1. NOVELLA Family lives in the past, present and future Research Node

2. Aims to understand:  The complexity of the everyday.  Intersection between individual/agent and social structures in the habitual practices of family and personal lives.  Disconnect between what people say and what they do.  Mixed-methods approach.

3. Commonalities between Cathy’s paper and Novella projects  Rupture as productive of narratives  Migration; war; environmental difficulties  Multi-level disjunctions between what’s said and done/felt–story finished, then restarted; absences  ‘Turn to language’ – what’s said is performative.  Different sources to gain understandings of food practices in a particular historical period - direct and indirect.  Different methods to see the ‘doing’ of family practices & negotiation of accounts and complexity from different viewpoints.  Insights into emotional engagement.  Analysis of contradictions, absences etc. 3

4. Commonalities between Cathy’s paper and Novella projects  Temporality and rethinking narrative  Insights into how time is retrospectively narrated as vivid memories at some points and vividness of past in the present.  Anticipations of the future.  Identity practices – Cathy as woman who works out & packs her bag; patient; Recipes for Mothering—identity claims; narrator’s perspective.  Who is the audience?  Who is centred in the narrative—’peripheral characters’? What are the absences?  Relationality and family practices–  Identity claims through invoking realtionships; putting boundaries around family as a family practice 4

5. Commonalities between Cathy’s paper and Novella projects  Nature of narrative/chronicle— debate, e.g. Linda Sandino  What constitutes the everyday? The habitual?  Cathy’s narrative shows the creation of the habitual in process and the disruption of the everyday  Each project focuses on he everyday.  Researcher reflexivity—using own lives as data—disciplinary practices –e.g. Catherine Walker and Joe Winter 5

6. Examples of different forms of secondary analysis / Reuse of data 6 Asking new questions of already-existing data (Heaton, 2004) Devising ways of linking data Crafting new forms of narrative analysis (Andrews et al., 2013) Avoiding methodological dogma about narratives No necessary link between epistemology and method. Multiple levels from which narratives are produced: different research participants; primary researchers and Novella researchers What constitutes re- use of data/secondary analysis is not straightforward. How the past is remembered and what is included as family history relates to feelings in the everyday present and anticipations of the future

7. 7 Meanings are negotiated within social contexts and social positioning  Practices ‘capture’ different family members (c.f. Shove et al., 2012).  Case-based narrative methods in conjunction with the other methods show complexities of differences and commonalities in everyday practices.  Macro and meso issues are evident in families' everyday local, micro, habitual practices  Often visible when there is a disjunction between the normative and personal/family lives.  Processes of subjectification to family stories is psychosocial