The literature on possible selves has grown significantly
since the development of the construct in the mid-1980s. Situating our
discussion of possible selves in the long-standing and extensive literature on
self and identity, our goal in this article is to examine methodological choice
and its consequences within possible selves research for both the researcher
and the participant. Toward this goal, we reviewed 141 empirical articles and
highlight here 4 methodological clusters within them, including the original
predominant cluster, involving structured survey and interview, and 3 more
recent less frequently employed clusters: narrative, visual, and drama. In this
article, we discuss various limitations and advantages of each cluster,
focusing on researcher investment (e.g., time, resources), researcher role
(e.g., information gathering, intervention), the nature of participant input,
and what is learned by each approach. In our conclusion, we outline areas of
future development and concern for the study of possible selves and the
development of self-knowledge and identity more generally. We argue that for
possible selves research to prosper conceptually, it is vital that researchers
attend carefully to their methodological choices and the implications of those
choices for what can be learned.
The literature on possible selves has grown significantly
since the development of the construct in the mid-1980s. Situating our
discussion of possible selves in the long-standing and extensive literature on
self and identity, our goal in this article is to examine methodological choice
and its consequences within possible selves research for both the researcher
and the participant. Toward this goal, we reviewed 141 empirical articles and
highlight here 4 methodological clusters within them, including the original
predominant cluster, involving structured survey and interview, and 3 more
recent less frequently employed clusters: narrative, visual, and drama. In this
article, we discuss various limitations and advantages of each cluster,
focusing on researcher investment (e.g., time, resources), researcher role
(e.g., information gathering, intervention), the nature of participant input,
and what is learned by each approach. In our conclusion, we outline areas of
future development and concern for the study of possible selves and the
development of self-knowledge and identity more generally. We argue that for
possible selves research to prosper conceptually, it is vital that researchers
attend carefully to their methodological choices and the implications of those
choices for what can be learned.