Summary Evaluation: From Haystacks to Meaning II

From Haystacks to Meaning II: Informing the Methodological Toolbox

Jeff McCarthy

Athabasca University

MAIS 602

Dr. Lisa Micheelsen

Unit 4 Revised Summary and Evaluation

April 6, 2026

Building on my earlier reflections in From Haystacks to Meaning, I arrived at a methodological approach firmly positioned in philosophical hermeneutics, supported by Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), and strengthened by content and text analysis.  This reflects a deliberate shift away from extracting surface-level themes toward interpreting how meaning is constructed, experienced, and preserved within complex crisis response systems.

I have anchored my methodological approach with the verb ‘narrativize’, which I define as the act of transforming fragmented, often incoherent or unheard elements of crisis response into a coherent narrative that can be understood and learned from.  MAIS 602 helped me move away from trying to find meaning (needles) in the haystacks toward understanding how those haystacks are constructed in the first place.

As the course progressed, the introduction of additional interdisciplinary methodologies did not displace this foundation but added nuance and useful contingencies.  These approaches do not fundamentally alter my interpretive position; rather, they sharpen it and provide ‘tools’ that may be drawn upon as needed.  What follows is a further reflection on those methodologies most relevant to my research question: How do public systems document and learn from complex crises, and what does this reveal about institutional memory and leadership practice?

 Core Methodological Tools

Making and Assembling

Making and assembling (Fensham & Heller-Nicholas, 2018) emphasizes that meaning emerges through the arrangement and integration of disparate elements.  This resonates strongly with my research.  After-action reports, policy documents, media narratives, and personal accounts are not standalone pieces; they are assembled into institutional narratives that attempt to explain crisis events.

In this sense, these documents are not simply assembled; they are ‘narrativized’ or shaped into coherent accounts reflecting particular perspectives, priorities, and challenges.  However, while this approach helps explain how narratives are constructed, it does not shift my methodology.  My focus remains on interpreting how these assembled narratives are produced and what they reveal or hide. Making and assembling, therefore, reinforces, rather than replaces, my hermeneutic position.

Archiving

Archiving (Duranti, 2018) is perhaps the most directly relevant methodology I’ve explored.  Archives are not neutral repositories but constructed records shaped by institutional processes, power, and omission.  From this perspective, archiving itself becomes an act of ‘narrativizing’, where decisions about what is preserved or excluded shape the institutional story that can later be told.

This aligns closely with my evolving concept of after-action reports potentially being “silent archives.”  Archiving does not replace hermeneutics but strengthens it, providing a solid foundation for examining what is recorded, what is omitted, and how institutional memory is constructed.  It allows me to approach AARs not as complete records, but as curated, selective and subjective narratives.

Digging

Digging (Parikka, 2018) reinforces my interest in what lies beneath official narratives.  It aligns with my concept of silent archives, where the most meaningful leadership dynamics often exist outside formal documentation.

If ‘narrativizing’ reflects how official stories are constructed, then digging therefore becomes essential for uncovering what has been left out.  It provides the conceptual basis to examine informal decision-making, tensions, and omissions that shape crisis response but rarely appear in official records.  Like archiving, digging strengthens my approach without replacing it.

Timing

Timing (Adam, 2018) highlights how events are sequenced and later reconstructed.  This is highly relevant, as after-action reports are retrospective and shaped by hindsight.  Timing allows me to examine not only what is documented, but when and under what conditions.

As with archiving, timing functions as an analytical lense.  It adds depth to my interpretation by revealing how narratives evolve or devolve over time and how retrospective framing influences what is ultimately remembered and especially how it is framed.

Affective Analysis

Affective analysis (Marks, 2018) introduces the role of emotion and embodiment in shaping understanding.  This is particularly relevant to crisis leadership.  Decisions made under stress, fear, chaos and this level of uncertainty surely cannot be fully understood through documents alone.

This approach complements IPA by sharpening attention to all the way to emotions and embodied experience.  It does not replace my methodology but does hone my thinking, particularly toward the need to interpret how leaders experience crisis emotionally and later narrativize their crisis decision-making.

Contextual and Supporting Approaches

Other methodologies introduced in Unit 4 offer valuable context but remain secondary to my approach.

Engaging and distributing (Lammes, 2018) suggests that knowledge is produced through interaction across networks of people, technologies, and institutions.  This aligns with my understanding that crisis response does not reside within a single authority, but emerges through relationships, coordination, and shared sensemaking among actors navigating complexity in real time.  In this regard, crisis response is continually ‘narrativized’ across these interactions rather than produced in a single location.

Similarly, disrupting (Akama & Pink, 2018) reinforces the importance of unsettling taken-for-granted assumptions.  While not a primary method for my study, it aligns with my interpretive interrogation of after-action reports and their de facto authority as institutional narratives and official records of decision-making.

These approaches do not directly guide my methodology, but they enhance my understanding of the context in which knowledge and lessons are produced and later interpreted.

Conclusion: A Strengthened but Stable Approach

Reflecting on my initial position in Unit 3, I have not shifted away from my core methodological approach.  MAIS 602 has instead clarified and strengthened that position.  The verb ‘narrativize’ continues to anchor my approach, supported by philosophical hermeneutics and Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis.  Together, these allow me to examine whether fragmented experiences, documents, and decisions are transformed into coherent institutional narratives post-crisis.

The additional methodologies explored in Unit 4 do not redirect my approach, but deepen it. They offer reinforcement and methodological contingencies rather than outright replacement.  Archiving, timing, digging, and affective analysis, in particular, strengthen my ability to examine how crises are ‘narrativized’, including what is celebrated, what is left out completely, and how meaning is decoded, preserved and later implemented within institutional memory.

In this regard, I return to the metaphor that shaped my earlier reflection.  I am no longer overwhelmed by the haystacks, nor simply searching for meaning within them.  Instead, I am now more attuned to how those haystacks are constructed, what they contain, and, perhaps most importantly, what they leave out.

References:

Adam, B. (2018). Timing. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 217–218). Routledge.

Ayres, C., & Bissell, D. (2018). Suspending. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, L. T. Smith, & E. McKenzie (Eds.),

The Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 76–80). Routledge.

Coleman, R. (2018). Imaging. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Routledge.

Duranti, L. (2018). Archiving. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 160–166). Routledge.

Green, J. (2018). Sand drawing. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Routledge.

Jellis, T. (2018). Experimenting. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 53–56). Routledge.

Lammes, S. (2018). Engaging and distributing. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last,

M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Routledge.

Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). (2018).

Routledge handbook of  interdisciplinary research methods. Routledge.

Marks, L. U. (2018). Affective analysis. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last,

M.  Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 152–157). Routledge.

Parikka, J. (2018). Digging. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 261–267). Routledge.

Sicart, M. (2018). Playing with ethics. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.),     Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 183–186). Taylor & Francis Group.