study, it is important to remember that they are embedded into the act of storytelling.

Much of the research done within the narrative paradigm has been focused on the performance aspect of storytelling – the way in which stories are being told. These studies have primarily followed the Labovian model which linearly breaks individual performances up into a beginning, middle, and end (Langellier, 1989). A prominent scholar of narrative, Walter Fisher (1987), describes the narrative process as this:

This effectively describes the basic purpose of storytelling – creating meaning between individuals – but Fisher’s further description of his method does not provide the flexibility needed to discover the emergent element of storytelling as it has meaning for individual members. It leaves out an important element: context and audience.

As stated before, the purpose of this study is to understand how an Italian-American family views their identity through storytelling practices; therefore, it examines a different (and new) element within the narrative paradigm. This study is phenomenological – it aims at gaining a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of an everyday experience from the actor’s point of view. It asks the Siri family members: what is the storytelling experience like? By bringing their experience to consciousness, I will have access to their meaning and hope to understand their lived experience (Van Mannen, 1990).

The fact that experience is put into the shape of a story is important. The stories ‘belong’ to the tellers because they are the ones responsible for recognizing – in their own experiences – something that is ‘story worthy.’ These stories are not typically separable from conversation and are mutually constructed through interaction (Langellier, 1989). Called ‘storifying,’ the act of using both past experiences and future possibilities (phenomenology) as here-and-now meanings are created through that interaction (Langellier, 1989). Langellier (1989) argues against the use of the Labovian (linear) model because storytelling is doing something to the social world, which is circular and nonlinear. She argues for a different contexualization under Elizabeth Stone’s (1988) model of storytelling in families. She states that according to Stone, the family is always being re-imagined and reconstituted every generation through family storytelling. These stories are not distinct from everyday conversation, and work their way into the family canon by virtue of recording remarkable events of cultural interest, by being well-formed or well-performed. By the virtue of their significance, they maintain the family in whatever form (Langellier, 1989).

Stone (1988) analyzes how family stories ‘shape us’ in accordance with three contexts: the family’s relationship to itself, to society, and to the individual. Family stories function, in part, to keep the family together through family ground rules, family definitions, and family monuments and markers. In its relationship to the world, family stories place the individual family into the society (with stories about assimilation, ethnicity, racism, survival, fortune, and misfortune). These stories shape the individual, telling individual members if they are bad or good, welcome or unwelcome. Stone notes that stories help us learn about the idea of family and how to be a member of a particular family – that much of our instruction comes from the experience of living in a family. This experience tells us what we can expect from relatives and what we owe them (p. 17). This experience is a central element in the formation of identity because "to make one’s family stories one’s in the truest sense is to achieve the greatest autonomy – the autonomy of one’s own point of view – while keeping hold of the best of one’s connection to family" (p. 224). Thus, the adoption of family stories by individual family members can refashion individual and family identities (meanings).

Narrative theory (or storytelling) in this study, then, is not defined as how the stories are being told, but as what the storytelling process means to the individual Siri family members. Situated within the narrative paradigm, this study seeks to understand the relationship between storytelling and identity within the family context – the meanings family members give to the storytelling process.

The term story is derived from the Latin term ‘history.’ It is an account of incidents or events, factual or fictional, which usually contain a plot or purpose. It is closely connected with the term ‘narrate’ which is akin to knowing, or telling a story in detail (Webster’s, 1990). The phrase "Once upon a time…" means many things to most individuals, but almost always represents stories heard and stories told throughout a lifetime. Usually, this phrase connotes a mystical, magical meaning because the stories we hear as children begin with this phrase. However, the phrase "Let me tell you about the time…" or "I heard that…" means something more specific – especially when mouthed by a family member to another family member. To a family member, the stories mean much more because they have ‘something at stake.’ A family typically views its family stories as a rendering of history in which all members are implicated in and contribute to the ongoing story (Zeitlin, Katkin & Baher, 1982). I am not only looking for the stories and the themes that evolve, but also for the emerging rationale that members give storytelling: why do they tell stories and what do the stories mean to them?

Symbolic interaction states that communication and meaning are social, and that meaning is created through and sustained by interaction with groups of people. Symbolic, because meaning and thought is translated into language. Interaction, because there must be direct contact and communication with other individuals and groups. Littlejohn (1992) outlines the basic theoretical and methodological prepositions:

• All understanding occurs by assigning meaning to the experience. This is done through language.
• This meaning comes from the exchange of symbols in social groups and is learned.
• It is a process where individuals interact with one another.
• Reality is created through interaction with individuals.
• The mind is nothing more than an internal conversation, which mirrors interactions one has had with others.
• Behavior is constructed, enacted, and adapted through interaction with others.
• Meaning is not observable and must be discovered through communication with others. (p. 169-170)

These premises emphasize that individuals achieve something through interaction with other people. Experience is always shaped by the meanings that arise out of the interaction with the social group – a product of interaction – making communication the cornerstone of the experience (Littlejohn, 1992).

Communication with others and within the self is crucial to the development of a person’s identity – to the meaning they give to themselves and the world around them. According to George Herbert Mead (1934) there is a threefold interaction between society, the self, and the mind. These categories represent different parts of the socialization process where individuals are actively relating to each other through interaction. He states that this interaction builds on itself, beginning with an impulse, a response by another individual, and the assignment of meaning to the event.

The process does not end there. Acts are interrelated and build upon each other so that my experience and meaning evolves over time into one, long spiraling strand. This is important because it stresses conscious interpretation. A story has meaning for me when I think about it or interpret it. This is where society, self, and mind connect. A story, as something symbolic and interactional, is a medium by which Siri family members connect to each other. Family is defined as:

There are three key terms within this definition which make symbolic interaction a key part of this study. They are: "interpersonal relationship," "importantly attached," and "identity of its own." As an interpersonal relationship, family members interact with each other simultaneously and mutually influence each other (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 1996). This interaction affects my thoughts, feelings, and the way I interpret meaning from it. From this interaction, I perceive myself as a valued, connected family member (or not). Elizabeth Stone (1988) describes the process like this:

She emphasizes the importance family plays in the development of our identity. To know ourselves, we need to know more of the collective family experience that precedes us. I feel more attached when I have interacted in such a way that I feel like I belong. Once members feel this attachment, the family develops an identity of its own – thoughts, opinions, and meaning of its own in relation to society around it.

Symbolic interaction is a crucial part of the interaction between individual family members and society. Through storytelling – a narrative way of meaning-making – the Siri family interacts and sustains itself through this communication. It is what Stone (1988) is referring to when she describes that family stories ‘shape us’ in accordance with three contexts: the family’s relationship to itself, to society, and to the individual.

Identity is commonly known as the conceptualization of self, which is primarily an unconscious process. Identity concerns: how I am perceived by others, and how I perceive myself. It grows and develops through communication and interaction. It can be temporary or fixed, partial or global, used as a defense (hidden behind) or as an exaggeration; is complex and multiple, yet single and distinct. This is my own definition, and it emphasizes the complexity and difficulty that surrounds the term identity in relation to one or many different areas of study.

The term identity was first explored in detail by Erik H. Erikson in 1950, and because of his work, the concept of identity has become popular, especially within developmental psychology. It seems that Erikson did not trouble with the concept itself, but gradually focused on the interplay between individual life cycles and social forms of community. He used the concept of identity in a visual way connecting the very personal and the social forms of community (Bosma, et. al., 1994). In short, Erikson stated that:

The editors of the text Identity and Development state that definitions of sameness, character, and being an identifiable person, form the main elements of the meaning of the concept of identity in connection to human individuals. They argue that an individual can try to achieve a clear identity while at the same time maintain that identity despite growth and change (Bosma, et. al., 1994). As well, their whole text emphasizes the challenge researchers found when attempting to specifically define the term identity.

This difficulty can be emphasized with the following look at the way identity has been used and studied over the years. Since the late 1500’s, identity has been a highly scrutinized and debated term within several different fields of study, and it continues to adapt and change today as research and discussion influence its use (Baumeister, 1986):

• 1596-1650: René Descartes – identity is inferred from empirical evidence.
• 1711-1776: David Hume – identity is fictitious and we cannot directly know it in any way.
• 1724-1804: Immanuel Kant – identity is not perceived directly, but is known in relation to the world; is created over time.
• 1833-1911: Wilhelm Dilthey – identity is a linguistic construction of meaning in relationships.
• 1925 to present: Erik Erikson, Sydney Shoemaker, and others – identity has continuity over time and must be differentiated from other individuals.

