As I work on my project proposal, I'm beginning to have very serious questions.
I'm starting to uncover family stories, but I'm also digging into the facts (dates, certificates, publications, etc.) that complicate the stories. For instance, I hear that Relative X was doing ABC with Relative Y; however, according to the obituary of Relative X, this is impossible. Do I then write about the facts? Do I ignore the facts and write down the story? Do I write them both down side-by-side and let my readers (including family) decide what they want to? What are the consequences of all three methods of "delivering" my family history?
And what if this sort of thing happens as I begin my service learning project? The people with whom I'll be working won't be my family, they won't know me, so how do I handle these inconsistencies?
I guess this all comes down to issues of truth. But I don't want my family history project to be centered around fact-as-truth. I want my deliverable to be a rich narrative, not a dry report. How well can I integrate narrative and report styles with my visuals? What do I say about the gaps and overlaps when it all comes together?
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In some ways this is an "issue of truth" but I think what interests ME more about it is those very inconsistencies and how/why they occur. We've been taught that truth is inherent within text... what do we do, then, when texts contradict each other or what we know or believe to be true? I think that any surmising we do about the contradictions is what makes research so rich and interesting and potentially beneficial to outsiders. :)
ReplyDelete