Why Diaries?

The concepts of ‘the doubting game’ and ‘the believing game’, originally developed by Peter Elbow (1973) as analytical methods for literary criticism and later applied by Larsen-Freeman (1983) to theories of second language acquisition, are reviewed once more by Kathleen Bailey (1991), with respect to her diary studies. Fundamentally, the doubting game ‘emphasises objectivity – the separation of self (the subject) from the object under investigation’ and ‘takes a critical, questioning stance toward evidence and conclusions drawn from the data’. The believing game ‘emphasises [that] a model of knowing as an act of constructing, an act of investment, an act of involvement’ is ‘an act of self-insertion, self-involvement – an act of projection’ and ‘is built on the idea that the self cannot be removed: complete objectivity is impossible’ (Elbow, 1973: 148–49, 172–73).

Resonant with Grumet’s (1990) writing about the usefulness of narrative research as a counterpoint to quantitative studies is Bailey’s (1991: 65) assertion regarding both the possibility and the value of first-person narrative as a tool in SLA research. In the diary-study method, ‘the subject becomes the object: we conduct (and read) diary studies to understand language learning as seen by the learners’. Bailey argues persuasively for the use of personal writing as a tool for research into language learning:

I would argue that the diary studies are absolutely essential to advancing our understanding of classroom language learning. At the present time we are working with an unrefined tool to craft an only dimly understood representation of language learning. Properly done, the diary studies can provide us with important missing pieces in this incredibly complex mosaic – pieces that may not be fully accessible by any other means.