20)----------( Introducing Reflexivity Seale, C. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London. Toombs, S.K. (2001) Reflections on bodily change: the lived experience of disability. In Phenomenology and Medicine (Toombs, S.K., ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland. Tyler, S.A. (1987) The Unspeakable: Discourse, Dialogue, and Rhetoric in the Postmodern World. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Van Maanen, L. (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Walsh, R.A. (1995) The approach of the human science researcher: implications for the practice of qualitative research. The Humanistic Psychologist, 23, 333-44. Wasserfall, R.R. (1997) Reflexivity, feminism and difference. In Reflexivity and Voice (Hertz, R., ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Wilkinson, S. (1988) The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women's Studies international Forum, 11, 493-502. Willott, S. (1998) An outsider within: a feminist doing research with men. In Standpoints and Differences (Henwood, K., Griffin, C. & Phoenix, A., eds). Sage Publications, London. Woolgar, S. (1989) Foreword. In The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Ashmore, M.). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Yardley, L. (Ed.) (1997) Material Discourse of Health and Illness. Routledge, London. CHAPTER 2 Deconstructing reflexivity Brendan Gough Positioning the sells author's story As a qualitative researcher and social psychologist, my work has been heavily shaped by social constructionist and (more recently) psychoanalytic thinking. I am enlightened by the way social constructionism helps explain how individuals are inserted into society, and I am also convinced by psychoanalytic accounts of (inter-)subjective affiliations and motivations. In terms of analysing qualitative data, I have drawn upon discourse analytic approaches (see Potter & Wetherell, 1 987; Burman & Parker, 1 993] and am also turning to modes of data collection and interpretation informed by psychoanalytic theory (see Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Although both traditions espouse very different conceptual repertoires, social constructionism and psychoanalysis converge in presenting the subject as defined by forces largely beyond control, whether they be prevailing discourse(s) or unconscious identifications. As such, a radical challenge is posed to humanistic (and Western) themes of agency, choice, responsibility - and reflexivity. How can an individual know which societal and unconscious forces prompted particular courses of action? Similarly, how can a researcher identify subjective influences on the research process? Postmodern responses to this problem have stressed multiple researcher and participant voices, and some have turned to poetic and dramatic forms of writing to highlight complexity in subjectivity and representation generally (e.g. Denzin, 2001). Others, influenced by efhnomethodology and conversation analysis, have concentrated on enactments of reflexivity as topics for study (see Lynch, 2000). In this chapter, I argue that both these positions are overly preoccupied with style over substance and end up avoiding issues of responsibility for and ownership of the research. I suggest that qualitative researchers should attempt a balance between flat, unreflexive analyses and excessive, hyper-reflexive analyses. In this way, something can be sgid about the topic under investigation, as well as how this understanding was constructed. 21 (introducing Reflexivity ( Introduction '. .j In this chapter I proceed from the first chapter in presenting reflexivity as multi-faceted and the subject of much debate in contemporary social science. In this light I argue for the plural term 'reflexivities' in order to move away from the notion that reflexivity is something that can be captured once and for all, something that we can all agree upon. In the section on 'Doing reflexivity' I then suggest that opportunities to practise whatever brand of reflexivity can be limited by established writing and publishing conventions. The next section critiques realist forms of reflexivity, arguing that these can serve as a means of privileging the analyst's account, of reinforcing a supposedly accurate or 'true' interpretation of the phenomenon. I then consider postmodern variants on reflexivity which concentrate on language games and often deploy techniques from art and literature to deconstruct authorship. I also reflect on ethnomethodological treatments of reflexivity which study how reflexivity is warranted by researchers and laypeople alike. Both these postmodern and the ethnomethodological approaches to reflexivity are problematic in over-prioritising language use at the expense of coherent analysis of researcher subjectivity and the research topic. Finally, some balance between the extremes of realism and textual radicalism is advocated, emphasising the importance of reflexivity, but not to the extent that the analyst and the phenomenon disappear from view. f Reflexivities J For qualitative researchers, reflexivity facilitates a critical attitude towards locating the impact of research(er) context and subjectivity on project design, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of findings. It refers to a set of practices which help distinguish qualitative from quantitative forms of inquiry (where the emphasis is on the suppression of material pertaining to the process of research, including