Madison (2003) wrote extensively regarding the tension between the “cynics” and the “zealots.” On one end of the spectrum, cynics believe that researchers can never know what it is like to walk in the shoes of the research participants. Consequently, any attempt to speak for others will be inaccurate, as their truths are unattainable. On the other end of the spectrum, zealots believe that they assume the identities of others and speak for them, just as one speaks for herself. This makes it difficult to interrogate the (in)equitable distributions of power that exist between researchers, participants, and audiences. Without a critical examination, zealots may not pause to reflect on the consequences of their actions when speaking for others. As with most paradoxical situations, the best option is to engage in critical discourse that creates balance between both perspectives based on all contextual factors.

            The nature of discourse adds to the challenge of speaking for others. Greene (1988) wrote, “Thought, after all, grows through language; without thought or “freedom in relation to what one does,” there is little desire to appear among others and speak in one’s own voice” (p. 3). This means that the “language of power” (Foucault, 1980) and the extent to which the written word is privileged (Madison, 2003, p. 470) have implications for the language that participants use when sharing their stories as well as their degree of comfort when sharing. When researchers do not navigate these pitfalls, they risk silencing participants instead of providing opportunities for participants to share their thoughts and stories through language (Fine, 2003). Any researcher working with marginalized populations has moral and ethical obligations to attend to the tension between language and power to ensure that participant stories are accurate and that participants are not further marginalized or exploited.

With the many challenges that researchers face with narrative inquiry, it is a wonder that researchers continue to employ it as a research methodology. Fortunately, using a critical philosophical stance and specific methodological practices can mediate narrative challenges. By doing so, researchers can permeate the boundaries between self and others while honoring both at the same time (Patton, 2002).