Search

Social Sciences have been interested in biographical studies since the 1920s. However, this way of observing and analyzing social phenomena was displaced, between the World War II and the 1980s, from the methodological scene. According to Daniel Bertaux, the oblivion in which the biographical method fell in that period is attributable to a double imperialism: the one of the structural-functionalism and the one of survey research. During the 1980s there was a new appearance of the biographical method within the social sciences that progressively derived in the consolidation of an academic field in which take part multiple disciplines (history, sociology, anthropology, literary studies, among others). The biographical studies field is characterized for the existence and, in the last years, proliferation of empirical research that relate theoretical elements that belong to different fields of knowledge. In this article, I present some reflections on the use of the biographical method within the social sciences. First of all, I make a brief historical review of the method origins, its disappearance from the methodological scene, its resurgence and, finally, its actual relevance. Then, I mention the main biographical research styles, according to the typology made by Ernesto Meccia (2019a). In third place, I highlight the differences between two terms that, within the biographical method field, are used frequently as synonyms: life history and life story. After that, I reflect on the truth status of the testimonies. In general terms, I conceive testimonies as tools for identity (re) construction and not only as factual accounts limited to an informative function. Then, I specify the way in which life stories assume a certain plot, an arrangement that is given by the biographical events or turning points. Finally, I show how life stories can express different social issues and problems that go beyond the biography itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]