researcher subjectivity) and which facilitates insights into the context, relationships and power dynamics germane to the research setting (Wilkinson, 1988). As such, the personal is celebrated as a strength by qualitative researchers, a resource to be exploited in order to enrich the quality of analysis (Finlay, 2002). Reflexivity is signalled by the researcher's incorporation of information relating to the research context and to relevant personal thoughts and feelings into the research report. But there is great variation in practice. Reflexivity may be concentrated at one stage of the research, or applied throughout the research process. It may be enhanced through discussion with colleagues and/or research participants, or simply by regular solitary reflections recorded in a research journal or diary. As Finlay notes in the previous chapter, diverse definitions of and theoretical positions on reflexivity will inform how different qualitative researchers practise reflexivity. Clearly, research informed by psychoanalysis will approach reflexivity differently from humanistic work or social constructionist projects. Some of the debates between distinct perspectives will be touched on in this chapter, particularly regarding the functions of reflexive accounts and the status of researcher knowledge. Because of this lack of consensus concerning the conception and application of reflexivity, I want to endorse the term reflexivities (Lynch, 2000; Pels, 2000) to signify current plurality, flexibility, and conflict. Several researchers have attempted to summarise different positions on, and practices of, reflexivity and in so doing have effectively captured complexities (see Marcus, 1994; Lynch, 2000; Finlay, 2002). By way of highlighting diversity and setting the scene for the ensuing deconstruction of reflexivity, I now draw upon an early, much cited paper by Wilkinson (1988) which identifies three distinct but interrelated forms of reflexivity: personal, functional and disciplinary. At the very least, reflexivity implies that the researchers make visible their individuality and its effects on the research process. There is an attempt to highlight those motivations, interests and attitudes which the researcher has imported to the research and to reflect on how these have impacted on each stage. Such subjective factors are typically construed as bias or interference within 'scientific' research, but recognition of the personal dimension to research is heralded as enriching and informative by qualitative researchers. For example, researchers conducting an interview study on experiences of parenthood might fruitfully reflect on their motivations for choosing such a topic (to better understand their experiences of parenthood or being parented; to gather knowledge on a phenomenon which they themselves are considering), their choice of interview questions (a focus on family/work balance), interviewees (of similar age to themselves) and their expectations about what the research might yield (a view of parenthood as challenging, fulfilling or isolating). Such self-awareness can help inform data collection. For example, if the researcher has experience of parenthood, a stance of respect and empathy relating to the interviewees could be used to develop a rich understanding of this phenomenon. When collecting data, personal thoughts and feelings prompted by the interviews/ interviewees should be recorded - it is likely that experiences with different people will produce diverse reactions. Data analysis can then be informed by the researcher's data as well as that of the participants. But reflexivity extends beyond the personal domain. Wilkinson's (1988) second variant, 'functional reflexivity', relates to one's role as a researcher and the effects this might have on the research process. It focuses attention on the different identities presented within the research and the interactions between researcher and participants. Here, a key issue concerns the distribution of power and status within the research process. Although many qualitative researchers are committed to democratic forms of inquiry where the voices of participants are encouraged and respected, it is virtually impossible to escape researcher-participant relationships structured by inequalities (see Parker, 1992). After all, it Introducing Reflexivity is the researcher who generally develops an idea, formulates the research questions and organises the format of the research. For many qualitative researchers, such taken-for-granted ideas and professional routines should be destabilised as far as possible (Taylor & White, 2000). In my own work on men and masculinities, I draw attention to the subject positions and power relations which pertain to the research context, which mostly favour the researcher (e.g. as expert interrogator) but which at times indicate participant status and researcher vulnerability, as when participants suddenly depart from the script and direct difficult questions to the researcher (see Chapter 11). Wilkinson's (1988) third category, 'disciplinary reflexivity', involves a critical stance towards the place and function of the particular research project within broader debates about theory and method. It suggests delineating those existing concepts and traditions which have been important in shaping the research and calls for some discussion of the potential contribution of the research to a particular literature. This political dimension of reflexivity is enthusiastically