Emerging Strategies for Engaging Vulnerable Populations in Research with the Life Graph with Cards Method

• In Event: When We Unforget Trauma, Developmental Accountability Becomes Possible

Abstract

Objectives/Purpose
This paper aims to identify and define strategies used by researchers and participants in Life Graph with Cards Method (LGCM) interviews. This analysis is part of a broader study with currently or recently unhoused individuals, examining how participants use LGCM features to overcome challenges in autobiographical memory, including fragmentation, overgeneralization, and disruptions to temporal sequencing. This study generates practical insights for researchers using life course tools with vulnerable populations when recall challenges complicate narrative construction.

Theoretical framework
This paper is grounded in narrative identity theory, which posits that people construct their life story through an internalized and ever-evolving understanding of their experiences, as well as socio-economic and cultural factors (McAdams, 2011). Narrative construction relies on autobiographical memory systems, which are shaped by cognitive, emotional, and environmental factors, and are central to life course research. Trauma is known to affect cognitive processing, as well as autobiographical recall (Ehlers & Clark, 2000) therefore, a trauma-informed framework is applied by emphasizing participant safety and agency throughout data collection and analysis.

Methods
This is a qualitative secondary analysis of six exemplar life graphs from a broader LGCM study with currently or recently unhoused individuals in a Western state. The present study used a modified grounded theory approach (Creswell & Poth, 2018) and Gilligan’s (2017) Listening Method. Data were coded inductively, using iterative memoing and process coding to capture participant and researcher strategies that supported memory retrieval, as well as narrative and/or life graph construction.

Data Sources & Materials
Data include completed life graphs, researcher field notes, and audio recordings from LGCM interviews during the broader study. In those interviews, lasting 75-90 minutes, life graphs were constructed, rearranged, and confirmed as the best depiction of participants’ life course, as they understood it. Questions regarding each risk factor card were asked and answered. Analyzed life graphs were purposively selected, based on participant feedback on their interview experience, and/or notable challenges during the life graphing process. Analysis centered on interactions with the Life Graph Cards during interviews, narrative moves, and verbal cues.

Results
Seven strategies supporting cognitive processing, temporal sequencing, and participant agency were identified and defined: grouping, reordering, anchoring, adaptive labeling, self-protecting, debrief & reflect, and sensory engagement. While some strategies were participant-led, others emerged in co-construction with the researcher. These strategies reflect how participants and researchers navigated memory challenges and narrative construction during LGCM use, enhancing data trustworthiness, and participant agency. Findings indicate that some strategies require careful researcher responsiveness, as well as future research on trauma-informed methodologies when working with vulnerable populations.

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
This research contributes to the methodological development of life course interviewing and LGCM by providing practical, trauma-informed strategies for research with vulnerable populations. By centering participant agency and naming specific strategies that scaffold narrative construction, the study offers guidance for researchers seeking to collect rigorous, ethically grounded data from populations with autobiographical memory challenges and histories of adversity.

Authors

• Ana Beard, University of Montana - Missoula

• Krista L. Goldstine-Cole, University of Montana

• Siwen Zhang Minero, University of Montana