There are many definitions of identity, but for the purpose of this study I will use Fitzgerald’s (1993, p.3) definition because of its application to this study: the academic metaphor for self-in-context. I use this definition because of my emphasis on the individual family members and their relation to the self, the family, and society. It is in these three contexts that I am concerned with how the Siri family uses stories to establish and create their identity, and what it means to them. This definition will primarily emphasize identity as the unconscious conceptualization of self, which includes (1) how I am perceived by others, (2) how I perceive myself, (3) and something which grows and develops through communication and interaction.

The development of identity is a transactional process that builds and evolves over time, and becomes a social product of that process (McCall & Simmons, 1966). Communication is the means by which individuals translate their meanings and interact with one another. According to most communication scholars, communication is the process of collaboratively making meaning, and this process involves negotiating our identities (Baumeister, 1986; Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 1996; Erikson, 1959; Fitzgerald, 1993; Langellier, 1989; Littlejohn, 1992; Stewart & Logan, 1998; Stone, 1988). Therefore, the process of communication and the creation of identity are social – they require interaction with others around us.

Authors Stewart and Logan (1998) describe the social construction of identity as:

• Collaborative, which guarantees that
• its outcomes are not predetermined or static, and that
• it is made up of both reactions and responses,
• which appear in what communicators give out and take in,
• and that sometimes people realize they are doing it and sometimes they do not. (p. 120)

This is important because it emphasizes that past and present relationships with individuals around us create, maintain, and change our identities. As Stone (1988) and others explain about the storytelling process, identity development is sometimes cognitive and sometimes not.

Before explaining the social construction of identity further, it is important to understand that a family (like the Siri family) is a system. This theoretical approach considers the entire family as a unit, rather than focusing on individual family members. The underlying assumption is that whatever happens to one family member affects the entire family system, and that the family will change and adapt to maintain harmony or balance (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 1998; Littlejohn, 1992; Stewart & Logan, 1998). This interdependence between family members is an important part of both individual and societal identities because it creates an atmosphere where individuals are interacting and changing because of the interaction.

This exposure to others changes us because we increase our capacities for knowing that (an increase in knowledge of the social world) and for knowing how (placing that knowledge into action). Gergen (1991) states that this interaction creates a form of multiplicity in which we increasingly emerge "as the possessors of many voices. Each self contains a multiplicity of others, singing different melodies, different verses, and with different rhythms...At times they join together, at times they fail to listen one to another, and at times they create a jarring discord" (p. 83).

In this construction of self, our individual person fades from view and we realize increasingly that who and what we are is not so much the result of our personal essence (real feelings, deep beliefs, and the like), but of how we are constructed in various social groups. This results in a sense of the self as a social being (Gergen, 1991). Erikson (1959) states that:

In sum, one’s identity is not limited to the self, but exists only within a society that defines and organizes it (Baumeister, 1986; Bosma, 1994; Erikson, 1959; Gergen, 1991). This is significant because storytelling becomes a vehicle through which the Siri family members can build and maintain their identities.

The acceptance and use of family stories by individual family members is a meaning-making process (Seidman, 1991; Lofland & Lofland, 1995). It is "a mode of communication, a way of speaking, the essence…which resides in…the way in which communication is carried out, above and beyond its referential content" (Langellier, 1989). When we communicate these stories, we emphasize the fluidness of this meaning-making process because all of us perform narrative in our everyday lives, thus providing evidence of the ways in which we assign meaning to events (Langellier, 1989; Valentine & Valentine, 1992). We "weave our cultural pattern and provide compelling evidence that we are stories telling stories" (emphasis added; Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

Elizabeth Stone (1988) argues that most stories – family narratives – appear within the routine practices of family life, sometimes invisible to others. Langellier (1989) calls this "the culture of everyday talk." These stories are casually, incidentally, and unreflectively told – but are not any less powerful. Stone (1989) states that "stories work their way into the family canon not by virtue of recording remarkable events of cultural interest, [or] by being well-formed or well-performed, but by virtue of their shaping significance which maintains the family’s identity in some form." This process "involves the active utilization of both past experiences and future possibilities as here-and-now meanings are created and sustained throughout interaction…[and that they] could not exist without past and future counterparts, and that [storytelling] is the vehicle through which [they intertwine]" (Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

Therefore, I am telling a story jointly based on three contexts: (1) each individual’s experience in the family, (2) the family’s experience as a group of individuals interacting, and (3) the family’s relationship to and experience with society. Stone (1989) describes the relationship like this:

The interaction of these narrative practices in families may play a large part in the development of identity – as an individual and as a family – based on the meanings they assign to them.

Stone (1988) examines this three-fold context used in this study by examining Martin Buber’s (1967) ‘I’ and ‘Thou’. Buber states that "There is a genuine dialogue – no matter whether spoken or silent – where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relationship between himself and them" (p. 19). Riessman (1993) discusses this same issue and cites Irving Goffman, stating that "My narrative is inevitably a self representation" (p. 11). Therefore, identity in this context is essentially who I am in my story, in your story, and in our story – the metaphor of self-in-context (Fitzgerald, 1993).

According to Webster a metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them" (Webster, 1990, p. 746). In a sense, the stories themselves or the storytelling practices become a metaphor of the Siri family’s definition of identity – so that, in the first two interviews it can be assumed that the individuals are speaking of identity even though it is not clearly stated. When identity was brought up in the final interview, family members may have automatically build upon previous answers to help emphasize or explain their point.

This process can be seen in the growing literature of identity and meaning-making. "We can assume that the past becomes meaningful through the selection of those things which are deemed worthy of remembrance. Significance emerges most clearly not from past events, but from the dominant pattern of consensual social meanings that allow the past to become integral to the legitimization of present and future" (Ehrenhaus & Morris, 1990, p. 225).

Accuracy, or truthfulness, is sometimes set aside for the benefit of discovering this meaning. In her book Tangled Memories, Marita Sturken (1997) states that "I do not know how many of the stories in this book…are actually true. I am concerned rather with the impact they have once they are told. What memories tell us, more than anything, is the stakes held by individuals and institutions in attributing meaning to the past" (p. 9). This quote directly mirrors the purpose of this study. It is important to understand the meaning each Siri family member gives to the storytelling process, not specifically if the stories they are telling are one-hundred-percent true. Although there are issues of who has the right to tell the stories, and how accurate the accounts are, it can be concluded that "the past becomes meaningful through the selection of those things that are deemed worthy of remembrance" (Ehrenhaus & Morris, 1990, p. 225). Significance emerges not from the past events themselves, but from the dominant selection of stories told as retrieved by their own memories, and the emergent meanings allowing the past to become a selective account of the family history.

This can be related to another metaphor regarding memory. In today’s technological wizardry it is easy to record stories and personal accounts on a word-processing application, saving them to ‘memory.’ Conceivably, I can save something to a certain location on the hard drive of my computer and retrieve it whenever I like, be it years from now, and get the exact account that I had originally recorded. According to Murphy’s Law anything bad that can happen, will – so that the trauma occurs when something goes wrong with my hard drive and I can no longer retrieve my data. I have in essence lost my memory.

This metaphor directly correlates with the memory-making and retrieving process in the human brain. The original experiences I have ‘saved’ in my memory are irreversible; however, I can only re-live them, tell them, or share them through what can be termed as ‘remains.’ What I remember is limited to my own memory, my own experience, and my own perception of the event. Unarguably, every person’s account is different, includes or leaves out different pieces, and has different meaning. I can then assume that the same is true for the construction and maintenance of identity – it is a process that starts out in one way, comes out as another, and is shaped through interaction with those around us.

