Understanding organizational context requires an approach that captures both the richness of stories and the structure of quantitative data. The self-signified narrative method — where storytellers code their own stories through closed questions — offers a unique concurrent mixed method design that honors both depth and analytical rigor. Stories as Self-Coded Data Unlike traditional mixed methods where quantitative and qualitative data are collected through separate instruments, this approach integrates both within a single collection moment. After sharing their narrative, storytellers themselves answer closed questions about their own story. As Cynthia Kurtz explains in Working with Stories (2014), this self-signification process respects the storyteller’s interpretation while creating structured, analyzable data. The Method in Practice The concurrent collection works as follows: 1. Narrative elicitation — The storyteller shares their experience in their own words 2. Self-signification — The storyteller then answers closed questions about their story, which may include: ∙ Scale questions (e.g., “How much control did you feel in this situation?” rated 1-10) ∙ List selections (e.g., “Which factors influenced this outcome?” with predefined options) ∙ Triangle or matrix questions (e.g., positioning the story along multiple dimensions simultaneously) This approach ensures that the context of both the story and the storyteller is systematically explored. The storyteller — not the researcher — codes the narrative, preserving authenticity while generating quantitative data. Why Self-Signification Matters Kurtz emphasizes that “people are experts on their own experience” (Kurtz, 2014, p. 89). When storytellers code their own stories, several advantages emerge: ∙ Authenticity preserved — The meaning-making remains with the person who lived the experience ∙ Context captured — Closed questions can explore dimensions that might not emerge spontaneously in the narrative

How do we create a church where everyone feels welcome, heard, and safe? In our congregation, we explored that question through a short but powerful initiative: a “Quick Dive” into social safety. We formed a small team focused on recognizing complexity and launched a storytelling brigade. Over just a few weeks, we gathered personal stories from members—stories of comfort and unease, of feeling embraced and feeling overlooked. Not statistics, but lived experiences. Not judgment, but deep listening. Four key insights emerged: - 🧭 Connection thrives where people feel seen and known. - 🛟 Trust grows when concerns are taken seriously. - 🕯️ Space matters—both physical and relational. - 🌱 Healing begins with acknowledging what hurts. These insights led to tangible steps: a clear point of contact for concerns, more intentional moments of connection, and open conversations about difficult experiences. But more importantly, we’ve sparked a culture of listening and learning. “We are not just a church—we are a community that learns through each other’s stories.” This Quick Dive wasn’t the end—it was a beginning. A call to every congregation: dare to listen. Because within the stories of our people lies the key to a safer, more welcoming church.

Good morning, everyone. Today is December 26th, known in Britain and many Commonwealth countries as Boxing Day, while in several other countries, including the Netherlands and Germany, it’s called Second Christmas Day or Tweede Kerstdag. The name “Boxing Day” has interesting origins. Traditionally, it was the day when wealthy families would give boxes of gifts, food, and money to their servants and tradespeople as a thank you for their service throughout the year. It was also when churches opened their alms boxes to distribute donations to those in need. In many places, it became a day of rest and generosity, of giving back to the community. In countries that call it Second Christmas Day, it’s simply an extension of the Christmas celebration, a time to visit family and friends you might not have seen on Christmas Day itself, to continue the spirit of togetherness. Whether we call it Boxing Day or Second Christmas Day, there’s something beautiful about this day. It’s a pause, a breath between the excitement of Christmas and the anticipation of a new year. It’s a day that reminds us of generosity, community, and connection. And that brings me to what I want to talk about today: the power of stories. Yesterday, many of us shared stories around tables with family and friends. We told tales of Christmases past, remembered loved ones, laughed at familiar anecdotes we’ve heard a hundred times before. And yet, we listened again, because stories never lose their magic. Stories are how we make sense of the world. They’re how we pass down wisdom, preserve memories, and imagine possibilities. Every great movement in history, every scientific breakthrough, every act of courage began with someone telling a story about how things could be different. In school, we study stories every day. We read literature to understand the human experience. We learn history through the narratives of those who came before us. Even in science and mathematics, we’re learning the stories of discovery, of people who asked “what if?” and changed the world.

# Making Sense of Stories: Two Essential Phases in Participatory Narrative Work When we work with stories in organizational or community settings, we’re not just collecting interesting anecdotes. We’re engaging in a deliberate process of sensemaking that happens in two distinct but interconnected phases. Understanding these phases can transform how we facilitate story work and what we get from it. First Sensemaking: The Story Sharer’s Moment The first sensemaking happens when someone tells their story. This is deeply personal and often revelatory, not primarily for the listener, but for the teller themselves. Cynthia Kurtz, through her extensive work with participatory narrative methods, emphasizes that storytelling is itself an act of meaning-making. When we ask someone to share an experience about a time they felt proud at work, or when they saw collaboration succeed or fail, we’re inviting them into a reflective space. In that moment of telling, people often discover things they didn’t fully realize they knew. This first sensemaking is where the story sharer connects events to meaning. They’re not just recounting what happened; they’re actively interpreting their experience as they speak. The act of putting experience into narrative form—choosing what to include, what matters, how things connect—is itself a form of understanding. This is why people often say “I didn’t realize that until I said it out loud.” In StoryConnect’s story cycle framework, this happens during the collection phase, but it’s crucial to recognize it’s not passive collection at all. When story sharers then answer interpretive questions about their own stories—tagging them with dimensions like “this story shows high trust” or “collaboration happened informally here”—they’re extending that first sensemaking. They’re the first and often most important interpreters of their own experience. Second Sensemaking: Multiperspective Pattern-Finding The second phase of sensemaking happens when we bring stories together in a work session. This is where Kurtz’s approach to participatory narrative inquiry really shines—it’s designed specifically to create productive encounters between multiple perspectives.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve collected around 200 stories across different projects. Pretty remarkable, because I keep noticing: getting people to share their stories is harder than you’d think. You send an email, set up a session, ask “tell me about your experience” - and then… . Or you mostly get policy-type responses. Or everyone talks about the exact same incident. What I’ve learned from Cynthia Kurtz (Working with Stories) is that the question is everything. “Tell me about a time when…” works much better than “What do you think about…”. And people need to feel they can share less pleasant things too, otherwise you only get the success stories. But yeah, asking the question is only step one. What I find important in practice: - Timing. Too early in a process and people don’t know what you mean, too late and the energy is gone. - Clear communication about what you’ll do with the stories. Otherwise it stays abstract. - Not everyone likes typing a story into a form. Some people prefer telling you in person. - When the first stories come in and you share something from them, you see others getting enthusiastic too. Ultimately it’s about stories making visible things you can’t capture otherwise. What does something really feel like in practice? What are people running into? What works surprisingly well? You don’t get those insights from numbers or from an evaluation form. Those 200 stories now give us insight into patterns we would never have found otherwise. Are you working with story collection too, or thinking about starting? I’m curious about your experiences.