http://qrj.sagepub.

com/
Qualitative Research
http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/14/5/586
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1468794113501685
2014 14: 586 originally published online 3 September 2013 Qualitative Research
Jennifer R Wolgemuth
Analyzing for critical resistance in narrative research

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Qualitative Research Additional services and information for

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/14/5/586.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Sep 3, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Sep 9, 2014 Version of Record >>

at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Q
R
Qualitative Research
2014, Vol. 14(5) 586 602
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1468794113501685
qrj.sagepub.com
Analyzing for critical resistance
in narrative research
Jennifer R Wolgemuth
University of South Florida, USA
Abstract
This paper details a narrative analysis strategy called critical resistance analysis (CRA). The aim of a
CRA is to bring forward the kinds of subjects participants draw on when talking about themselves
in narrative interviews and to make explicit how those subjects are resisted and desired. The
CRA is distinguished from other narrative analyses of self in that it focuses on resistance in both
its structural, anti-hegemonic and poststructural, self-refusal forms. The latter kind of resistance
is what Hoy (2005) refers to as critical resistance; the desire to undo oneself. A CRA looks
for participant resistance in narrative and antenarrative (Boje, 2001) data. Antenarratives are
incomplete stories that are often too fragmented to analyze using traditional narrative methods
and can be seen as powerful examples of meaning-making in progress. A CRA newly brings
an antenarrative understanding to the study of self in four analytic foci: deconstruction trace,
discourse-argument, resistance and intersubjectivity analysis. Together these analytic foci reveal
the subjects narrative participants seek (not) to be and afford a more complex understanding of
how participants struggle with and against themselves.
Keywords
antenarrative, critical resistance, data analysis, narrative research, subjects
Introduction
In the latest version of the Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry, Chase (2011) broadly
describes narrative research as inquiring into the experiences of those who narrate their
lives. Beyond this understanding, there exists a wide variety of approaches and aims of
narrative research (Chase, 2011). One important aim concerns understanding the selves
of narrative inquiry in which researchers seek to shed light on identity struggles as consti-
tuted in stories (e.g., McAdams, Josselson and Lieblich, 2006) and the ways in which
stories of self disrupt oppressive social discourses (e.g., Abes, 2008). Narrative inquirers
Corresponding author:
Jennifer R Wolgemuth, PhD, Department of Measurement and Research, University of South Florida, College
of Education, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
Email: jrwolgemuth@usf.edu
501685QRJ14510.1177/1468794113501685Qualitative ResearchWolgemuth
2013
Article
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 587
who focus on the narrated self are therefore especially concerned with individual conflict
and resistance. Their work engages questions like: Why do some people resist, while
others submit?, What does resistance look like?, and What are resistances effects?.
Seeking answers to these questions first requires an understanding of what is meant
by resistance. Resistance can be seen as occurring between oneself and a dominant
social structure (based on social class, race, gender, and so on) and/or as a refusal to
being identified as oneself in the first instance. The former critical structural account
of resistance assumes an opposition between dominance and resistance and those who
do the dominating and those who struggle against domination (Connell, 1995; Giddens,
1991). This dualist approach casts domination as negative and is, for example, most
clearly delineated in early, second-wave feminist accounts of patriarchy as a social
structure in which women are subordinated to men (e.g., Friedan, 1963; Millett, 1970).
The latter resistance, what Hoy (2005) terms critical resistance, refers to the process
of undermining oneself. Critical resistance is the desire of the falling apart of self,
straying afield from oneself, (Foucault, 1990: 8), risking oneself (Butler, 2002), or
dissolving oneself (Hoy, 2005: 90). Drawing on the work of Foucault and Butler, Hoy
explains the resistive role of critique functions not by providing an alternative account
of who you are and what you ought to do, but by dissolving your sense of who you are
and disrupting your sense of what the right thing to do is (2005: 89). Critical resist-
ance follows a poststructural account of power as productive, as involved in the crea-
tion of identities and as coextensive with domination. That is, resistance is understood
simultaneously as a reaction to domination and as a production of domination and vice
versa (Foucault, 1988).
A structural model of resistance against dominance is typically used in narrative
research to study the ways in which participants stories counter hegemonic norms (e.g.,
Fernandez, 2002; Munoz and Maldonado, 2012; Patton and Catching, 2009) and a criti-
cal resistance model examines how participants resist being themselves (e.g., Abes,
2008; Humphreys and Brown, 2002). To understand more fully the ways in which resist-
ance operates in narrative research participants lives, I developed a critical resistance
analysis (CRA) to examine their stories from both structural and critical perspectives
(see Cherrier, 2009, for an example of this dual approach to analyzing resistance in con-
sumerism studies). I sought an analytic strategy that would make explicit why, how, to
what ends and under what contexts people narrate themselves as resistant and/or compli-
ant. Certainly narrative researchers draw on anti-hegemonic and poststructural theories
to make sense of the ways in which participants resist power structures and identity cat-
egories. Yet in 2007 when I was working on the analysis for my dissertation, I was unable
to locate an explicit analysis strategy to illuminate the subjects my participants con-
structed during narrative interviews and their (resistive) relationships to those subjects.
This is unsurprising given there is insufficient (in quantity, not quality) attention to quali-
tative data analysis both in the written literature and in graduate student training (Leach
and Onwuegbuzie, 2007).
My aim in detailing a CRA is not to provide a proscriptive template. The introductions
to well-used qualitative data analysis texts make clear that step-by-step instructions fail
to convey the artistry and central role of theory in the interpretation of qualitative data
(e.g., Gibson and Brown, 2009; Grbich, 2007; Reissman, 2008). Instead, I submit this
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
588 Qualitative Research 14(5)
work as a pedagogical case example for narrative researchers seeking analytic guidance
on how to illuminate and interrogate the resistance of subjects that emerge in narrative
interviews.
The subjects of narrative research
A CRA is situated within current thinking that underpins much narrative work. This
thinking takes narrative to be a particular kind of discourse, one of retrospective mean-
ing making (Chase, 2006: 656) as opposed to a representative account of the past. The
experiences and people talked about in narratives are not as they were, but are under-
stood as contemporary recreations. Yet these contemporary recreations are also not
assumed to be as they are now, in a unitary, objective, or real sense. Narrative research-
ers also understand narrating, and therefore narrative interviewing, as an action where
people actively construct of their experience in-the-moment (Chase, 2011; Josselson,
Lieblich and McAdams, 2003). The selves of narrative research are therefore nonunitary,
continually shifting, and, overall, performative (Bloom, 1996; Butler, 1990). But this is
not to say narrative research participants are free to pick and choose from any available
persona. Narrative researchs contemporary understandings of the shaped, constructed,
and performed self permit a view of the self as both enabled and constrained by a range
of social resources and circumstances (Chase, 2006: 656). Therefore selves in narrative
inquiries are those enabled by the linguistic resources available at the time and in the
context of narration (Bloom, 2002). The latter consideration, the narrative interview as a
context for the production and performance of selves, concerns a final point about the
selves of narrative research. Narrative inquiries are socially situated activities produced
in particular settings, for particular audiences, and for particular purposes (Chase, 2006).
Understanding the narrative interview as interactive, a joint production or interpersonal
drama (Gubrium and Holstein, 1995: 16) between the narrator and interviewer, means
the selves elicited in narratives are also joint productions; they are intersubjective.
Therefore, a CRA assumes the selves in narrative interviews (even past selves) are con-
temporary (re)constructions, are actively constructed and performed in the process of nar-
rating, are limited and enabled by the available linguistic resources, and are co-constructed
in the interview (or other data collection) context.
From narrative selves to the resistive subject
Critical resistance analysis was developed to make sense of the narrative data I had col-
lected from five male graduate students on the experiences of being men in the academy.
1

I had hoped that studying how male graduate students made sense of their masculinity
within the academy would shed light on the ways in which gendered subjects are pro-
duced and privileged in higher education disciplines (Wolgemuth, 2009). I did not expect
straightforward easy accounts of what it means to be a man. In fact my transformational
(Roulston, 2010) interview method (Wolgemuth and Donohue, 2006) explicitly sought
out their irrational, complicated, and paradoxical accounts. This orientation to interview-
ing involved engaging the men in conversations about what it means to be a man, a hetero-
sexual, and a heterosexual male graduate student (Wolgemuth, 2007). These conversations
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 589
were often personal and theoretical, in which the men explored their own assumptions and
beliefs, attempting to make sense of what they thought about gender in higher education.
My role in this interview was to create an interview atmosphere in which they felt com-
fortable to do this exploratory work, but also to provoke discomfort, pointing to the dif-
ficulty and substantial effort required of maintaining a binary gender, or what Butler
(1990, 1993, 2004) identifies as the heterosexual matrix.
But the men who chose to participate in the study were, to varying degrees, already
engaged in the work of complicating what it meant to be a man. They were skeptical of
my initial question, What does it mean to you to be a man?. Instead of unproblemati-
cally answering the question, many of the participants balked. They challenged how the
question insists Im a man, they argued being a man is complicated and there is no one
definition, and/or they belied masculinity as a false concept. But the subsequent ques-
tion, What kind of a man do you feel expected to be? was much easier to answer. The
men constructed sometimes simplistic and sometimes very complicated pictures of their
struggles with what Connell (1995) called the hegemonic man. And it was in this con-
struction, as well as future conversations about masculinity in the academy, that some
hidden and unquestioned assumptions about masculinity (and femininity) began to
emerge. To represent the mens constructions of masculinity ethically, I could neither
simply report their hidden and unquestioned assumptions about gender, ignoring their
initial resistance to being gendered, nor could I present them as entirely resistive, ignor-
ing the masculine subjects they had yet to critique (with me, in the interview). I devel-
oped the CRA to bring forward the mens (resistive) relationships with/to those
subjects.
Attending to participants relationships to/with the subjects that emerge in narrative
inquiries extends beyond the previous discussion of the way selves are most often con-
ceptualized in narrative research. This perspective sees the interview participants as
active deconstructors, rather than just constructors, of stories, meanings, and self.
Simultaneously it implies viewing narratives from a different perspective because an
analytic focus on deconstruction would have narrative researchers attend to stories that
may fall outside a narrative researchers definition of story.
Boje (2001, 2011) suggests narrative researchers should give as much (if not more)
analytical attention to incomplete and unplotted stories as whole and plotted ones.
Antenarrative analysis is introduced as an alternative, supplement, or replacement to
more conventional narrative analyses by advocating a focus on stories that are too uncon-
structed and fragmented to be analysed in traditional approaches (Boje, 2001: 1).
Antenarratives signify meaning-making in progress and suggest experiences that resist or
deny coherence. Antenarratives therefore highlight the complexities of the subjects that
emerge in narrative inquiries and do not, misguidedly, attempt to oversimplify or tidy their
messiness. Bojes antenarrative approach permits narrative inquirers to examine when
selves constituted in a network of subjects fall apart, whether by accident or intention.
In my study, attending to the participants desire of this falling apart of self enabled a
more complex depiction of the mens struggles to/not to be men. It invited the critically
resistive man (Whitehead, 2002) to the study; the subject whose aim is to seek its own
dissolution (Hoy, 2005). A CRA was therefore developed as an analysis of antenarratives
to represent how participants (and interviewers) resist, comply, and/or problematize the
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
590 Qualitative Research 14(5)
subjects elicited in narrative inquiries. The aim of a CRA is to move beyond a simple
account of resistance to a more nuanced one that reveals how resistance is possible,
including the complicities and subordinations that may be required to make accounts of
resistance intelligible.
Introducing critical resistance analysis
A CRA is not a new kind of analysis, but it does newly bring antenarrative analysis to
bear on the construction and resistance of subjects. It gathers together, in an explicit
strategy, existing and well-articulated poststructural analyses and theoretical concepts
taken up as analytical tools. Critical resistance analysis draws on Bojes (2001) decon-
struction analysis. It also makes use of the concepts of deconstruction (Derrida, 1997),
structural resistance and critical resistance (Hoy, 2005), and intersubjectivity that sub-
jects are produced in relations of dependency (Butler, 2005: 29).
Critical resistance analysis consists of four analytic foci. They are: deconstruction
trace analysis, discourse-argument analysis, resistance analysis, and intersubjectivity
analysis. How the different analysis foci and theorists are combined in a CRA is detailed
below and then demonstrated by analyzing Clarks
2
antenarrative account of teaching
college students.
At the time of research, Clark was in his mid-twenties and identified as a heterosexual
White male from the US South. He was in the final year of a Masters degree in media
studies and saw our interviews as an opportunity to figure out what being a man meant
to him:
being from a small southern town, population 587, you dont get a chance to explore things
quite as much because theres all these social sanctions. But here I feel I do have a chance to
play around with things. And every time I move I feel a chance to recreate my identity. Since this
is what Im playing around with, my gender identity, this study fits.
Clark and I met six times over the Spring 2006 semester to talk about his gender iden-
tity. The following edited excerpt from an interview where Clark talked about being a
heterosexual male college teacher will be used to demonstrate the CRA.
Clarks antenarrative: (hetero)sexuality in the classroom
C: How do I as a 24-year-old male who is teaching college students who are at most
4 years younger than me, how do I not act heterosexual? Because acting hetero-
sexual to me always has that sexual component, so how do I deal with students
in an immediate fashion How do I do that without sexualizing the conversa-
tion? Or sexualizing the female students? Or having them think, regardless of
what Im thinking, even if my intentions are not sexual, how do I let them know
that Im not thinking about that? Part of the answer to that for me is sliding more
into a homosexual way of being. I notice that my mannerisms in class tend to
change. They tend to be maybe more feminine mannerisms. I tend to move with
my hips a little more in classroom, which is really funny. So I literally change the
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 591
way that I walk I am trying to pass as less heterosexual. I do that so as not to
be a threat in the classroom. I dont want people to think that Im attracted to
them. For example this week I was looking around the classroom and this woman
bent over to pull something out of her book bag and I saw right down her shirt.
And its like, holy fuck. I hope nobody just saw me because I really didnt mean
to do that. So Im very conscious about the way I interact with my students. I try
to make it not heterosexual. But then that instantly gets caught up in being mas-
culine, being heterosexual at the same time without being able to just be attracted
to a woman. And I also want them to know Im off limits as well. You cant flirt
with me. You cant say these things and I cant say these things to you in class
Its really tricky, especially in a classroom setting, to be heterosexual and not
want to be heterosexual at the same time.
J: Yeah, I mean to what extent can we even attempt to leave our sexuality at the door?
And I think what youre saying is that you dont try to do that, you try to convert
your sexuality and that way when you do that you act more homosexual, you act
more ambiguous. Do you feel like thats a threat to the male students?
C: Thats really funny that you mention that. Because I dont think that they think
that Im attracted to them. I do think its threatening to some of them, though.
Im thinking of one student in particular who gave me nothing but attitude the
whole time and I mean this isnt the only factor, but part of it had to be because
I wasnt masculine enough in the classroom. Because he definitely fits the ste-
reotype. Hes hockey player man and Mr. Muscle and Mr. Smartass and cool
and calm in class. And I know that youre challenging me more than if you
would challenge a distinctly heterosexual male professor. So I think its threat-
ening to their personality or their way of life. But I dont think its threatening to
them on a sexual level. Whats interesting though is I definitely had one student
come out to me who didnt want to come out to the class. And I think that part
of me shifting my persona in class allows heterosexuals to be comfortable by
seeing me as non-threatening. I think also if I have any homosexual or bisexual,
transgendered individuals in the class, I feel like that will allow them to feel
more comfortable as well. Ive had two that Ive known of. One was open with
the class and the other was not open with the class, but she was open with me.
So I definitely think its beneficial in the class in some ways.
Critical resistance analysis: description and example
At first reading it is clear Clark is describing himself as engaging in resistance in the
classroom. It can readily be inferred, without recourse to analysis, that Clark performs a
feminized masculinity in an effort to make his classroom i) a safe place for women, and
ii) an open environment for non-normative ways of being (gendered).
A CRA delves into Clarks antenarrative of resistance. It asks: What kinds of subjects
are constructed in this account?, What discourses permit their construction?, What is the
relationship between those subjects?, and What is Clarks relationship to them? Each of
the four analyses of a CRA is first described and then demonstrated through the analysis
of Clarks antenarrative about (not) being a heterosexual male college teacher.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
592 Qualitative Research 14(5)
Deconstruction trace analysis
Deconstruction refers to Derridas (1997) semiotic analysis of binaries (speech/writing,
passive/active) in philosophical texts. The deconstruction of subjects suggests the process
by which their construction relies on a subordinated and opposite Other (e.g., woman as
Other to man, gay as Other to straight). Deconstruction works to show how these binaries
can be overturned and to open up new ways of thinking. The major difference between
Bojes (2001) deconstruction analysis and deconstruction trace analysis is conceptual.
Derridas (1997: 85) theorizing of deconstruction makes clear that deconstruction is
not a tool or something that necessarily happens consciously:
Deconstruction is neither a theory nor a philosophy. It is neither a school nor a method. It is not
even a discourse, nor an act, nor a practice. It is what happens, what is happening today in what
is called society, politics, diplomacy, economics, historical reality.
Deconstruction happens all the time and therefore the deconstruction trace analysis
seeks to trace (rather than create) the falling apart of selves. For deconstruction trace
analysis this means observing when the text (or story) self-destructs, how the author of
a story has reversed his/her own dualized hierarchy of binary terms (Boje, 2001: 23).
To make clear deconstruction analysis does not produce deconstruction, it is named
deconstruction trace analysis, highlighting that the analysis traced or brought to light
deconstructions that occurred during the interviews.
While Boje acknowledged Derridas argument that deconstruction is not a method, he
nevertheless posited eight analytical steps (2001: 18) for doing deconstruction analysis.
The end result of these steps is to find a new perspective, one that resituates the story
beyond its dualisms, excluded voices or singular viewpoint (2001: 21). The CRA does
not include all Bojes eight steps, but focuses on four most pertinent to the analysis of
subjects: duality search, finding exceptions, looking between the lines, and resituating
the narrative. It also includes an additional analysis I called both/and analysis. The
both/and analysis sought to move beyond the dualisms by searching for places in the
text where the participant adopted both sides of a dichotomous position (Lather, 1991).
Doing deconstruction trace analysis. The deconstruction trace analysis can begin with a
duality search (Boje, 2001: 23). The duality search identifies either explicit (men
arent as good at communicating as women) or implicit (a man is a leader, implying
women are followers) binaries. It then looks for the relationship between the two sides of
the binaries; are they either/or and/or both/and?
The either/or, both/and binaries can be categorized in tables under broader themes like
man versus woman or heterosexual versus homosexual. Then the analysis interrogates
these tables for statements suggesting the participants relationships to these binaries. Are
they natural, resistive, or troubled? Statements, arguments or other binaries that contradict
or trouble the binaries (finding the exception, looking between the lines) can also be iden-
tified at this point. Finally, the deconstruction analysis can yield memos for each of the
broader binaries, describing their elements, the participants relationships to them, how
they break down, and how they are restored or reconceptualized (resituating the story).
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 593
A deconstruction trace analysis with Clark. Clarks account of performing a feminized mascu-
linity in the classroom makes use of male/female, heterosexual/homosexual and teacher/
student binaries. Across these three binaries, Clark constructs the male-heterosexual-teacher
and positions him in opposition to the female-heterosexual-student. Clark shows that he is
very aware of the power of what Butler (2004) calls the heterosexual matrix when he
describes masculinity and heterosexuality as intertwined. To be a man is to be assumed
heterosexual and together these two subject positions are associated with a kind of sexual-
ized power. Clark attempts to undermine this power by intentionally performing a masculin-
ity not easily located in the normative heterosexual matrix. When Clark makes the important
distinction that he is not attempting to pass as a gay man in his class, but to come across as
less heterosexual, Clark suggests that masculine heterosexuality is not one side of a binary
identity opposite to being gay, but a graded identity that can more or less enacted.
Yet, Clark seeks to undermine masculine heterosexuality and the social power it conveys
because he does not want to be a threat in the classroom and by threat, Clark is specifi-
cally concerned with sexualizing his female students. Couched in terms of an untroubled
student/teacher binary, Clarks concern for female students is recast in a reified male/female,
heterosexual/homosexual divide that, at best, positions females as objects of male desire and
at worst entails that females are hapless victims of male perpetrators. Similarly, in stating
that Clark wants (female) students to know he is off limits, he reifies a binary assumption
that heterosexual women are attracted to heterosexual men whose gender performance is not
ambiguous. He makes this claim despite earlier in the interviews describing his relationship
with a masculine female who finds his feminized masculinity very sexy.
A deconstruction trace analysis of Clarks antenarrative reveals the troubled and
untroubled binary subjects required for Clark to resist power in the classroom. While
Derrida (1997) holds that deconstruction happens, that binaries fall apart on their own
in text, Clarks antenarrative also points to the hard work of intentionally undermining
gender and sexuality binaries and the ease with which one can unwittingly reify a natu-
ralized heterosexual matrix. This analysis of Clarks antenarrative suggests that the
logic of subject position binaries can overflow the initial binary to which it is meant to
refer. In Clarks case, the untroubled binary is that of the teacher/student. Once the
teacher and student are taken to be in a mutually exclusive relationship, the other sub-
ject positions with which they are associated (male teacher/female student both
assumed heterosexual) will also be (re)locked into dualistic relations, even when they
are troubled elsewhere. In the next analysis I turn to the arguments and logic associated
with subjects in order to understand how these binary and troubled subjects are con-
structed in their social contexts.
Discourse-argument analysis
The discourse-argument analysis attends to how subjects are constructed through the
arguments and discourses of the society or culture in which they [participants] live
(Josselson, Lieblich and McAdams, 2003: 8). Discourses are systems of thought that
both construct subjects and the social environments of which they speak (Foucault,
1972). Arguments can be thought of as the logic of discourse, showing how discourses
are taken-up to construct subjects. The purpose of the discourse-argument analysis is
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
594 Qualitative Research 14(5)
therefore to interrogate the meta-thought about the nature of the self and to highlight
links between available discourses and constructed subjects.
This analysis understands that language connects with the social through being the
primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles
for power (Fairclough, 1989: 15). Therefore the discourse-argument analysis highlights
how certain arguments and discourses permitted in particular social contexts (in my case,
graduate school academic disciplines and in research interviews) enable and limit the
(de)construction of certain kinds of subjects.
Doing discourse-argument analysis. Discourse-argument analysis begins by seeking out
arguments related to subjects. The following definition serves as a frame for locating the
participants arguments: An argument is a piece of reasoning in which one or more state-
ments are offered as support for some other statement (Engel, 2000: 9). After defining
what is being argued and the supporting statements, the discourse-argument analysis is
followed to its conclusion or end. Next the argument is searched for jargon, theories, and/
or philosophies (dominant discourses). How these are used and their underlying assump-
tions and contradictions are noted. Finally, memos are written that describe the argu-
ments, their components, assumptions, contradictions, and uses.
Discourse-argument analysis with Clark. Clark makes two arguments important to under-
standing the construction of subjects in his antenarrative. First, he argues that the way to
avoid sexualizing his female students and to be seen as less of a threat is to act less
heterosexual. He does this by moving his hips, changing the way he walks and talks in
the classroom. Second, Clark argues that performing a more feminized masculinity is not
seen as a sexual threat by men in the classroom in the way a non-feminized performance
would be interpreted by women students. Instead, Clark argues that his performance is a
threat to men in the sense that it challenges mens traditional understandings of mascu-
linity; it is a threat to their personality or way of life. Clark further argues that this femi-
nized performance of masculinity helps homosexual or bisexual, transgendered
individuals to feel more comfortable in his classroom.
Clarks arguments rely on a performative understanding about the nature of gender
and sexuality and are situated well within poststructural discourses that critique the gen-
der order as reductively binary (Butler, 1990, 1993, 2004). The poststructural discourses
allowed Clark to talk about masculinity in terms of action (acting, sliding, passing),
rather than as a set of characteristics. The argument that performing a feminized mascu-
linity creates a safe space for homosexual or bisexual, transgendered students is sup-
ported by Butler (2004: 17) who suggests such an ambiguous performance would
increase the number of people whose lives count as lives.
In contrast, Clark does not problematize a moral policy discourse governing the rela-
tionship between teacher and student. Or at least Clark did not problematize this dis-
course in an interview with me, a heterosexual female graduate student with known
connections to the Womens Studies and Programs department on campus. In the context
of our conversation, Clarks account assumes that (hetero)sexual desire between student
and teacher is universally bad in the college classroom. He is concerned that he cannot
connect with students in an immediate fashion without sexualizing the conversation.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 595
Yet, as hooks (1996: 46) wonders, rather than perceiving desire between faculty and
students as always dangerous, negative and destructive, what does it mean for us to con-
sider the positive uses of that desire?. What becomes clear is that Clark, as a graduate
student being socialized in his discipline, has begun to use the theories (discourses) of his
discipline to work on his own issues around gender and gender in the classroom.
However, he did not employ them to frame his understanding of the studentteacher
relationship in the context of our interview. As such, his resistance antenarrative does not
reflect counter discourses that would enable him to think of erotic interaction in the
classroom as enabling and positively transforming (hooks, 1996).
Taken together, the deconstruction trace analysis and the discourse-argument analysis
show the kinds of subjects Clark constructed (male/female; heterosexual/homosexual;
teacher/student) and how he understood the nature of those subjects (performative and
binary). Both analyses indicated Clarks relationship to those subjects was troubled, but
it is as yet unclear how those subjects were resistive of hegemonic norms and how Clark
navigated his desire to be and not be heterosexual.
Resistance analysis
The resistance analysis seeks out the harmonious and/or discordant relationships with
and between the subjects elicited in narrative inquiries. It seeks to understand these rela-
tionships from a critical structuralist perspective, examining the kinds of selves partici-
pants constructed to resist hegemonic subjects, and from a critical resistance perspective,
examining the ways participants resist their desire to be identified as selves in the first
instance. In my study, the critical structuralist resistance analysis adapted Connells
(1995: 81) framework with hegemony, dominance/submission and complicity on the
one hand, marginalization/authorization on the other. Connells framework allowed me
to analyze the masculinities men constructed and the relationships among those mascu-
linities. In this way, the analysis concerned the kinds of men (male subjects) the partici-
pants constructed and how they reflected or rejected hegemonic norms.
The critical resistance perspective explored the degree to which participants align
with or resist the constructed subjects. When the individual is viewed as an active self-
producing entity, the analysis becomes concerned with the various places participants
can resist, adopt, and complicate normative ideals. This is not to say, as in my study, the
individual man can refuse to be a man (although some (pro)feminist authors argue just
that [e.g., Stoltenberg, 2000]). Rather it is to see that acts of resistance to self-identifica-
tion can reconstitute at a macro-level the available thinking about what a man can be.
It is through these two analyses that a resistance analysis examines the participants
constructions of subjects to address questions of subordination, complicity, and resist-
ance. A critical structuralist perspective asks, what do these constructions tell us about the
relationship among the hegemonic and marginalized subjects? The poststructural perspec-
tive asks, how do participants submit to, resist, and/or critically resist those subjects?
Doing resistance analysis. The resistance analysis interrogates the participants interviews
and analyses with the following questions: How do the participants subjects relate to
one another? and How do the participants submit to, resist, and/or critically resist
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
596 Qualitative Research 14(5)
normative ideals?. In my study I examined the relationship between the participants
constructions of the hegemonic man, the ideal man (the man they aspired to be), and
Othered men and women identified in the above analyses. I then wrote memos about
these relationships and the participants relationship to these constructions.
Resistance analysis with Clark. In his antenarrative, Clark most clearly describes two kinds
of men: the man he performs in class, a feminized man, and the man embodied by a male
student who Clark sees as fitting the stereotype. This stereotypical heterosexual male
student was hockey player man and Mr. Muscle and Mr. Smartass and cool and calm in
class. Clarks description positions this students heterosexual masculinity as hege-
monic, the culturally, socially, and politically dominant and taken-for-granted version of
what it means to be a man (Connell, 1995). From a critical structuralist perspective,
Clarks feminized masculinity is a subordinated masculinity that deviates too far from
the hegemonic norm (Connell, 1995). The students challenging of Clark was perceived
to be a response to the threat that deviant and subordinated masculinities, in vying for
legitimation, present to hegemonic ones. From this perspective, Clarks feminized mas-
culinity can be seen to resist the hegemonic form, a resistance that may be particularly
impactful given Clarks position as teacher relative to the student.
From a poststructural resistance perspective, however, Clarks feminized man is not
as much a form, an identifiable male subject with a nameable set of characteristics, as he
was constructed and performed by Clark to serve a function. As an active construction,
this feminized masculinity can be seen as a subject enabled by critical resistance, an
understanding of masculinity that Whitehead (2002) would argue checks the structure of
male dominance and the power of the heterosexual matrix. While Clark certainly sought
to value a subordinated form of masculinity, he was also willing to maintain a critical
distance from the desire to be recognized as a heterosexual man in the first instance.
The final analysis, while optimally conducted alongside the previous analyses, takes
into account that Clarks antenarrative was elicited in an interview with me. Focusing on
intersubjectivity attends to myself as the interviewer and the subjects I brought to the
interview setting and analysis. This analysis makes clear that narrative researchers use
their interpretive authority (Chase, 1996), even as that authority is not supreme. The
intersubjectivity analysis is conducted to ensure the final product is not read as a master
narrative, but as one among many possible narratives (Daiute and Fine, 2003).
Intersubjectivity analysis
In the intersubjectivity analysis the researcher considers how her presence and the inter-
view process are implicated in the (de)construction of interview subjects by attending to
the interview relationship as productive of (enabling and limiting) the subjects elicited in
narrative interviews. As Butler notes, I begin my story of myself only in the face of a
you who asks me to give an account (2005: 11). Pamphilon refers to this type of analy-
sis as interactional, examining the dynamics between the researcher and the researched
(1999: 404). In CRA, attention to intersubjectivity means making explicit the self and
subjects the researcher brings to [(de)constructs in] the interview and how those may
have interacted with the participants self and subjects. This requires a significant
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 597
commitment to reflexivity on the part of the researcher. In my study I kept a personal
journal in which I recorded my reactions to the interviews. But I also asked interview
questions intended to promote conversations about how the interviews were going, how
the men felt about our relationship and how our genders may have impacted the content
of the interview. The latter question helped me understand, even if just hypothetically,
what kind of woman the participants understood me to be and how that kind of woman
might have impacted how they responded.
Doing intersubjectivity analysis. The intersubjectivity analysis involves examining three
data sources: a) the researchers notes, diary, or other recordings, b) recorded transac-
tions between the interviewer and interviewee, and c) interview questions/discussions
related to the process of interviewing and the interview/interviewee relationship. Each of
these data sources is interrogated for the kinds of subjects that were (de)constructed and
how these subjects related to one another (perhaps employing strategies from the decon-
struction trace analysis). Memos can then be written about the subjects that emerged and
how they may have been co-implicated in one anothers (de)contruction. It is important
these memos be explicitly written from the researchers perspective as the researcher
cannot know, unless told, how the participant felt or reacted during the interview.
Intersubjectivity analysis (with Clark). My study of masculinity in higher education is/was
framed by the poststructural theories of Foucault and Butler and draws on the work of
Whitehead (2002), Boje (2001), and Hoy (2005) who similarly site Foucault and Butler.
My work assumes that masculinity and male dominance are both negotiated phenome-
non, rather than universal conditions of immutable gendered power. Further, my inter-
view method intentionally sought to promote deep reflection and personal change in
alignment with an ethic of critical resistance (Wolgemuth and Donohue, 2006). The post-
structural feminist and troubled heterosexual female subjects I brought to the interviews
very much admired Clarks feminized masculinity and his critically resistive self that
enabled the mixing of gender codes. Much of this is revealed in the question I posed to
Clark:
to what extent can we even attempt to leave our sexuality at the door? And I think what
youre saying is that you dont try to do that, you try to convert your sexuality and that way
when you do that you act more homosexual, you act more ambiguous. Do you feel like thats a
threat to the male students?
By asking this question, I was pointing out what I believed to be incongruent in Clarks
narrative. It seemed to me paradoxical to talk about masculinity and heterosexuality as
intertwined and performed and yet to work inordinately hard to control, set aside, sub-
vert, or corral ones sexuality in school.
Given my clear alignment with poststructural discourses and the poststructural feminist
subject I brought to the interviews, Clark presents an interesting problematic. Clarks adop-
tion of poststructural discourses and his performance of a feminized masculinity most closely
matched my ideal. In the interviews and in this analysis I was tempted to cheer, Yes, youve
got it right! I couldnt have said it better myself! (As if in this write-up Im not saying it. As
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
598 Qualitative Research 14(5)
if Im not using my interpretive authority). Examining the above question posed to Clark
from the perspective of the poststructural feminist subject reveals that my next statement,
what youre saying is that you dont try to do that, you try to convert your sexuality can be
read as me feeding him a line. In this instance I am telling him what I want to hear and sug-
gesting how he should reframe his antenarrative. But Clark doesnt bite and his antenarrative
continues along the same logic, that he seeks to be less (hetero)sexual, rather than to con-
vert his sexuality. As in the interview, my analysis seeks to make the same point that all
subjectivities, including the teacher/student ones should be critically resisted.
All this suggests that I may need to be wary of my attachment to Foucault and Butler
whose worldviews with which I am so enamored nevertheless limit my thinking. As St.
Pierre states, I suspect that I can best honor Foucault by being wary of my attachment to
him, by working to get free of the subject he has allowed me to think and be so that I
might become a different subject (2004: 327). I am led, for example, to wonder whether
it is fair to present Clark as not being critical of the student/teacher binary. Clark was a
second year student in a Masters program and it is perhaps unlikely that he had come to
think of himself as a teacher to the same degree he thought of himself as a man. Had I
read my data through a model of graduate student identity development (e.g., Adler and
Adler, 2005), I might have understood Clark as transitioning into the teacher role and his
performing an alternative masculinity as less about problematizing masculinity and het-
erosexuality and more about developing himself as a caring and ethical college teacher,
attuned to the needs of his students.
Discussion
A CRA reveals the complexities of Clarks account of resistance in the classroom. Clarks
performance of a feminized masculinity was described (to me, in research interviews) as
a strategy of self-refusal. In the classroom, Clark sought to detach his body from the
signs that would code it as heterosexual and male. This was conducted as both as an
attempt to open the class to non-normative ways of being, signaling alignment with the
ethical aims of critical resistance (Hoy, 2005), and to create a safe space for women,
signaling alignment with critical structural resistance. Many subject binaries are at play
in this account, and a critical resistance analyses reveals how they are troubled (in the
performance of feminine-man), reconstituted (in the presumed power relationship
between heterosexual males and females), and taken-for-granted (in the division between
teacher and student). While poststructural discourses about gendered subjects made it
possible for Clark to talk about the heterosexual-male-teacher as performed, the taken-
for-granted moral policy discourse that governs the asexuality of studentteacher rela-
tionships ensured the reification of traditional gender roles. Clarks account of critically
resisting power-as-dominance and power as productive in the classroom is therefore
revealed to entail its own complicities and subordinations; it reveals Clarks account as
simultaneously one of desiring to be and not be a man, as opening up the classroom to
more subjective possibilities and foreclosing on others by positioning women-students
as victims of masculine domination. As Foucault (1988) points out, there is no power
without resistance and no resistance without power. A CRA reveals these complexities
and struggles against positing straightforward accounts of resistance.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 599
In the case of masculinity in higher education, this complex understanding may
inform the ways in which male students on US college campuses are encouraged to resist
hegemonic masculinity and to work collaboratively to end violence against women
(Wolgemuth, 2007; Davis and Laker, 2004; Davis and Wagner, 2005; Harris, 2008). This
includes critiquing the seemingly non-gendered academic discourses that circulate in
higher education (Wolgemuth, 2009) and engaging in research that seeks to engender
resistance (Wolgemuth and Donohue, 2006).
Conclusion
In this paper I introduced a narrative analysis strategy called critical resistance analy-
sis. My aim is pedagogical. In the field of qualitative research where explicit descrip-
tions of analytic process are harder to come by and doctoral programs in the social
sciences typically dedicate only one course to qualitative data analysis (Leach and
Onwuegbuzie, 2007), this strategy is detailed for both novice and experienced narra-
tive researchers. I presented the four analyses in sequence in this write-up for conveni-
ence and readability. I do not hold they should be conducted in the way Ive presented
them. An equally illuminative analysis could, for example, begin with a focus on inter-
subjectivity and work back to deconstruction trace analysis, framing all the analyses in
terms of the context in which the data was generated. Overall, a CRA can assist narra-
tive researchers to elucidate and examine both the kind of subjects that emerge in nar-
rative interviews and how they are constructed, but also with the extent to which
participants adhere to or resist those subjects. I argue this analytic aim adds value to
the study of resistance by highlighting the complexities of both critical structural and
critical resistance forms of resistance.
I chose Clarks narrative as an example for this case study to share what I believe to
be the most informative aspects of CRA; that it reveals the complexities of resistance.
Clarks narrative is most clearly one that speaks directly of resistance, but an antenarra-
tive does not have to be about resistance to apply CRA. I conducted a CRA on male
graduate students interviews that did not directly address resistance to hegemonic mas-
culinity or seek to undermine a desire to be men. In these cases the CRA equally shed
light on the contours of their dominance and complicity and suggested that acts of domi-
nation produced a kind of inadvertent resistance (Wolgemuth, 2007).
Resistance, complicity, and subordination are part of our daily lives. Knowingly
and unknowingly our bodies and language reflect, counter, and perpetuate often
oppressive social identities. Studying and analyzing the ways in which ordinary and
extraordinary people navigate these identities, particularly the ways in which identi-
ties are resisted, can contribute to a diverse and growing body of knowledge about
how resistance is done and its intended and unintended consequences (e.g., Abes,
2008; Subreenduth, 2006). It can also yield, on the discursive level, more possible
ways of being. This is an ethical aim of critical resistance, to engage in resistance to
see what resistance open up (Hoy, 2005: 11). Yet a CRA seeks to deeply investigate
the complexities of resistance, to resist taking for granted the telos of critical resist-
ance. As Hoy points out, resistance to power and domination may thus be more
complex than it appears on the surface (2005: 3). A CRA illuminates the ways in
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
600 Qualitative Research 14(5)
which resistance opens up possibilities and closes them down, an understanding that
affords narrative researchers a more complex account of how individuals struggle
against and for themselves.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Drs Jean Clandinin, Barbara Pamphilon, and Mirka Koro-Ljungberg for their
helpful review and comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Notes
1. This paper is based on the analysis strategy employed in my 2007 doctoral dissertation,
Intellect, inter(dis)course, and identity: the production and resistance of masculinity in grad-
uate education, which examined how five male graduate students from counseling, social
science, media studies, computer science, and social economy disciplines constructed mas-
culinity. In my dissertation this analysis strategy used a painting metaphor to describe four
analytic steps. While the metaphor was initially useful for me to frame my analytic process,
as I worked to develop the process further, I found it increasingly difficult to describe the
theory and analytical steps through the painting metaphor. The metaphor began to feel forced
and I have dropped it from this manuscript for that reason.
2. Clark is a pseudonym the participant chose, referring to Clark Kent in Superman. Clarks dis-
cipline, media studies is also disguised. Media studies reflects the kinds of theories and social
science research methods Clark would have engaged in his department and course of study.
References
Abes E (2008) Applying queer theory in practice with college students: Transformation of a
researchers and participants perspectives on identity, a case study. Journal of LGBT Youth
5(1): 5777.
Adler PA and Adler P (2005) The identity career of the graduate student: Professional socialization
to academic sociology. The American Sociologist 36(2): 1127.
Boje DM (2001) Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boje DM (2011) Introduction to agential antenarratives that shape the future of organizations. In:
Boje DM (ed) Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Anternarrative Handbook.
New York: Routledge, 119.
Bloom LR (1996) Stories of ones own: Nonunitary subjectivity in narrative representation. Quali-
tative Inquiry 2(2): 176197.
Bloom LR (2002) From self to society: Reflection on the power of narrative inquiry. In: Merriam
SB (ed) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 310313.
Butler J (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler J (1993) Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge.
Butler J (2002) Bodies and power, revisited. Radical Philosophy 114 (July/Aug): 1319.
Butler J (2004) Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wolgemuth 601
Butler J (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.
Chase SE (1996) Personal vulnerability and interpretive authority in narrative research. In: Jos-
selson R (ed) Ethics and Process in the Narrative Study of Lives (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 4559.
Chase SE (2006) Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In: Denzin NK and Lin-
coln YS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 651679.
Chase SE (2011) Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds)
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 421434.
Cherrier H (2009) Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of
Business Research 62: 181190.
Connell RW (1995) Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Daiute C and Fine M (2003) Researchers as protagonists in teaching and learning qualitative
research. In: Josseslson R, Lieblich A and McAdams D (eds) Up Close and Personal: The
Teaching and Learning of Narrative Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 6178.
Davis TL and Laker JA (2004) Connecting men to academic and student affairs programs and
services. In: Kellom R (ed) Developing Effective Programs and Services for College Men. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 4757.
Davis TL and Wagner R (2005) Increasing mens development of social justice attitudes and
actions. In: Reason RD, Broido EM, Davis TL and Evans NJ (eds) Developing Social Justice
Allies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2941.
Derrida J (1997) Of Grammatology (Trans. Spivak GC). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press. (Original work published 1967)
Engel SM (2000) With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies. Boston, MA: Bed-
ford/St. Martins.
Fairclough N (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fernandez L (2002) Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories to
document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 4665.
Foucault M (1972) Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault M (1988) History of Sexuality, Vol 1: An Introduction (Trans. Hurley R). New York:
Vintage Books. (Original work published 1978)
Foucault M (1990) History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure (Trans. Hurley R). New York:
Vintage Books. (Original work published 1984)
Friedan B (1963) The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton and Company.
Gibson WJ and Brown A (2009) Working with Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Grbich C (2007) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubrium JF and Holstein JA (1995) From the individual to the interview society. In: Holstein JA
and Gubrium JF (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Harris F III (2008) Deconstructing masculinity: A qualitative study of college mens masculine
conceptualizations and gender performance. NASPA Journal 45(4): 453474.
hooks b (1996, March) Passionate pedagogy: Erotic student/faculty relationships. Z MAGAZINE:
4551.
Hoy DC (2005) Critical Resistance: From Poststructuralism to Post-critique. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Humphreys M and Brown AD (2002) Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A
case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies 23(2): 421447.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from
602 Qualitative Research 14(5)
Josselson R, Lieblich A and McAdams D (2003) Introduction. In: Josseslson R, Lieblich A and
McAdams D (eds) Up Close and Personal: The Teaching and Learning of Narrative Research.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 311.
Lather P (1991) Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New
York: Routledge.
Leach NL and Onwuegbuzie AJ (2007) An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data
analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly 22(4): 557584.
McAdams DP, Josselson R and Lieblich A (eds) (2006) Identity and Story: Creating Self in Nar-
rative. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Millett K (1970) Sexual Politics. New York: Doubleday.
Munoz SM and Maldonado MM (2012) Counterstories of college persistence by undocumented
Mexicana students: Navigating race, class, gender, and legal status. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education 25(3), 293315.
Patton LD and Catching C (2009) Teaching while Black: Narratives of African American student
affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22(6): 713728.
Pamphilon B (1999) The zoom model: A dynamic framework for the analysis of life histories.
Qualitative Inquiry 5(3): 393410.
Reissman CK (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roulston K (2010) Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research 10(2):
199228.
Stoltenberg J (2000) Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice. New York: UCL Press.
St. Pierre EA (2004) Care of the self: The subject and freedom. In: Baker BM and Heyning KE
(eds) Dangerous Coagulations? The Uses of Foucault in the Study of Education. New York:
Peter Lang, 326358.
Subreenduth S (2006) Why, why are we not allowed even?: A de/colonizing narrative of
complicity and resistance in post/apartheid South Africa. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 19(5): 617638.
Whitehead SM (2002) Men and Masculinities. Oxford: Polity Press.
Wolgemuth JR (2007) Intellect, inter(dis)course, and identity: the production and resistance of
masculinity in graduate education. Unpublished PhD thesis, Colorado State University.
Wolgemuth JR (2009) Im not a man, Im a graduate student: academic discourses and the con-
struction of gender in higher education. In: Wozniak H and Bartoluzzi S (eds) Proceedings
of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference: The Student Experience. Darwin, NT, 69 July,
519528.
Wolgemuth JR and Donohue R (2006) Toward an inquiry of discomfort: guiding transformation in
emancipatory narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(5): 10121021.
Author biography
Jennifer R Wolgemuth is an Assistant Professor of Educational Research at the University of South
Florida. Her research focuses on the unintended and messy outcomes of social science research,
including its personal and social impacts on researchers, participants and those who shepherd
research evidence into policy and practice.
at University of British Columbia Library on September 10, 2014 qrj.sagepub.com Downloaded from