The hundred-year period from 1830 to 1930 was a century of mass immigration in the history of the United States. The primary cause of this massive transfer from the Old World to the New World was the social economic strain on the rural systems of Europe, with America promising ‘the land of the free’ and ‘the land of opportunity.’ Italians were a major group in this immigrant migration, and were mostly agricultural workers (but also businessmen, shop owners, brick layers, and such) looking for new opportunities. Although most Italians who migrated stayed in the United States, some worked for a period of time and returned to their home town, but all usually sent monies earned in America home to support family members who were under economic strain. Those who stayed made up a large part of the ‘new’ population, and by 1991 Italian-Americans constituted the sixth largest ethnic group in this country. But this population, like other immigrants to the United States, has influential factors which are ‘hinged’ upon the hyphen in the word ‘Italian-American.’ In order to understand the context in which the Siri family stands, it is important to briefly examine family, language, and religion within the Italian value system (Alba, 1985; Belliotti, 1995; Gambino, 1974; Iorizzo & Mondello, 1971).

Family is an important part of the Italian social structure, intersecting every element of daily living in an Italian’s life, and is intimately woven with identity. The family – famiglia – is comprised of all of one’s blood relatives, including those relatives others would consider very distant cousins, aunts and uncles, and extended clan whose genealogy is traced through paternity. Each member has absolute responsibilities to family superiors (the father or grandfather) and absolute rights to be demanded from subordinates in the hierarchy. The father is usually the head of the family, and the mother is usually the center. Elders are to be respected and cared for. The family is the main transmitter of its own culture – values, beliefs, language, and religion (Alba, 1985; Belliotti, 1995; Gambino, 1974; Iorizzo & Mondello, 1971).

To Italian immigrants and their descendants, work involves more than economics. Work is regarded as moral training for the young, and among adults it is regarded as a matter of pride. To work is to show evidence that one has become a man or a woman, a full member of the family. So strong is this ethic that it governs behavior apart from any other considerations. This sense of pride for something done by oneself and for one’s family is essential to the Italian-American psychology. At work, an Italian-American takes pride in quality. The home is the site and the source of all that gives meaning to life. A well kept home is the symbol of a sound family – furniture that lasts, plentiful food, and extreme attention to detail and cleanliness (Gambino, 1974).

A part of the family structure that is imbedded into the value system is loyalty. An Italian-American is to be loyal to the family at all costs – this includes loyalty to the new identity taken on as an American. For example, the second-generation usually assimilated the values of loyalty to the United States Government. Many, including Silvio Siri, clearly demonstrated their loyalty by enlisting in the armed forces during World War II – against their home country of Italy. Their parents supported them. They had little use for the Italian government now that they had become members of a New World (most became citizens, even if in old age). This reveals a picture of the attitudes of immigrant Italians towards outsiders. Most researchers agree that World War II was a significant factor in the development of the Italian-American identity – as super patriotic Americans (Gambino, 1974).

When the Croton Reservoir was being built in 1895 to meet the needs of New York City a public notice recruiting labor for the project was circulated through newspaper and handbills. It listed daily wages of three groups:

Common labor, white $1.30 to $1.50

Common labor, colored $1.25 to $1.40

Common labor, Italian $1.15 to $1.25

This example (Gambino, 1974) supports the overwhelming attitudes of the American sentiments towards Italian immigrants during the migration of Siri family members (Anthony Siri, Silvio’s father). Referred to as ‘dagos,’ Italian-Americans suffered discrimination by the KKK and other white supremacy groups (along with African-Americans and Jewish-Americans) through the 1920’s (Belliotti, 1995). This sentiment motivated most Italian-Americans to give up their language and ‘old’ ways so that they assimilated into the American culture.

Like many Italian families, Anthony was a farmer, settling in the Columbia River basin during the late 1800’s. At this time, many other Italian families congregated in the same area so that the families shared resources, social needs – and language. This element became an important factor to second-generation family members. This generation, while raised in an Italian community in America – usually speaking only Italian up until the attendance of grade school – is also influenced deeply by the culture of their parents. Although this second-generation typically represented a giant step in the accommodation to American culture, it is generally viewed as a transitional generation – caught between the demands of the immigrant culture and the necessity of a new way of life (Gambino, 1974).

The prevalent attitudes of the American public towards Italians at the time and the demands placed upon the second-generation affected the Siri family identity. Silvio Siri, the patriarch member of this study, was a second-generation member of an Italian-immigrant family. He and his siblings invited a great amount of prejudice to themselves by speaking Italian or ‘acting’ Italian outside of the home, so that many second-generation Italians were considered retarded or discipline problems in the classroom (Alba, 1985). Language – the use of Italian and the lack of English – became a large part of the Italian-American identity, and members usually gave up the former for the latter so that they placed themselves in a more favorable psychological and economical situation.

The religious identification of Italian-Americans is usually Roman Catholic. Although many Italian-Americans participate in different levels – Mass weekly or Mass only on major holidays like Christmas, or for funerals and weddings – the influence of religion in the family culture is significant. Many Italian-American families sent their children to Catholic schools, including the Siri family. All of the second-generation members of the Siri family attended (but only some of the third-generation). This may emphasize the desire for Italian-Americans to maintain the ethnic value structure (Alba, 1985; Belliotti, 1995; Gambino, 1974; Iorizzo & Mondello, 1971)

These value systems crossed over into the immigrant’s experience. Many times an immigrant followed a pathway laid down by those who proceeded them; and in the case of the Italians, this universal tendency was strengthened by the general importance of family and village ties. As generations were born, and value systems were integrated with the American culture, Italian-Americans began to change. Intermarriage became more prevalent – mostly due to the decline of Italian as a language of everyday use – and changed the way Italians lived because of the continual contact with different cultures (Alba, 1985).

Within this context, we find the Siri family – second, third, and fourth generation members who do not speak Italian, but claim Italian-American heritage.

The preceding key concepts and definitions have been briefly defined for the reader’s understanding of the general concepts, and are by no means exhaustive definitions. It is important to remember that every person’s account of a story is different, includes or leaves out different pieces, and has different meanings.

The purpose of this study is to examine how an Italian-American family views their identity through storytelling practices. In view of the mode of inquiry (ethnography) and the theoretical perspectives, this research takes a qualitative approach through data collection, analysis, and interpretation. This form of inquiry provides a basis for capturing, describing, and formulating meaning as shared by this particular cultural community.

This study uses a qualitative research approach that is particularly suited to the aim of collecting ‘themes’ of meaning among the Siri family members. Qualitative inquiries regard the participant-observer’s experience as vital data in their own right because the researcher stands inside, not outside, the research event. It is personal, involved inquiry so that qualitative researchers develop unique ways in which to examine each project. Their interest in understanding compels them to spend time with the cultural members before deciding on specific questions to ask (Lindlof, 1995). Understanding is usually obtained through general interview questions that aim at focusing the inquiry to get specific answers – as this study is interested in the meaning the Siri family members give to storytelling. As the interviews progressed, specific questions were added to the interview process as themes emerged. This understanding achieves rich, good, reliable data – a goal of many different research disciplines, not just qualitative.

A qualitative view of research looks at the world epistemologically (how knowledge is obtained). According to researchers like Lofland and Lofland (1995) there are several important traits to this type of research epistemologically. First, it implies that face-to-face interaction is the best way of participating ‘in the mind’ of another human being. Secondly, one must ‘take the role of another’ to acquire social knowledge. This means that the researcher seeks to experience how the participants perceive, feel, and act (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). This is done through participant observation. Most researchers agree that this process involves the interweaving of looking, listening, watching, and asking through an interview process (Lindlof, 1995; Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Again, the goal of qualitative research is to strive for a deeper understanding of the participants’ lived experience (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Qualitative interviewing process is primarily used for gathering cultural data – for eliciting participant meanings for events and behaviors. This method is flexible in formulating a conclusion, and tries to avoid oversimplification because of the rich narrative descriptions (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). It falls into the phenomenology category because it is looking for meaning. Phenomenology is the study of experiences and the ways in which individuals put those experiences together to create a worldview (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). The basic process for qualitative interviewing involves three stages. First, examination of the researchers’ biases occurs through self-examination. Then, the data are structured into themes. Lastly, the data are put together into a structured synthesis (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Riessman, 1993).

The interviewing process creates a challenge to the qualitative researcher. Communication specialists recognize that the nature of the research is changing and that objective ways of research traditions are giving way to self-reflexive questioning so that ‘something new’ is appearing on research pages (Crawford, June 1996; Ellis & Bochner, 1996; Lindlof, 1995). Because of my involvement with my family members, our relationship is changing. Through the interview process I am becoming more aware of their thoughts and feelings about certain issues or family members. We can never go back to where we were before: I change as I go through the research process, just as they are changed from my studying of them. It is like the Transactional Communication Model (Tubbs & Moss, 1997) that I teach in my introductory communication classes: communication is a mutually influential, simultaneous, relationship-building process. Each interaction builds upon itself and changes the relationship – we cannot go back in time or take back what has been said. I imagine that some (if not all) of the family members are discussing each other’s experiences with this research process. It would be naïve of me to believe that they are not doing so. Therefore, it is clear that the dynamics of the family is changing because of this study.

Since this process is so interactive, previous ways of objective research gives way to self-reflexive questioning so that I am changed because of my research, just as the participants are changed from me being there and interacting with them (Crawford, June 1996). Both the researcher and participant become an inescapable part of each other’s experience. To some degree, this meaning-making interaction changes and evolves the relationship between the two so that the relationships after the research is finished is an important factor – especially in a case where a researcher’s own family is involved (Seidman, 1991). This seems, for this particular thesis, as an added bonus because it deeply intertwines myself (researcher) and my family (participants) into something new and different. This ‘something new and different’ is not a thesis, but also a family archive – one of which will be of great value to the family involved, including myself.

Data collection methods include interviews, participant observation, and the gathering of cultural artifacts. Interviewing procedures and issues of transcription are addressed in this section. Before any collection of data, Portland State University Human Subject’s Committee permission was obtained.

This study includes Siri family members from my grandfather (Silvio Siri), his children (my mother’s generation), to my own generation. All participants were either alive or legally bound by marriage to a Siri family member at the time of this study. Participation in this study was conducted on a voluntary basis. Excluding myself, there were 24 living family members at the time of this study.

Of the 24 members, 15 members were interviewed and included in this study. Exclusion reasons were either recent marriages, under the age of ten, or living out of state. Fifteen Siri family members seemed to provide sufficiency and enough information for this study (Seidman, 1991). Of these members, 10 are male and 5 are female. See Appendix J for a diagram of family members and their relationship to the researcher.

Interviewing was the primary method used in this study. For descriptive and analytic purposes, interviews provided me with an opportunity to understand the meaning and purposes placed on storytelling to each family member. Interviewing allowed me to obtain descriptive details of participants’ experience, clarify questions derived from my own observations, and receive feedback from family members regarding their own meanings (Seidman, 1991).

The specific interview process used in this study consisted of three steps. This method included a series of two separate audio taped interviews with each individual family member, followed by a videotaped interview with several family members of the Siri family. The purpose of the first interview was to put the participants’ experience in context up to the present time (see Appendix A). The second interview concentrated on specific details of the participants’ experience in relation to other family members, and began to reveal what storytelling meant to each family member (see Appendix B). This second interview helped clarify stories and accounts, and compared and contrasted individual accounts with each family member. During this time, interviews were transcribed and formulated into themes.

The third interview was different than the first two because it involved several family members simultaneously, and was videotaped. Additionally, members were allowed to share each other’s answers to prior interviews and discuss them. At this time meaning emerged as the central theme – the interview now directly addressing identity and the meaning-making process through storytelling (see Appendix C). This last interview was conducted in a more ‘interactive’ way because it allowed several things to emerge:

1. The dynamics of several members interacted with each other and more closely resembled a ‘true’ storytelling enactment where the story evolved from interaction with each other (Riessman, 1993).
2. The interpersonal interaction among family members was more clearly seen because it was videotaped.
3. The interactive forum provided an experience that addressed identity directly – family members heard each other’s answers to the meaning-making process as the interview proceeded.

This interview format allowed the participants to reflect upon their understanding of their experience as individuals, as a group, and in relation to society (Seidman, 1991; Stone, 1988).

Participant observation during the course of this study was used as a supplement to interviewing because it allowed me to have first-hand involvement in the Siri family, immersing myself in the setting so that I could best experience reality as the participants do (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). During the course of interviewing, a journal was kept to document my thoughts and feelings throughout the study (see Appendix F). The length of time to conduct this study was around one year, so that there were many family functions and activities in which I participated and interacted with the Siri family. The journal process helped document some observations and conversations that were not present during the interviews (Lindlof, 1995).

All data were obtained through videotape, observations, artifact analysis and interview procedures. Interviews and additional data gathering took place in the homes of family members except for those living out of the state of Oregon, who were telephoned via a computer so that both ends of the telephone line could be recorded. All data gathered during this research process were stored in a locked file cabinet at my home and were destroyed upon completion of this thesis.

Each participant's consent to videotape or audio tape was received, in order to ensure the participant's exact wording during the transcription process (Seidman, 1991). Informed consent forms were signed and dated by each participating family member before each of the three interviews to gain permission to audio or videotape, and to gain permission of publication of each family member’s name in this final thesis study (see Appendix D & E). Written notes were recorded on individual interview guides in order to aid transcription and provide context to responses (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Participants were provided with transcripts to examine before inclusion in the thesis.

No sensitive material which could physically, socially, or economically harm any participant was published in this thesis (e.g. legally incriminating information, secrets for which may emotionally harm another member, information which may be uncomfortable to any participant if the information became public). If sensitive issues arose, or any family member wished their contribution to be excluded, data gathered were destroyed and excluded from any record within this thesis manuscript (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

During the transcription process, interviews were recorded for content only and not word-for-word transcription. This is because the emphasis in this study is the meaning which participants give to the storytelling, now how storytelling is occurring, or how it should occur (Seidman, 1991). Throughout the data gathering process, audio tapes, videotapes, and transcripts were stored in a locked cabinet at the researcher’s residence. At the completion of this study, video and audio tapes were destroyed. Transcripts of interviews and personal journal are kept for future reference in a locked cabinet at the researcher’s residence (see Appendix F).

Cultural artifacts used during this study included: a personal journal kept by the researcher, previous letters written to the researcher, and photos owned by the researcher. These were used to collaboratively construct or emphasize themes discovered through the interviewing process (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Before data collection can occur, it is necessary to clarify several issues: reliability, validity, and personal bias. Because I am inherently involved through the gathering of the data, and am a member of the Siri family, it is important to clearly state how to avoid bias so that the data gathered is as ‘true’ as possible.

Reliability has to do with the stability of the observations – whether a research instrument will yield the same results time after time. Most threats to reliability come from inconsistencies in the way a study is carried out (Lindlof, 1995). To enhance reliability in this study, I clarified the theoretical premises and methods used for data collection, and delineated the analytic procedures. Data used in this study were drawn from participants’ verbatim accounts, and from personal field notes/journals. Reliability in this study is also enhanced along with the precautions taken concerning validity.

Validity has to do with the truth of observations – whether the research instrument is accurately reporting the object of interest. Validity is difficult to obtain in qualitative methods because of the changes brought about through reflection by the participants. As they become more reflective, they will move more towards greater validity. What is observed by the researcher is contingent upon the time in which the research was conducted, and on the individual performing the observations. Many researchers agree that the ‘world’ consists of multiple, constructed realities so that the researcher is not permitted to identify any single representation as the criterion for accurate measurement. Instead, researchers attempt to seek credible, dependable data that records ‘right interpretations.’ This means that there are many interpretations, not one single ‘right’ one (Lindlof, 1995).

Therefore, this study attempts to gain insight to those ‘right interpretations’ by seeking feedback from family members in order to understand their meaning. For example, when several different family members related a story to the researcher, it became necessary to compare the stories between family members and to share the differences with each member. This provided the opportunity to understand why there were differences and to ask each member directly for their own interpretations and reasons. Addressing the differences directly allowed participants to make sense of their interpretations, which indirectly addressed validity by obtaining each members’ meaning or reality (Lindlof, 1995; Seidman, 1991).

When addressing the research process, Seidman (1991) asks: Whose meaning is it that your interview brings forth, and whose does your research present? He states that "the fact is that interviewers are part of the interviewing picture. They ask questions, respond to the participant, and at times even share their own experiences. Moreover, interviewers work with the material, select from it, interpret, describe, and analyze it. Though they may be disciplined and dedicated to keeping the interviews as the participants’ meaning making process, interviewers are part of that process" (p. 16).