endorsed by feminist and critical researchers interested in challenging the findings of conventional (usually quantitative) social science research (see Stainton-Rogers et al., 1995). For example, work by Gill (1993) on indirect sexism challenges psychological and liberal humanist values which construct prejudice as individual pathology rather than social practice promoted by dominant institutions and reproduced in everyday talk. In her critical analysis of sexist talk, the aims of (social) psychological research are rewritten to address the oppression of marginalised groups rather than simply reflecting prevailing social norms (see Gough & McFadden, 2001 for an introduction to 'Critical Social Psychology'). ( Doing reflexivity j Reflexivity, then, can mean many things, and perhaps works best when different forms or levels are recognised and practised. Reflexivity which dwells only on one level may appear impoverished. An exclusive focus on personal reflexivity, for example, does not situate research within relevant interpersonal, institutional and cultural contexts, and as a result the analysis may seem unduly limited. But how do ideas about reflexivity translate into practice? In this section, I provide a brief account of popular reflexive practices, before proceeding to interrogate the way reflexivity has been enacted within certain traditions of qualitative research. One useful preliminary strategy is to look at one's choice of research question^), and how this question is framed. It is often helpful to arrange for a colleague to assume the role of devil's advocate, challenging one's chosen research plan and perhaps tentatively suggesting alternatives. As a result, one might end up with better research questions, and some insight into personal motivations and values. Maso (this volume) proposes using the 'why interview' ('why this, why C Deconstructing reflexivity not that?') as a means to clarify and refine one's research interests, whereby the researcher's plans are placed under the spotlight until a more satisfactory version emerges. I think one would need to be careful here to ensure an egalitarian exchange of views, as a critique of one's original ideas might prove disheartening for inexperienced researchers. But if handled well, explicating and revising one's research goals can prove extremely enlightening and set the scene for a more rewarding research experience. As a general rule, reflexivity implies rendering explicit hidden agendas and half-formed intentions, but not just at the start of the research process - this should be a continuous endeavour. Many qualitative researchers favour some form of research diary or journal which documents the researcher's thoughts and experiences before, during and after data collection and analysis (Banister et al, 1994). Notes concerning why certain choices and decisions were made, about changing directions, personal reactions etc. can be used to inform a 'reflexive account' which in turn will inform the research report. Again, asking oneself difficult questions can facilitate enhanced reflexivity and, ultimately, greater understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. In research projects involving other members, issues raised in one's research diary can be brought back to the team for discussion. Of course, team members may well offer differing, even conflicting, perspectives on a given matter, and this process would need to be carefully managed (see Barry, this volume). Another interesting approach is to promote reflexivity in participants, in parallel to that being practised by the researcher(s). Of course, participant reflexivity is implicitly encouraged by certain methodologies, such as diary studies, where reflection on social interactions and personal relationships might be encouraged. Co-operative inquiry approaches may ask participants to consider data previously gathered and analysed to stimulate thinking about, say, continuities and changes in the transition from pregnancy to motherhood (see Smith, this volume). This practice clearly goes beyond the common strategy of offering one's data analysis to participants for their commentary in order to help validate researcher interpretations. On the other hand, facilitating participant reflexivity throughout the project would be a significant feature of collaborative and action research projects where there is a concerted effort to reduce power differentials between researcher and researched, to establish a team of equal status co-researchers (e.g. Reason, 1988; Banister et al., 1994). Feminist researchers, for example, might tackle the subordination of women at a particular site (a workplace, a leisure facility) by enlisting local women as active participants in conceiving, designing and enacting the research plan (see Rheinharz, 1992). In practising reflexivity, it is often useful to articulate a theoretical position which can help stimulate critical thinking (see Finlay, 2002). A phenomenological commitment, for example, would prompt sustained self-reflection in order to reveal personal values and intersubjective experience relevant to the phenomenon in question (see Giorgi, 1985). Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that ntrodücing Reflexivity researchers often have a vested interest in studying specific topics in the first place, so any insight into such personal investments might prove valuable. In contrast, a social constructionist orientation would entail locating the researcher within prevailing discourses pertaining to, say, gender and work, if the research was on the meaning(s) of unemployment. Here, identifying the subject positions available to the researcher (and others) would help illuminate the social construction of unemployment. It is my own personal view that concepts and strategies from psychoanalytic theory can fruitfully inform research reflections and reflexivity generally. I find it a little strange that discussions of reflexivity rarely make reference to psychoanalytic theory, despite a long and rich tradition of writing on intersubjective dynamics. Of course psychoanalytic writing has attracted widespread critique from a variety of perspectives, much of it well-justified, but I agree with Frosh (1997) when he contends that there are valuable concepts which can be drawn upon by social scientists in making sense of materials. The concept of counter-transference may be especially useful as a way for researchers to gain access to their unanticipated (unconscious) thoughts and feelings pertaining to specific research encounters. Better understanding of the case in question may well ensue (see also Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Theoretical predilection notwithstanding, the incorporation of one's reflections into the analysis and writing-up process is a vexed issue, with many authors preferring simply to provide information about researcher and participant subject positions (gender, age, social class, race etc.) and perhaps hazarding some speculation towards the end of the paper on the effects of these factors on the research outcomes. This limited, undergraduate form of reflexive accounting is perhaps encouraged by established journals which prioritise the reporting of results within tight word limits (see Kleinman, 1991) and ensures that more substantial reflexive analyses arc mainly confined to unpublished writing (e.g. doctoral theses) or more specialist texts (such as this volume). This is an issue which I feel needs to be addressed within the community of qualitative researchers. While I do not advocate limitless space to muse about research processes and intersubjective encounters, 1 believe the conventions for inscribing qualitative research within recognised journals and books need to be revised to facilitate analyses which are properly interrogated and contextualised. í Reflexivity and realism J At another level, the functions of reflexive writing need to be examined, since what may pass as reflexivity may, upon scrutiny, draw upon the idioms of quantitative research. Being 'open' about researcher subjectivity and its impact on the research process sounds like a good idea, but the presumption of access to subjective feelings and values has been radically challenged in the wake of the 0 C Deconshucfing reflexivi&y r linguistic turn in social theory heralded by postmodernism, social constructionism and discourse analysis (see K vale, 1992; Gergen, 1991; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The notion that reflexive researchers can uncover their 'real' motivations if they dig deep enough is reminiscent of the discourse of positivism which argues that the 'truth' about the objective world can be revealed through rigorous application of scientific methods. Researcher honesty or openness may be imagined, but because neither the researcher nor anyone else can ever establish 'true' intentions or motivations, then such claims must be treated with suspicion. In this section I consider the implications of social constructionism for understanding the presentation of research and look at some of the discursive strategies used by qualitative researchers to render their analyses objective. I go on to argue that reflexive attention to our discourse(s) as researchers can help prevent a preoccupation with positivist ideals of objectivity and can enable a more vibrant form of writing. If we take seriously social constructionist and/or postmodern perspectives on subjectivity, which conceptualise the subject as decentred, fragmented, relational, evolving and incomplete (see Kvale, 1992; Wetherell & Maybin, 1996), then the notion of uncovering underlying personal influences becomes problematic. Denzin (2001, p.28) notes: '... there is no essential self or private, real self. There are only different selves, different performances, different ways of being a gendered person in a social situation.' (It is also worth pointing out that, historically, psychoanalytic theory highlighted this problem of subjective awareness, arguing that what we know about ourselves is but a defensive fiction which obscures our 'real', irrational and confused self). Social constructionism (e.g. Burr, 1995) and discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards & Potter, 1992) contest the notion that language/interpretation reflects reality, arguing, on the contrary, that interpretations - even those given by 'authoritative' sources such as scientists and doctors - construct reality. For example, work on the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) has drawn attention to an 'empiricist repertoire' which scientists, including psychologists, use to bring off a depersonalised account of the 'facts' (e.g. Woolgar, 1980). An obvious demonstration of this repertoire is the use of the passive voice ('the experiment was conducted', rather than '1 conducted the experiment'). When authorship is acknowledged, the collective, institutional 'we' is preferred. Such 'externalising devices' are also witnessed in other contexts, such as journalism ('the facts state that...'; 'the evidence suggests...') (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984). Other work on doctor-patient communication has identified further strategies for legitimating professional accounts, such as 'category entitlement', which refer to the use of categories (e.g. doctor-patient) in talk which mobilise culturally prescribed expectations about who is knowledgeable. For example, when the term 'doctor' is used in conversation it commonly denotes status and expertise and can be used to warrant certain accounts and to challenge those of patients, iaypeople' or others (see Silverman, 1987). introducing Reflexivity 3 But qualitative researchers are not immune from using rhetorical devices to convey the authenticity of their analyses, whether reflexive or not. In contrast to suppressing the (human) processes of data collection and analysis as a means of legitimating accounts, qualitative researchers have achieved the same goal through recognising, even celebrating, personal input into the research endeavour. Such reflexive accounting, which draws attention to researcher as well as participant practices, constructs the researcher as expert witness, immersed in or close to the scene or phenomenon under investigation. Seale (1999) locates this form of accounting within anthropological writing, whereby researcher entry into other groups or cultures is presented as an ideal vantage point for better observations. Such confessions are often told in great depth (detail is a way of enhancing credibility) and suggest an invaluable, objective insider account. In this sense, reflexivity can be used to warrant data analysis as truthful or rich, thereby falling back on positivist notions of objectivity (but, ironically, through subjectivity). In fact, instances of allegiance to realist epistemology abound in the literature on qualitative research. For example, Hall and Callery (2001) have recently argued that reflexivity should be used by grounded theorists in order to improve rigour. It is widely felt that such endeavours can enhance the transparency, accountability and general trustworthiness of qualitative research (see Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). More broadly, there is a major emphasis on validating analytic claims via a range of techniques, such as member checking, audit trail and tri-angulation (see Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Clearly, the discourse structuring these activities is one of truth-seeking, a quest for an interpretation to which all parties can subscribe. Seale (1999) refers to a study by Buckingham et al. (1976) of wards for terminally ill patients to illustrate the point. In Buckingham et '........____............_....._______.............J To conclude, reflexivity is a contested term, attracting diverse definitions and associated with a range of activities and goals. A broad distinction can be made between realist uses of reflexivity, wherein researcher confession is deployed to reinforce the 'accuracy' or 'authenticity' of analysis, and postmodern or relativist forms of reflexivity, which tend towards disrupting narrative coherence and advertise analysis as constructed. I have argued that neither version of reflexivity is exclusively desirable, that researchers need to take some responsibility for producing an analysis which can be applied to support a particular view of the world, whilst recognising researcher involvement in the production of the account. In the chapters which follow, there are several examples of qualitative researchers doing just that, and offering good advice for practising and enhancing reflexivity in the process. C Deconstructing reflexivity (. References j Atkinson, P. (1988) Ethnomethodology: a critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 441-65. Cited in May, T. (2000) Reflexivity in social life and sociological practice: a rejoinder to Roger Slack. Sociological Research Online, 5(1), http://socresonline.org.uk/ 5/1/may.html Banister, P., Burman., E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C. (1994) Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Open University Press, Buckingham. Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Polity, Cambridge. Bourdieu, P. (1981) The specificity of the scientific field. In Sociology: Rupture and Renewal Since 1968 (Lemert, C.C., ed.). Columbia University Press, New York. Buckingham, R.W., Lack, S.A., Mount, B.M., Maclean, L.D. & Collins, J.T. (1976) Living with the dying: use of the technique of participant observation. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 117-35. Burman, E. & Parker, I. (1993) Discourse Analytic Research. Repertoires and Readings of Text in Action. Routledge, London. Burr, V. (1995) An introduction to Social Constructionism. Routledge, London. Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data Analysis: Complementary Strategies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Denzin, N. (2001) The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23-46. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications,, Thousand Oaks, CA. Dillard, A. (1982) Living by Fiction. Harper & Row, New York. Dwyer, K. (1982) Moroccan Dialogues: Anthropology in Question. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. Sage Publications, London. Finlay, L. (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209-30. Frosh, S. (1997) For and Against Psychoanalysis. Routledge, London. Gergen, K. (1991) The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. Basic Books, New York. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity, Cambridge. Gilbert, G.N. & Mulkay, M.J. (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gill, R. (1993) Justifying injustice: broadcaster's accounts of inequality. In Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action (Burman, E. & Parker, I., eds). Routledge, London. Giorgi, A. (1985) Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh. Gough, B. & McFadden, M. (2001) Critical Social Psychology: An Introduction. Palgrave, London. Grosz, E. (1990) A note on essentialism and difference. In Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct (Gunew, S., ed.). Routledge, London. Introducing Reflexivity ľ) Hall, W.A. & Gallery, P. (2001) Enhancing the rigor of Grounded Theory: incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257-52. Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Open University Press, Buckingham. Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. Sage Publications, London. Kleinman, S. (1991) Field-workers' feelings: what we feel, who we are, how we analyse. In Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research (Shaffir, W.B. & Stebbins, R.A., eds). Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Kvale, S. (ed.) (1992) Psychology and Postmodernism. Sage Publications, London. Lather, P. (1992) Postmodernism and the human sciences. In Psychology & Postmodernism (Kvale, S., ed.). Sage Publications, London. Latour, B. (1988) The politics of explanation: an alternative. In Knowledge and Reflexivity: Hew Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (Woolgar, S., ed.). Sage Publications, London. Law, J. (1994) Organising Modernity. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Lincoln, Y.S. and Denzin, N.K. (1994) The fifth movement. In Flandbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y., eds). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lynch, M. (2000) Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privilege. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3): 26-54. Marcus, G.E. (1994) What comes (just) after 'Post'?: the case of ethnography. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., eds). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, GA. May, T. (1999) Reflexivity and sociological practice. Sociological Research Online, 4(3), http://www.socresonline.org.nk/socresonline/4/3/may.htrnl May, T. (2000) Reflexivity in social life and sociological practice: a rejoinder to Roger Slack. Sociological Research Online, 5(1), http://www.socresonline.org.Uk/5/l/may.html Murphy, P.D. (2002) The anthropologist's son (or, living and learning in the field). Qualitative Inquiry, 8(2), 246-62. Paget, M.A. (1995) Performing the text, in Representation in Ethnography (Van Maanen, J., ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology. Routledge, London. Pels, D. (2000) Reflexivity: One step up. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 1-25. Pollock, D. (1998) Performing writing. In The Ends of Performance (Phelan, P. & Lane, J., eds). New York University Press, New York. Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. Sage Publications, London. Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse & Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. Sage Publications, London. Reason, P. (1988) (ed.) Human Inquiry in Action. Sage Publications, London. Rheinharz, S. (1 992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York. Richardson, L. (1994) Writing: a method of inquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y., eels). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Rosaldo, R. (1993, first published 1989) Introduction: grief and a headhuntcr's rage. In Deconstructing reflexivity Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis (Rosaldo, R., ed.). Routledge, London. Seale, C. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London.. Silverman, D. (1987) Communication and Medical Practice. Sage Publications, London. Slack, R. (2000) Reflexivity or sociological practice: a reply to May. Sociological Research Online, 5(1), http://www.socresonline.org.Uk/socresonline/5/i/slack.html Smith, D.E. (1978) K is mentally ill: the anatomy of a factual account. Sociology, 12, 23-53. Stainton-Rogers, R., Stenner, P., Gleeson, K. & Stainton-Rogers, W. (1995) Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda. Polity Press, Cambridge. Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1993) Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology arid Epistemology, 2nd edn. Routledge, London. Taylor, C. & White, S. (2000) Practising Reflexivity in Health and Welfare. Open University Press, Buckingham. Tyler, S.A. (1987) The Unspeakable: Discourse, Dialogue, and Rhetoric in the Postmodern World. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J. (1996) The distributed self: a social constructionist perspective. In Understanding The Self (Stevens, R., ed.). Sage/Open University Press, London. White, S. (1997) Beyond retroduction? Hermcneutics, reflexivity and social work practice. British journal of Social Work, 27(6), 739-53. Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women's Studies International Forum, 11, 493-502. Woolgar, S. (1980) Discovery: logic and sequence in scientific text. In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. (Knorr, K., Krohn, R. & Whitely, R., eds). Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands.