1. Inicio
  2. Publications
  3. ISA Journals
  4. Current Sociology
  5. Sociologist of the Month
  6. Sociologist of the Month, April 2025

Current Sociology

Sociologist of the Month, April 2025

Please welcome our Sociologists of the Month for April 2025, Sónia Bernardo Correia and Ana Caetano (Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal). Their article for Current Sociology What is left unsaid: Omissions in biographical narratives was shortlisted for the Annual SAGE Current Sociology Best Paper Prize’s third edition (Vol. 72), and is Open Access.

Sónia Bernardo Correia

Ana Caetano

Could you please tell us about yourself? How did you come to your field of study?

S. Bernardo Correia: Looking back, it feels like there have been different chapters in my life, each guiding me towards where I am now. My academic journey began in Management, and after many years working in business consulting, I found myself increasingly drawn to areas focused on social and cultural issues, particularly in the management of NGOs. Over time, my interest in social inequalities and human behaviour deepened—especially in what drives individuals and groups to act in certain ways, and how changes in their circumstances can shape their responses. This curiosity eventually led me to study Sociology. I’ve been lucky to participate in research projects, including the one that inspired this article, where I learned that despite what may seem to divide us, there’s so much more that connects us. These experiences have taught me that we can truly appreciate and celebrate the closeness found within diversity.

A. Caetano: The seemingly small things and the less visible dynamics of social life have always caught my attention, even before becoming a sociologist. It all seemed so unique and simultaneously connected to a whole; and that bridge appeared difficult to grasp. Sociology provided me a lens to make sense of this singularity and its social connections. Within the wide scope of sociological approaches, biographical research, with its focus on the individual level of analysis, was a privileged platform for me to explore the quirkiness and small-scale events and relationships that are part of the daily lives of people and of their biographies. I have used biographical approaches to study the relational constitution of biographies, biographical crises, personal reflexivity, and the relationship between common photographic practices and identity.

What prompted you to research the area of your article, “What is left unsaid: Omissions in biographical narratives”?

S. Bernardo Correia & A. Caetano: The metaphor of biography as kaleidoscope used by Liz Stainley was as a source of inspiration for the research in which the article is based. The idea that when we observe a biography (or any social phenomenon) we can see different things (or different configurations of things) depending on how we look, is a fascinating one. The way we build our look (using theories, methods and analytical procedures) impacts decisively on what we are able to see. So, when we study a biography there are many elements to it, ones that are more visible, others intentionally concealed, others we simply cannot access with our research design. That is the basic premise behind the project “Biographical echoes: triangulation in the study of life histories”, through which we wanted to understand not only what an autobiographical narrative exposes about a given life, but also what other people, close ones, have to say about that same biography. We basically placed the kaleidoscope into different positions facing the light.

What do you see as the key findings of your article?

S. Bernardo Correia & A. Caetano: We believe the article has two main contributions.

The first is making the unseen visible, even if partially, in the study of lives. This allowed us to bring to the forefront what is usually hidden and reflect on the dynamics of self and hetero presentations. For each biography we had access to 5 different versions of that life. By comparing versions, we were able to unveil events, relationships, perceptions, practices that were not present in the autobiographical narrative, either intentionally or not. The results show us that omitted things are not only frequent and an integral part of how people present themselves, as they can also be typified based on shared characteristics.

Second, this sociological exercise of making the unseen visible was built upon a very peculiar and demanding research design. This required creativity both methodologically (by combining interviews with different actors, photo elicitation and life calendars), and analytically, as the ethical demands of this design implied searching for alternative procedures to analyse biographical data (shifting the unit of analysis from the individual to the omission and incorporating a quantitative approach in order to protect the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality; the gains to the study of lives resulting from this combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is, actually, another strong argument of the article).

What are the wider social implications of your research in the current social climate? How do you think things will change in the future?

S. Bernardo Correia & A. Caetano: Our focus on omissions shows that in the interactions people have with others, the unsaid can be important, sometimes even as important as what is verbally expressed in the definition of what they do and who they are. So, understanding the complexity of people’s identities implies acknowledging this idea.

On a different level, throughout the years, we have seen (too many times) biographical research being minimised, as having a secondary or not even a relevant role at all in producing social knowledge. An in-depth look to micro social phenomena allows us to understand how real lives, of common people, unfold on a daily basis and over time. And by knowing the structural and agential processes that configure those lives, we are able to comprehend: first, the weight of the world (to use Bourdieu’s expression), which is key to contradict dangerous discourses that assign to people the exclusive responsibility for the outcomes of their lives; second, how change operates at the individual level, pointing to the contexts, resources and conditions that can, in multiple and differentiated combinations, encourage transformation. The identification of mechanisms of social reproduction and change allow us to see how societies work, but can also be the fuel to think about alternative ways of organisation.

Finally, Plummer said that the best way to understand the world is to get as close as possible to human lives. We believe that a sociology of proximity can also contribute to enhance empathy for others, by understanding better what other people experience and what they have in common.

Do you have any links to images, documents or other pieces of research which build on or add to the article? Or a suggested reading list?

S. Bernardo Correia & A. Caetano: For more information on the Biographical echoes research, please visit the project’s website: https://ecos-biograficos.wixsite.com/ecos/en

Other publications from this project include:

Suggested reading:

  • Liz Stanely (1987), “Biography as microscope or kaleidoscope? The case of ‘power’ in Hannah Cullwick’s relationship with Arthur Munby”, Women’s Studies International Forum, 10(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(87)90091-4
  • Ken Plummer (2021), Critical humanism. A manifesto for the twenty?first century, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • Susie Scott (2019), The Social Life of Nothing: Silence, Invisibility and Emptiness in Tales of Lost Experience, Abingdon, Routledge.