I am not going to deny that there will not be a part of myself within this study. I have already addressed the issue that my participants and myself are intertwined in such a way that meaning is derived from our interaction. During this process I have kept several things in mind as I was conducting the research: to listen more and talk less so that I was not directing what the participant was saying, to remain aware of the process as well as the substance, to follow up on what the participant is saying, to request feedback when I do not understand, and to share experiences only on occasion. I used these and other skills which I have learned over the course of my studies in this discipline, and from texts on interviewing (e.g. Seidman, 1991, Chapter 6).

Though skills were utilized during the interview process to keep validity and reliability high, it was also important to address how I already felt about a few issues before starting the interview process. I attempted this by answering questions which may affect the way in which I asked questions or organized the data (see Appendix G). Although these questions were vague, they helped me to begin understanding my own biases that might affect the study. During the interview process specific biases and assumptions emerged in my personal journal as well so that it was clear to myself during the analysis process what might be my own conclusion, and what might not. I also answered each interview question myself before interviewing family members (see Appendix H).

I primarily used Riessman’s (1993) description of "telling," "transcribing," and "analyzing" as a simultaneous process. She links the transcribing and analyzing process together, stating that "close and repeated listenings, coupled with methodic transcribing, often leads to insights that in turn shape how we choose to represent an interview narrative in our text" (p. 60). Since I looked for meaning in the narratives – meaning which coincided with identity – I also looked for themes, highly mentioned stories, and constructed widely shared narratives.

I did not use a set of rules to parse the narratives into distinct parts because it was important to edit the interviews together from several Siri family members to create a cohesive, single story. This allowed me to use the first person account – presented in the words of the participants – which gives coherence to the experience of both individual Siri family members, and to the family as a whole unit (Seidman, 1991). The goal was to use the interview transcripts (along with a personal journal and artifacts) to help answer the research questions posed for this thesis and to provide literature support where available. It seemed best to use a thematic analysis process for this study instead of distinctly breaking each interview up into separate parts (Luborsky, 1994; Riessman, 1993; Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

With the parameters clear and the basis for capturing, describing and formulating the data set, I began the collection and organization of the data.

Narrative – stories – allows the self-reflective process that encourages a change in identity. "The particular human chain we’re part of is central to our individual identity. Even if we loathe our families, in order to know ourselves, we seem to need to know about them, just as prologue" (Stone, 1988, p. 7). It is as if the past comes reeling forward into the present and we find ourselves wondering how to recover what was lost…what was found. We are searching for meaning. This is where analysis starts – a vehicle taking us from where we are, showing us the past, and pointing us to the future.

For me, it is always the stories that hold the spirit and meaning of my family. One story, however entertaining and enlightening it may be, may not mean much. Taken in aggregate, they have a number of clear additional messages, discernible to each member of the family. The stories last not because they are entertaining, though many of them are; they last because they matter. These stories provide my family with esteem because they often show family members in an attractive light or define my family in a flattering way. They give messages and instructions, offering morals and ideals. They also give warnings and prohibitions. I will discuss these both within the context of themes developed from the interviews, and in answering the research questions.

The first of the research questions for this study asked what meaning does each member of the Siri family give to storytelling practices? This question was, at first, difficult to answer because many of the members wanted to simply tell the stories instead of talk about what they meant. My assumption during this process was that the Siri family has a shared sense of what its stories mean, or at the very least, what they are supposed to mean. That collective understanding is exactly what allows these stories to serve purposes other than entertainment, which was the overall reason members gave for wanting to hear the stories. So it is in the midst of the stories themselves, I have found answers to this first question (and the others that followed).

As the interview process began, it became evident that the Siri name is attached to members in two ways: as Italian heritage, and as a member of the specific family. When speaking of what it means to them as Italians, family members offered comments that were directly related to having the name Siri attached to their identity. These comments included statements such as, "I am proud of it and the history…[it is a] part of a tradition…knowing where I’ve been and where I can go, who did what, and very proud of everything that has been accomplished." One member got into a specific discussion about researching and getting a printed copy of the Siri family crest to give to Silvio, the patriarch of the Siri family. He stated:

The importance of the Siri name became evident within the first interview. Every family member mentioned concern, wonder, and amusement because a family member had changed her first name to Siri. In response, I asked her why she had changed her name, and told her that everyone had asked about it. Her response was:

It is evident through her reasoning that the name Siri is an important part of her identity, and she did not want to lose it.

Another member told another story of how important names are to an individual’s identity. What makes this account interesting is that she has the same first, middle, and last name as the family member quoted in the above statement:

The assumption these two family members have is that the Siri name is attached to both individual identities and to the family unit as a whole. This provided context in which the Siri family expressed need for association with the family. This was expressed in various ways throughout the interview process. It became evident that the Siri family – as a group unit – is very much centered around the premise that group membership is central to each individual member.

This importance of feeling connected answers the third research question: how central is family membership to each member’s identity? The answer lies "in how families work. Just as every individual has a sense of his or her own identity, so every family has a sense of its own identity. Usually this familial identity is not articulated often or out loud. [T]he fact is that just about any given family member will, if questioned, define what it means to be a member of the family in ways that are at least roughly consistent with what other family members would say" (Stone, 1988, p. 34).

Membership in the Siri family seems to provide a foundation for unity, and a medium by which the stories are given meaning. Stone (1988) calls stories "the medium that keep [members] afloat with significance, the agent that thickens the air in our midst with meaning" (p. 243). When stories are shared, they become a connection between individual family members and the group (Rosenwald & Ochberg, 1992). Many Siri family members stated that, "[The stories] are meaningful to me because I was a part of it." Membership was illustrated through stories as doing things together:

All members stressed the importance of their membership in the Siri family, even those members who were not emotionally feeling very good about the family at that particular time, or even towards members they thought wouldn’t feel that attachment. However, when a member does not feel a connection to the story – or stories – they feel separated from each other:

It is apparent that group membership is a pivotal part of family dynamics. When one is included, a strong sense of identity is developed and nurtured. Even with no help from family members, a sense of exclusion can be nurtured because an individual does not share a common experience in certain stories – even though others do not exclude you.

It is important to remember that people create their lives within a web of connection to others (Josselon, 1992). Researchers Baxter and Clark (1996) study family communication patterns in family rituals. Although most definitions of rituals in this context are specific to events such as holidays and regular family celebrations, a general definition of this term may relate to the family dynamics in this study. It states that a ritual is "a symbolic form of communication that is enacted systematically and repeatedly over time and which holds special meaning for family members" (Baxter & Clark, 1996).

Scholars argue that family rituals strengthen and maintain attachment and bonding among family members, producing and reproducing a family’s sense of identity (Baxter & Clark, 1996; Reiss, 1981). The Siri family – over and over – mentioned the importance of family, the importance of doing things together, and the importance of communicating to one another. Therefore, the stories become part of the forum – or family ritual – for which they find these attachments. A family member summed this up by saying, "You can hear funny stories about people and think they are funny, but if you know you are related I guess it does put a little more emphasis and a little more connection to it."

In addition, this study fell into a unique timeline within the Siri family because it began just after an elder had died (Silvio’s wife, Camille – Mom or Grandma to family members). As I have stated before, storytelling seemed to increase as a result of Grandma’s death, and the awareness of the importance of the stories was heightened both from her death and from participation in this research. Within the telling of the stories, emphasis on family and group membership was mixed with the realization that there was a weak link in communication at this point in time. That climate produced many different accounts of miscommunication and hurt feelings during this study:

A family member comments on communication and the importance of the family as a whole unit:

Thus, the emphasis is on the Siri family as a collective group that needs to deal with interpersonal issues as a whole group. Again, the emphasis is on the importance of family, the importance of doing things together, and the importance of communicating with one another.

"That’s what we do when we get together, we laugh and we eat, and we talk loud!" Part of the dynamics of group membership is doing things together and experiencing things together – forming a common bond. A family member describes it as this:

Generally, words that Siri family members used to describe their meaning of family included: a support system, a place to belong, responsibility, benefits, acceptance, and love. "The big thing is that they are a very, very close family…and they do a lot of things together," states a member who has married into the Siri family.

My difficulty during the interview process was establishing exactly what being a close family means to each Siri family member. Phrases like "standing by each other, looking out for each other," and "knowing it’s important to hear from people, doing things together, keeping in touch" were frequently used. However, the most significant answer to this came in the form of criticism of another member: "The family is very important to all of them, including Chris" (no emphasis added). As with every family, relationships are mixed with negative emotions that result from miscommunication and hurt feelings. Here, even in the worst of situations, family togetherness was a value that all members shared – and recognized. Family togetherness became a theme within the stories, as family members recalled events in which members were – or were not – present. A family member states:

The recollection of stories seems to bring the family together in ways that every-day communication may not (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Galvin & Brommel, 1996).

This strong emphasis on family membership and togetherness suggests a direct link to traditional Italian values (see Chapter II). Like all cultures, a family’s job is to persuade its members that they are special (Stone, 1988). This consists of stories demonstrating admirable traits, which it claims are family traits. The second research question in this study was does being Italian-American play a significant role in storytelling practices? The answer appeared as themes in the stories as values:

• Hard-working – "a sense of making sure the job gets done."

• Laughter – "I’d know a Siri laugh anywhere."
• Having fun – "we just do it to laugh."

• Supportive – "no matter what happens you’ll always be family."
• Doing things for each other – "though you know they want to do what they want."

• Being who you are – "without any apologies or excuses."

• Honesty – "sometimes to the extent of being brutal."

I added the quotes at the end of each value because they show how defining they become to the Siri family. Stone (1988) states that:

These attributes were repetitively listed when asked, appeared in stories, and were emphasized when discussing Italian heritage. The persuasion – that the family is special – comes from stories showing family members demonstrating admirable traits, which it claims are family traits (Stone, 1988).

This persuasion also comes from an understanding of Italian-American values. Traditional Italian values emphasize the significance of the family and its interaction as fun, honest, and boisterous. As well, the immigrant experience emphasizes the hard-working and supportive elements (Alba, 1985; Belliotti, 1995; Gambino, 1974; Iorizzo & Mondello, 1971). These traits, through stories and every day communication, are visible to the social world as well. A member who is not biologically a Siri – one of those outsiders – states:

During the discussion of those traits in the group interview, members discussed whether or not those traits are true for all or most of the family members. The Siri family decided that they were, and although truthfulness is a valid concern in storytelling, attention to the stories’ actual truth is never the family’s most compelling consideration. Encouraging belief is (Stone, 1988). To the Siri family, stories contain truths of value – lessons to be learned – and not necessarily the facts as they happened. Values run like threads through the stories, as described by one family member:

Why do values appear in storytelling? It seems that they provide the structure – or pattern – for which members think other members should act. These values become the ideal, whether obvious or covert in stories, that the family as a group has for itself. The stories serve as a definition – important instructions to, and ground rules for, its members – of what each member ought to be like. They implicitly lay down the rules about what family members should do for each other and how they should act (Rosenwald & Ochberg, 1992; Stone, 1988).

These values are woven through the network of stories as they are told within the Siri family. Themes are revealed in the telling of the stories, as in the following story about Nono, the member who immigrated from Italy:

This story was one that most Siri family members wanted to hear because it was a defining part of a member’s life – Silvio Siri, the patriarch:

He relays another story soon after this story about his work ethic:

Some stories showed their uniqueness because they embodied several of the above values in extreme ways, or that they explained the reasoning behind some of the values. Here is one family member describing Nono:

This story helps illustrate some of the values demonstrated within other stories told by Siri family members. Sometimes there were only basic elements of a story that would help encompass a personality or value. The following two stories help illustrate this point:

These stories illustrate how values are demonstrated through the stories, and how those traits or values are attributed to Siri family members. At this juncture, it seems to me that there are certain values that are more heavily weighted than others. These seem to be the values that show up in most of the stories – or at least are the stories that show up the most. Not that there is a hierarchical system of values in the Siri family, but that some are more important in the development of the Siri family identity. Within the family system, values and traits are a defining part of who the members are. Storytelling becomes the vehicle by which identities are created and maintained – self in context, as discussed before. This process is transactional because it is occurring simultaneously, always creating, and always maintaining (McCall & Simmons, 1966).

To the outsider, those traits may not be significant, but to the family member they have become part of the family itself and inseparable from the group as a whole. This is demonstrated by a comment by a family member during the group interview. During a time of storytelling about various personality traits like temperament and attitude, a dialogue ends with:

Member One: So in that generation, tempers ran kind of high.

Member Two: Yes.

Member Three: In that generation? Like we’re different!

The stories seem cyclical: stories serve as lessons which emphasize the values, which are displayed through the stories, which are used as examples to again emphasize the values:

Many of the Siri family values appeared through stories about Nono, who immigrated to America and essentially is the ‘beginning’ of the Siri family. The following narrative includes both a link to the value of the stories, and to the lessons learned which are passed down through the stories:

This excerpt is a good example of the typical thought process of Siri family members as they think about – sometimes for the first time – the link between stories and identity. Usually, stories included a link between what the story is about and what it tells other family members about themselves. Through the above contexts, the Siri family indirectly answered the general question of this study: how the Siri family views their identity through storytelling practices. A more direct answer to this question came in the form of roles.

All children in all families stumble into their designated roles, but through family stories they are coached and encouraged, and they often grow into their role so that it becomes a true representation of our selves – our identity. Stone (1988) states that family stories are "meant less to fix family members in arbitrary or rigid roles than to provide cohesiveness and a sense of belonging" (p. 35). This is true in one sense. A family member echoes:

However, there was more to this process than knowing where you came from. One family member stated it another way:

A member explains it as values, roles, and lessons to be learned:

Another member gets more specific and articulates the purpose of storytelling is in part performed to develop relational roles within the Siri family:

Another states:

And another:

This role-building – or identity process – seems two-fold:

In this narrative, we see the importance of family membership and togetherness, and the importance of stories in the development of identity through roles. What happens when a family member is at the same time trying to be an important, pertinent part of the family system, and trying to be an individual? If the stories help establish roles within the family structure, where does individuality fit in? A family member explains:

Later on in the interview, that member went into more depth and stated that this "causes most of us to know each other less," but that:

It seems that a member’s role within the family out-weighs the importance of individuality – forsaking self for the benefit of the group (Stone, 1988). Family members may have no more in common with each other than they do with neighbors or coworkers. The fact that they almost always keep their connections no matter what, means someone has been doing something to make sure that these connections survive (Stone, 1988).

The fourth research question asked: how might family units use storytelling to develop an identity in relationship to society? This question was answered indirectly. Many members discussed their relationships with other families – both Italian and non-Italian – and gave insights to their interaction. It was evident that there was some sort of comparison going on. This seemed to be as a reflection of who the Siri family is, how they are viewed:

Many members linked the same feelings with their Italian heritage to family membership, stating that it was "the same thing." When asked about their relationship to society, most Siri family members indirectly stated differences between them – as Italians – and others – as Americans. A member states this difference:

A number of studies have shown an increase in ethnic identification among white Americans. This dualism is viewed as a state of mind, not necessarily of nurture (Nagel, 1994). This state of mind creates different levels of understanding and meaning among the Siri family members. One is of a sense of history and belonging:

Even as viewed from family members married into the family:

It also stimulates reflection and a sense of carrying on that mindset:

The sense of being Italian as part of an identity requires a sense of being an other – someone different than others – an external comparison (Nagel, 1994). It is something that "best denotes our inescapable dependence on the past. What we inherit is integral to our being. Without [a sense of ethnic identity] we could neither function now nor plan ahead" (Gillis, 1994, p. 43). In many ways this was translated into communicative behaviors with the Siri family – style and language. The style reflected a sense of what type of communication should occur, which was then compared to the society around them:

David Lowenthal (Gillis, 1994) discusses identity in relationship to society as "exclusive to us, our past is unlike anyone else’s. Its uniqueness vaunts our own superiority. Admirers may fruitfully adopt our legacy, but priority gives us prime rights to it…it differentiates us; we treasure most what sets us apart" (emphasis not added, p. 47).

Another common theme was ethnicity as an excuse. All of the Siri family members who were married into the family reflected a common view that the Siri family used their Italian ethnicity as an excuse to communicate in certain ways. The following is an excerpt from several members tied together in one narrative:

This is interesting because it makes a link between ethnicity and identity in ways that reflect certain values. To the Siri family, direct and loud communication is valued, whereas in other families it is inappropriate. The fact that many Siri family members do not adapt their communication styles, and that they use their Italian ethnicity as an excuse, is an important one.

It is important to remember that identity is performed through communication – that it is a meaning-making process (Fisher, 1987; Morris & Ehrenhaus, 1990; Stone, 1988). The fact that Siri family members use their ethnicity as a pattern for communicative behaviors emphasizes that they use communication as a way to distinguish themselves from others. This is part of that uniqueness (Stone, 1988) and is used not as a way of excluding others, but as a forum for each family member to participate in being a member and to feel a common bond (Braithwaite, 1990, Chapter 8). It is also used to help define them as a group that is separate from other family groups.

Storytelling was also used to help define the Siri family in relationship to other American families, as with the Cher Bono Story:

So, storytelling becomes a venue that defines the Siri family as an ethnic group, and as a group that compares itself outside of the family unit.

A large part of the Siri family’s identity is linked to their language – or lack thereof. As a group identifying themselves as Italian they are commonly asked, "Why don’t you know Italian then?" This ‘flaw’ in their identity became a common thread throughout the stories. Language became an attribute that all members felt a remorse for not learning. It is as if they are linking the loss of the language to a loss of a part of the family structure itself. A family member describes this in relationship to their identity, stating "It would probably mean a lot different if we were taught Italian when we were growing up…some of the Italian ways of doing things and so forth." As well, the family patriarch (Silvio) described his regret:

It seems that the language is linked both to family membership, cultural membership, and identity in relationship to society in general. However, there were good reasons that the Italian language was lost within the Siri family. At the time, Italian immigrants were not viewed the same as they are today (see Chapter II) and the conceptualization of what it meant to be American was viewed differently as well. The following account by one family member describes this process best:

It seems as if being an Italian-American to Siri family members means that there is an element of comparison between them and the society around them. The thread of Italian ethnicity is used in stories to both relate values and expectations, and to create a sense of cohesiveness as a separate unit within society (Stone, 1988).

Phrases stated by Siri family members – again and again – emphasized that stories are used to nurture identity. These stories also link each individual with the family’s past, present, and future members – to their traits, personality, and experiences. The stories contained expectations of behavior (Stone, 1988) like a self-fulfilling prophesy (Tubbs & Moss, 1994). We can "never be entirely self-invented. Our very deepest sense of our own identity is more a matter of conviction than a matter of fact. If we believe…on the strength of our convictions, we are likely to become so" (Stone, 1988, p. 167). The Siri family throughout the interviews displayed this type of self-fulfilling prophesy, stating things like "Nono was that way, so I must be too." This has been implied in many of the previous stories. Here are a few of those phrases from several family members:

Collectively, stories themselves link together a narrative that the Siri family uses to create meaning among the stories themselves, and in the potential behavior of each individual. Stories then, become both expectations of behavior and explanations of them.

Although I did not examine storytelling format in this study, it became an important element mentioned by Siri family members. As Stone (1988) states, and according to most of the Siri family members, the stories do seem to appear within everyday talk. "It usually happens whenever any of us are together. Just anybody will start one up," a member states, "[someone] might mention something that happened…and we’d go into a story about something. It just kind of snowballs from there." As for the format – or rules – for telling stories, it seems that humor and factual information are correlated. The single qualifying trait that gave members authority to tell the stories, or that a story would be told and re-told, was that of humor. The following is an excerpt from various members which has been put together in a single sequence:

Factual information seems valued, but the presentation and ‘personal spin’ on the stories themselves seem to outweigh facts in most instances. A story’s value derives, in part, from its appreciation as a performance. It is told and re-told on both the accuracy of the story, and the performance of it (Langellier, 1989; Morris & Ehrenhaus, 1990; Stone, 1988; Valentine & Valentine, 1992).

A member states, "Certain family members tend to, like any family, change the stories as they get passed around. Sometimes the family tends to start a story, and it doesn’t have to go very far before it is totally different. Just even a word can change." In some cases, these un-factual stories become stories themselves based solely on their entertainment value, as in the case of the Cher Bono Story. This story was mentioned by many family members as one which would need to be included in a list of "Siri Family Stories" and has been passed to family friends and acquaintances. The narrative of the story is similar to this account:

As a family member, I remember this event. It was Grandma who had actually mixed up the meaning of the words (tee time = tea time, Charbonneau = Cher Bono), and who had started passing that story around. We figured out her error fairly quickly, but the damage was already done and now the story was being passed around as entertainment instead of factual information. A member states, "I’ve told people the Cher Bono story, and they’ve told people and they’ve told people. People have said you could be a stand-up comedian with all of these stories." To the listeners, the stories can be an experience themselves – and become them so that they are passed on and on – representing the Siri family in a way to the external world around them.

Beyond the presentation style, a similar ‘format’ for the stories themselves became evident. There was one story in particular that was told or mentioned by several individuals – it was titled The Easter Sunday Boat Ride. It depicted a similar sequence of events that members usually used when telling a story:

1. a short description of who was present and who was not, and why;
2. detailed account of the story including voices, sound effects, and body/hand gestures;
3. a non-direct moral to the ending of the story which gave a lesson or meaning; and
4. a brief pause to reflect and make sure nothing was left out.

This format was particularly interesting because it always contained a ‘hidden’ meaning attached at or near the end. The following is an excerpt from a Boat Ride narrative:

This account strongly reflects the typical format for most of the stories told throughout this study. Presentation style became an important element when telling the stories, and in several instances members mentioned who told the best stories based on their styles. Some stories became important because it was the teller that made the story important because it is an account from the teller’s perspective, as well as how it is told. The following story is an important one within the Siri family, and was mentioned frequently by many members. It is told from that person’s perspective:

I had not planned on going into any detail about the story format because I was more interested in the meaning-making process. However, it became important as I interviewed the Siri family that it was an element that was intertwined within the meaning-making process. In further study, this would be an interesting subject to go into more depth.

Storytelling seems to do several things for the Siri family. First, the stories help build structure and a sense of belonging as a group. Second, they provide clues for behavior – how to act and why they act a certain way. Third, they help establish roles and ways of communicating. Lastly, they provide a sense of entertainment as well as a family archive for those to follow. Stone (1988) summarizes these by stating that "our meanings are almost always inseparable from stories. [O]nce again family stories, invisible as air, weightless as dreams, are there for us. To make our own meanings out of our myriad stories is to achieve balance" (p. 244).

The stories told during this research study are interesting because they give a brief picture of what storytelling means to the Siri family. This study sought to enhance understanding of (1) how individual family members may have used storytelling to construct personal identities, (2) how the Siri family used storytelling to develop a family identity, and (3) what meaning was generated from family members’ storytelling practices. The answers to the research questions (Chapter I) proved interesting and insightful. Although there were answers found, many more questions were generated throughout the study.

Often speakers feel rewarded because the dialogue has turned into an opportunity for understanding themselves more fully (Rosenwald, 1994). In Chapter Three I discussed how the interview process was transactional – that the interaction because of this study would create a reflective process among my family members. It became evident during the interviews that members began to think about what the stories mean to them for the first time:

Another member states:

This reflection also caused some members to consider past events and things they would like to change:

And another:

These reflections were unanticipated findings, and are a contribution to the ongoing discussion of qualitative research. As a field of study, this research can make meaning out of these statements and give them a place in the research project (as I have here). However, these reflections become a limitation of this study because of the problem of "dipping in and dipping out" (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). A long-term study that implements these types of reflection, while adding more clarification through the interview process, could greatly benefit the research community – as it seems to have with the Siri family.

As well, many interpersonal issues arose through the interview process. There were many different levels of interpersonal conflict and relationships discussed throughout the interview process. Because of both confidentiality and time constraints, it was difficult to go into depth on this subject. A limitation of this element is the same as above. It is difficult to have a full understanding of the dynamics of a particular family just by interviewing and observing members over a short period of time – even if the researcher is a member of that family, as I am.

Ideally, this research process would be conducted over a lifetime. Because of the relatively short time spent gathering data, an accurate picture of the Siri family in relationship to the research is not available. Because the data were analyzed through themes, there was a sense of this information is a picture of the Siri family for this period of time. However, as a researcher I need to consider themes as emergent and changeable in their meaning and desirability to individuals over their lifetime (Luborsky, 1994). The reliance on my own ability to thematize the interviews and make sense of them is a threat to the validity of this study (Seidman, 1991). Rosenwald (1992) states:

The point in time for this research study was important – it came just after my grandmother died. I had to ask myself throughout this study: What if Grandma hadn’t died? How might the answers be different? It is easy to conclude that things may have been very different, and that my interpretation of the data was contextualized within that point in time (Lindlof, 1996; Lofland & Lofland, 1995).

I had my own personal biases that may have hindered how and what type of data I received. For example, a first interview with one of my family members proved to be enlightening because I had expected him to give brief answers, not going into any depth. His responses were opposite of my expectations. My second interview with him was less fruitful. How might these interactions have affected my interpretation of the data? That question is not easy to answer, but I am sure that with every member of the Siri family my biases shaped the way in which we interacted.

Another unfortunate weakness is that some of the interview transcripts were not usable because the recorded quality was bad. I could not make out most of those interviews, thus a lot of that data was lost. I tried to reschedule some of those interviews, but they did not occur for various reasons. This lost data lessens the richness of the available data in some way.

The last interview – in group format – was attended by only a handful of Siri family members. This became a limitation because there were many voices not represented. As a researcher, I believe that my data would have been richer if more family members were present (Lindlof, 1996). I don’t know how I could have prevented this element since it would be difficult to force family members to participate.

As well, there were limitations based on external reasons:

• Various family members were dealing with interpersonal conflict with each other.
• Family members may not have revealed all they could because of my interpersonal connection to the family.
• Interviews were not conducted in ideal proximity to each other.

Therefore, human error is a built-in limitation which affects the results of any study. In retrospect, it is easy to define what I would have changed. These limitations have altered this study in ways that may not be evident at this time. As well, it is certain that the exact study replicated in the Siri family again – and most importantly, in another family – would not produce the same results (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

The strength of this study, which was built into the research method, was that there were three sets of interviews (Seidman, 1991). This allowed me to get a better sense of the context behind certain answers, and to clarify unclear topics. Because of this, I was able to find some answers that I may not have found had I only done one interview – or I may have had additional unanswered questions (as in the importance of the Siri family name).

The two separate interviews before the group interview became a strong asset to the data gathering process. From those two interviews I created a handout to give each family member at the group interview. This handout included a brief family timeline and a list of the stories (see Appendix I). This artifact became a catalyst for discussion that lasted two hours. A family member comments on the handout:

Including this element into the group interview became an effective interviewing tool which resulted in a lot of rich data (Seidman, 1991). These stories helped answer some of the research questions that were not answered in interview form.

Beyond the limitations of this study, the richness of what is available implies some important aspects between the relationship of storytelling and identity within families. First, it is clear that storytelling in many ways is a meaning-making process which affects each individual’s identity within a particular family. In chapter two I defined identity as the conceptualization of self, which is primarily an unconscious process – a metaphor for self in context. Identity, in this study, concerns itself with how I am perceived by others, and how I perceive myself. This process became evident through storytelling in the Siri family, and it grew and developed through communication and interaction. Within the stories themselves, themes allowed me to understand the interaction process within the Siri family. The themes that appeared throughout the interviews and stories which helped to answer some of the research questions included: ethnicity, language, group membership, and values. They provided insight into the Siri family dynamics and helped to understand identity in relationship to other contexts.

This raises issues about the understanding of family and identity. It became evident that the Siri family linked identity (roles) with storytelling in a way that defined their interaction with one another. Individual members were known by a particular story. And, as in the case of the Cher Bono story, the Siri family identity was externally mirrored through the telling and re-telling of the story by unrelated tellers. This implies that the relationship between identity and storytelling may be a significant one because it helps define and regulate interaction among members, and it helps establish an external frame of reference with which to measure behavior.

Further study into these themes may prove insightful by gaining more understanding of how they interrelate and affect each other, if they are hierarchical. A benefit would also be to conduct the research over a longer period of time.

Second, as a meaning-making process, it is clear that storytelling provides a framework for behavior within the Siri family – establishing communicative and interpersonal roles within the family structure. These roles become a defining part of each individual’s identity, even when trying to change those roles. Further study would benefit by looking into how roles are formed through storytelling, and what happens when members refuse to act within those roles. As well, a comparison study between two different families might prove insightful in order to emphasize possible differences or similarities between families.

Lastly, throughout this study it was implied that this research process would be important to the Siri family members – that they would benefit and be very curious about this study. In fact, they were. Two common things occurred during the interview process:

1. Most members wanted to know what other members were saying. This was exemplified by several members who wanted to be in the same room while another was being interviewed. They wanted to hear the stories. They implied that they had not heard them, and that the stories were something important for them to hear.
2. Every member stated that "I think it is great that you are doing this" and "You are going to have to give everyone a copy." To them, it was a wonderful thing that I was doing, they wanted to be a part of it, and they wanted to have a written account to keep for the future – to pass on.

These emphasize the emotional element that is attached to storytelling and to the desire to pass on something that is important to future generations. One family member asked me, "Are you guys going to hang out together? It doesn’t look like it. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for you to do that. We grew up playing with all of those guys, but you didn’t. I think that is the sad thing." This member was talking about my generation (cousins) and the importance of carrying on the stories and the traditions – like getting together for Christmas, reunions, meals, and parties. We – the cousins – don’t do much together. Ten years from now, what will the Siri family dynamics be? How will the stories have passed on? These questions reveal the significance and dynamics of storytelling and families. As well, there is now a deposit of stories for the Siri family to go to and build upon. This research will be used to pass on tradition in a new way.

Because of this study, my own view of identity, family, and storytelling has changed. My definition of identity has not changed, but has gotten more complex. It is still a metaphor for self-in-context, but the process of defining and explaining self has become more difficult. If storytelling is used to establish roles and behavior, how does one change those stories (those roles) as one member had tried? Why does that change become important? Why did she give up? Must she give up? These are new questions for me as a researcher.

I have also heightened my awareness of stories and the power they possess. They seem to link families together in ways that are complex and mysterious, yet are so basic to the daily communication within the family system. I find myself not taking stories for granted and asking more questions about them. I find other family members doing this also. It has also become important for me to document all the stories told during this research process in another format so that they can be shared and added to by other family members – even to members in Italy! The curiosity and earnest interest in the American Siri family stories by the Siri family in Italy emphasizes the continual importance that families place in storytelling as a mode of documenting the identity of the family and its individual members. The importance placed on storytelling is clear, the method and dynamics of it is not. That becomes the mystery in this study.

It has been my intention to examine storytelling within the Siri family through interviewing, artifacts, and personal experience. My overall question has been: does storytelling help construct our identities? I have tried to answer this question in as much depth as I am able at this point in my life. For the most part, the process has been both enlightening and challenging. I have heard far many stories than I probably would have in any normal situation. As well, I have developed closer relationships with family members because of my interaction with them. At the very least, this process has been very defining for my own identity. I have in my possession many stories about Nono, my great-grandfather who immigrated to America, and about other Siri family members. I have some external perspective because of the reflections I have heard from other family members during the interviews. In addition, I have more questions – more stories I want to hear. This process has helped me feel like I am producing both a scholarly work and a family archive. It has been challenging to keep my focus and not spend an enormous amount of time off-track.

In all, I believe this study has contributed in both academic and personal realms. I believe I have provided some qualitative answers to add to the narrative paradigm, however small that contribution may be. I have challenged myself as a researcher, to do a good job, and to understand ethnography at a deeper level. This process has been a growing experience for me in these ways, as well as interpersonally.

I would like to end by quoting a poem I wrote at the very beginning of my pursuit:

Herein lies the foundation of my pursuit, and the path that will take me on more.

For Appendicies, References, or other information, contact the author at: