REMAININGANSWERABLE
1
DialogicActionResearchandtheChallengeofRemainingAnswerable
JanDeFehr
UniversityofWinnipeg
AuthorNote
CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoJanDeFehr,
DepartmentofEducation,UniversityofWinnipeg,515PortageAvenue,Winnipeg,
MB.R3B2E9E-mail:[email protected]
REMAININGANSWERABLE
2
HarleneAndersonhaslongdescribedthecollaborativedialogueapproachto
familytherapy,education,andhumanserviceworkassharedinquiry,andeveryday
research(Anderson,1997;Anderson&Gehart,2007;Anderson,2012;Anderson,
2014).Notonlyaprofessionalapproachtopractice,thecollaborativedialogue
approachisanopen-ended,conversational,practicalinvestigativeprocess
embeddedinlife,familiartoeveryone.Whenweareperplexed,troubled,or
uncertainhowtoproceed,wetalkwithoneanotherinanearnestsearchfor
possibilities.We‘live’ourquestions,eventually‘livinginto’theiranswers(Rilke,
1934).Anancient,relationalpractice,familiartocitizensaroundtheglobe,dialogic
methodsofinquiryareintrinsictolife:“Tolivemeanstoparticipateindialogue….”
(Bakhtin,1984,p.293).Genuinecollaborativedialogue—whetherinprofessional
contexts,backalleys,orkitchens—yieldsunderstanding,action,andpossibility.Our
everydaydialogicmethodsofinquiryareinherentlygenerativeandtransforming.
Wetypicallyabandonourfamiliarmethodsofsocialinquirywhenweengage
inacademicresearch;systematicqualitativesocialresearchmethodologiesare
generallypresumedsuperiortotheeverydaydialogicinquirymethodsfamiliarto
citizens(Heritage,1984,p.6).Legitimizedresearchmethodologiesgeneratedand
honedwithinvariousacademicdisciplinesprovidelegitimizedoutcomes,“...more
orlessbankableguarantees(Law,2004,p.9).“Asaframework,methoditselfis
takentobeatleastprovisionallysecure”(Law,2004,p.10).Researchparticipants
areusuallyunfamiliarwiththemethodologiesusedtoelicitandanalyzetheir
contributions.
REMAININGANSWERABLE
3
Asdecolonizationandsocialjusticeemancipatorymovementsgain
momentuminacademiccontexts,theprivilegesandconventionsofthesocial
sciencesmeetincreasedscrutiny(McNamee&Hosking,2012;Reynolds,2014;
Wilson,2008).Questionscontinuetoaccumulate.Whosemethodsofinvestigation
shoulddrivequalitativesocialinquiry?Researchparticipantsgivetheirwords,their
personalnarratives,andtheirtrust.Whoholdstheprivilegeofdetermininghow
participantcontributionswillbeevaluated,measured,analyzed,coded,catalogued,
counted,re-organized,represented,orinterpreted?Whatscholarly‘mills’will
processtheutterancesofresearchparticipants?Whosestrategiesforunderstanding
shouldbeapplied,usingwhosevocabularies,timelines,sensibilitiesand
sensitivities?Whosemethods?Whoseparadigms(Wilson,2008)?Istheresearch
legacyofthephysicalsciencesappropriateforsocialinquiryincultural,social,and
politicalspheresoflife(Law,2004)?Additionally,
Towhatextentdoesresearchconvertthecommonsense,unscrutinized
realitiesofthecultureintodisciplinarydiscourse?Inwhatwaysdoes
researchempowerthedisciplineasopposedtothoseunderstudy?Whenis
theresearcherexploitinghisorhersubjectsforpurposesofpersonalor
institutionalprestige?Doesresearchserveagenciesofsurveillance,
increasingtheircapacitiesofcontrolovertheresearchsubject”(Gergen&
Gergen,2000,p.1034)?
Asthecritiquegrows,qualitativeresearchtheorists,NormanDenzinandYvonna
Lincoln(2011)advise,
REMAININGANSWERABLE
4
“…itisnecessarytoconfrontandworkthroughthecriticismsthatcontinue
tobedirectedofqualitativeinquiry.Eachgenerationmustdrawitslineinthe
sandandtakeastancetowardthepast….Inthespiritofinclusion,letus
listentoourcritics.Butindoingso,wemustrenewoureffortstode-colonize
theacademy,tohonorthevoicesofthosewhohavebeensilencedby
dominantparadigms.Letusdothisinaspiritofcooperationand
collaborationandmutualself-respect(p.x)
WithDenzinandLincoln’semancipatoryinvitationinmind,thispaper
proceedstodescribewhathappenswhencollaborativedialogue—thepeoples’
everydaymethodsofinquiry—leadsqualitativesocialscienceresearch.Aparticular
dissertationresearchexamplewillhelpinformthediscussion,alongwithadiverse
bodyofliterature,muchofitderivedfromtheinternationaldialogicpractices
literature(DeFehr,2008).Wewillnoticethatdialogicmethodschangeeverypartof
theusualresearchenterprise.Throughouttheentiredialogicinquiryprocess,the
dialogicresearcherattunesprimarilytotheutterancesoffellowparticipantsinthe
inquiryproject,theinquirycontext,andtheemergingdialogue,withallits
constraintsandpossibilities.Theinquiryprocessissituationally-driven,ratherthan
methodologically-driven,uniquelylocal,ratherthanlocated‘outthere’andapplied
(DeFehr,2008,pp.314-315;Shotter,1993).Participantsinvolvedincollaborative,
dialogicinquirybelongtoit,actintoitandfromit;its‘methods’aretheirown,
whollyfamiliartothemthroughtheireverydaylifeexperience.Theresearcher,
radicallypositionedasafellowrespondentintheproject,remains“answerableto
itscalls”(Katz&Shotter,2004,p.78),notonlyatthestartwhentheresearcher
REMAININGANSWERABLE
5
‘seeksdata,’butallthroughtheinquiryevent,ineachunfoldingmoment,throughto
thelaststrokeofthekey.
Collaborativedialogicinquiry,asresearchmethod,isinherentlygenerative
andtransforming,justasitisineverydaylife.Whenwemeettogetherindialogueto
questionoraddresssomethingofimportancetous,weinevitablychangetheobject
ofourinquiry,andlikewise,wetooaretransformed;wefindthatwecannotremain
thesame.Participantsindialogue,asGadamar(1975/2004)suggests,are
“transformedintoacommunion”inwhichtheydonotremainwhattheywere(p.
371).Discussingspeechgenre,theresearchquestion,theresearcher’srole,and
authorship,thefollowingpagesoutlinekeypossibilitiesaffordedbyacollaborative
dialogueapproachtoqualitativesocialinquiry.
PossibilityOne:TheOpportunitytoSpeakinaFamiliarSpeechGenre
Inacollaborativedialogueapproachtoinquiry,participantsarefreetospeak
inwaysmostfamiliartothem,usingwordsandexpressionsfromtheireveryday
vocabularies.Qualitativesocialresearch,incontrast,usuallyrequiresresearch
participantstousespeechgenresunfamiliartothem.Researcherscommonlyask
participantstocommunicatetheiropinionsandlifeexperiencesbyselecting
numbers,circlingoptionsonLikertscales(agree,moderatelyagree,andsoon),
completingfill-in-the-blanksurveys,orparticipatinginfocusgroups.Most
qualitativesocialresearchdependsontheinterviewgenre(Perakyla&Ruusuvuori,
2011,p.529).Unlikedialogue,interviewfeaturesanindividual‘solo’voice.Aiming
forneutralityandobjectivity,researchers,likejournalists,attempttostepoutofthe
storysoasnottocontaminatethe“respondent’svesselofanswers”(Holstein&
REMAININGANSWERABLE
6
Gubrium,2003,p.13.)Therespondentdisclosesinformationwhiletheinterviewer’s
responsesareconcealed.Conversationtakesplaceinthebackgroundofqualitative
inquiry,butspeechgenreresponsibleforthegenerationof‘data’usuallyvariesfrom
peoples’dailycommunicationmodes.
RobertShuy’s(2003)comparisonofinterviewandconversationdraws
attentiontopotentialpowerasymmetriesinherentintheinterviewmode.Shuy
assertsthat,althoughinterviewisacommonlyheardformofcommunication,most
peoplespendlittleoftheir‘talklives’actuallyparticipatingininterview(p.179).
Shuysuggeststhatalthoughinterviewcreatestheappearanceofprivilegingthe
respondent’svoice,theinterviewerarguablydominatesthecommunicationsince
theinterviewertypicallyassumesresponsibilityforvoicingallquestionsinthe
interchange.Determiningtheorderandcontentofwhatwillbeasked,interview
containsrespondents’speechwithinpre-setparameters.Interviewquestionsimply
theirreplies;answersneverfalltoofarfromthequestionsthatprecedethem.
Withinrigidquestion-answerformats,intervieweesforgotheprivilegesthey
enjoyinopendialogue—therighttoreadilychangethesubject,interrupt,raise
questionsoftheirown,andheargenuineaffirmativeresponsefromtheir
conversationalpartner.Formalinterviewscanbeintimidatingtoparticipants,
resultinginlimitedordistortedrepresentationsofparticipantknowledge(Shuy,
2003,p.187).Shuy(2003)claimsinterviewspeechmodesofferan“unequal
distributionofinteractivepower”(p.180),placingrespondentsinsubordinate
positionswhileelevatinginterviewerstosuperordinateroles,aconcernresonant
REMAININGANSWERABLE
7
withSheilaMcNameeandDianHosking’s(2012)discussionof“subject-object”and
“passive-active”relationsinresearch(p.27).
Inmydissertationresearchwithmyprofessionalcollaborativecolleagues,
dialogue—ordinary,everydayconversation,intrinsictoeveryculture—
characterizedeachphaseoftheinquiryproject(DeFehr,2008).Dialogueblurred
distinctionsbetweenresearcherandresearched,observerandobservedinour
project.Whileinterviewseparatescommunicants,dialogue“…isgroundedinthe
assumptionofinter-relatedness…”(McNamee&Hosking,2012,p.102).Dialogue
allowedgreatervariationbetweenparticipantvoices,silence,tone,andtempoas
ourprojectconversationtookon“…alifeofitsown”(Gadamer,2004,p.385).The
detailsofwhattotalkaboutweredeterminedresponsively‘inthemoment,’as
participantsrespondedtowhatwasjustsaid,inanticipationofwhatmightyetneed
tobesaid.Ourconversationproceededaccordingtowhat“thesituation”calledfor,
“inthemannercalledfor;”allparticipants‘facilitated’ourdialogicinquiry,justasall
ofuswereledbyit(Anderson,2007a,p.52;Shotter,199).Thespeechgenreof
dialogueallowedmetomovebeyondthecommonplace‘researcherasminer’role,
makingitpossibletoengageinsocialinquiryfrompositionsalongsidemy
colleagues.
PossibilityTwo:HearingCollectiveQuestionsthatAlreadyMatter
Researcherswantingtoconducttheirworkas“…acollaborativeeffortwith
peopleratherthananinvestigationofthem…”(Gustavson,1996,p.90),will
promoteinquirythathasmeaning,urgency,andrelevance,forpersonsand
communities.Researchquestionshavepersonal,social,andpoliticalhistories.
REMAININGANSWERABLE
8
Collaborativeinquiryistypicallymatchedwithquestionsthatmatterandmakea
differencetoresearchparticipants,ratherthanquestionsthatseeminglyderive
fromtheintellectualclevernessofanindividualresearcher.Whatimpresses
funders,ethicsreviewboards,andpromotionalcommitteesisnotnecessarilywhat
matters‘onthestreet.’Voicingaresearchquestioncanbeatentativeandmulti-
voicedactoflisteningasresearchershearandsensethestruggleandpotential
stirringwithinaparticularcommunityofpersons.Ratherthanimposingalofty
inquiryinitiativefrom‘theoutside,’theaimsofthecollaborativedialoguetradition
arepragmatic,influencedbythephilosopherWittgenstein’s(1953/2001)practical
understanding,thekindofunderstandingpeopledo,andshow(p.52),ratherthan
privateexercisesofmentalenlightenmentthatleadnowhere.Insteadofpassively
exploringwhatsomethingis,orwhatitmeans,collaborative,dialogicinquiry
reachesfordesirablepossibilities,newformsofactionthatmatterandmakea
directdifferencetopersonsandcommunities.Acknowledgingthegrowingacuityof
globalenvironmentaldegradationandsocialandeconomicinequity,social
constructioninnovatorandscholar,KennethGergen,urgessocialscienceresearch
tomovebeyondtheproblematicconventionof“mirroring”ourrapidlychanging
world,towardsformative,imaginative,proactiveinquirythatisexplicitly
“liberatory,practiceproducing,andactioncentered”(Gergen,2014,inpress).
Thetopicofmydissertationresearchwasreciprocityandmutualinfluence
(DeFehr,2008),inspiredbyAnderson’s(1997)famedpremisethatgenuine
dialogueisinherentlygenerativeandtransformingforparticipants(p.100).
Andersonassertsthatcollaborative,dialogicpractitioners,regardlessoftheir
REMAININGANSWERABLE
9
professionalcontext,alsorisktransformation,notonlypractitioners’clients
(Anderson,1997).Withgreatinterest,Inoticedastrikingcontrastbetweenthe
‘vicarioustrauma,’‘compassionfatigue,’and‘burn-out’discourse,andthe
‘generativeandtransformingeffectsofpractice’discoursearisingfromthe
internationalcollaborativepracticescommunity(Anderson&Gehart,2007).
Withoutintendingtonegatethephenomenaofburn-out,Iwantedtojoinmy
collaborativedialoguecolleaguesinanefforttoaddtothediscoursedepicting
practiceasanongoingsourceoflearning,nurturance,andtransformationfor
practitioners.Iwasespeciallyinterestedinhearingmycollaborativedialogue
colleaguesdescribetheirworkasgenerativeandtransformingforthemselves,from
withinthe‘roughandtumble’minutiaeoftheireverydaypractices.Itisonethingto
speakofourworkasgenerativeandtransformingusingconceptual,propositional,
abstractlanguage,andperhapsanothermattertospeakofthegenerativityofour
workfromwithinthedynamiccomplexityofoureverydayinteractionswithour
clients.
Mydissertationresearchquestioninvitedfourteencollaborativedialogue
therapistsfromsixcountriestodescribetheirworkasgenerativeandtransforming
forthemselves,aspractitioners(DeFehr,2008).Practitionersagreeingto
participateintheresearchwereinvitedtorevisethequestion,butinsteadof
improvingit,theyimmediatelybeganrespondingtoit,demonstratingourcollective
resonancewithourtopic.Ourresearchquestionincitedaction,notonlydescription:
Aspractitionerswroteabouttheirpractices,theyinadvertently‘made’them,shaped
them,transformedthem.‘Wordsinviteworlds.’Talk,whetherspokenorwritten,is
REMAININGANSWERABLE
10
action,andspeakingdialogicallyfurthersactioninourlives(Gergen,2014;
Goldberg,2005;Strong&Pare,2004).
PossibilityThree:ResearcherasCo-respondent,NotAnalyst,NotInterpreter
Theresearchconventionof‘de-relating.’Mostconventionalsocialscience
researchbeginswithsocialinteraction—focusgroups,surveyforms,orparticipant
observation—requiringtheleadresearchertoengagecloselywithparticipantsin
theproject.Butafterresearchershavegleanedenough‘data,’theytypicallyretreat
and“de-relate”(Strong,2004,p.215),
…turningawayfromlocalscenesandtheirparticipants,fromrelations
formedandpersonaldebtsincurredinthefield.Nowanauthorworkingat
herdesk,she[theresearcher]reviewsherrecordingsofmembers’everyday
experiencesandreorientstoherfieldnotesastextstobeanalyzed(Emerson,
Fretz,andShaw,1995,p.169).
Adoptingrolesofdataanalystsorinterpreters,researchersseeminglyriseabovethe
utterancesofresearchparticipants,implementinganalyticandinterpretive
strategiesaccordingtotherequirementsoftheirchosenresearchmethodologies.
Lookingbackoncommunicationswithparticipantsretrospectively,conventional
qualitativeresearchersbeginthetaskofrevealingwhatthedata‘reallyis’inits
presumedessence,orwhatthedata‘reallymeans’(Tesch,1990,p.304).This
analyticandinterpretiveprocessoftenrequiresresearcherstocode,re-order,
classifyandcountparticipantutterances.Withtheaimofmakingthe‘data’more
manageable,thisreorderingprocessgeneratesastatichierarchyofthemes,sub-
themes,andnon-themes.Traditionalqualitativedataanalysisseparatesparticipant
REMAININGANSWERABLE
11
utterancesfromtheconversationalcontextsthatgivethemtheiruniquenessand
richmeanings.
Collaborativedialogueandcrucialroleof‘co-respondent.’Collaborative
dialoguepractitionersfunctionasco-respondentsintheconversationscomprising
theireverydaywork;theydonotfunctionasanalystsandinterpretersoftheir
clients.Thecollaborativedialoguetherapytraditiondivergesfrommodernist
psychoanalysis(Anderson,1997),andsimilarly,collaborativedialoguemovesaway
from“thehermeneuticsofsuspiciousness,”andthetraditionof“looking“behind”or
“under”aperson’sexpressiontorevealwhattheperson’sexpressionreallymeans”
(Gurnaes,2012,p.54).Insteadoflisteningtoanalyzeorinterprettheutterancesof
others,Anderson(2007)describesamorespontaneouslyresponsivestyleof
hearing:“Itisaparticipatoryactivitythatrequiresrespondingtotryto
understand—beinggenuinelycurious,askingquestionstolearnmoreaboutwhatis
saidandnotwhatyouthinkshouldbesaid”(p.36).Andersondistinguishes
betweenresponsesthat“clarifyandexpand”(p.36)andresponses“…thatseek
detailsandfactstodeterminethingslikediagnosesandinterventionsoraimto
guidetheconversationinaparticulardirection”(p.36).Shedescribesthequalityof
responserequiredindialogueasfollows:“Agoodlistenerresponds,asShotter
(1995)suggests,“into”theconversation;weactresponsively“into”asituation,
doingwhat‘it’callsfor”(Anderson,2007,p.37).Anderson’srespondingwithin
dialogueissimilartoherrespondingasalistenertoastory.“Itrytolearnaboutand
understandtheirstorybyrespondingtothem:Iamcurious,Iposequestions,Imake
commentsandIgesture…”(p.47).
REMAININGANSWERABLE
12
Othercollaborativedialoguepractitionersinthehelpingprofessions
acknowledgethecentralityofresponsivityintheirwork.Collaborativedialogue
practitionerMarilynFrankfurt(1999)observedthatherpractitionercolleagues
PeggyPennandTomAndersenrespondedonlywithwordsandfeelingsprompted
intheminthemoment,withinaparticularconversation(PennandFrankfurt,1999,
p.177).FrankfurtwritesofTomAndersen’sresponsivity,suggestinghisresponsive
feelings,helpedopenan“exchangeofvoices”whichkeptAndersenin“astateof
newlearning,newunderstanding,andchange…,”“areadyspace,”asshesawit(p.
177).Familytherapyhistorianandpractitioner,LynnHoffman(1998),resistedthe
dominantpracticeoffollowingpresumedobjectivetherapymodels,anoptionshe
regardedasexclusionaryandcompetitive(p.100).Instead,shefavouredaless
scripted,morevulnerable,sensorial,andopenpractitionerstance.SimilarlyJohn
Shotter(2004)encouragespractitionerorientationtothedynamic,living
conversation,theunfoldingpresentmoment,andthepeoplewithinit,ratherthanto
staticexternalmethodologicaldirectives.Hewrites,“…toignoretheconversation’s
continuouslychangingrequirements,momentbymoment,andtoinsertintoitfrom
theoutsidetheoreticalrequirementsofourown,istoclaimalegitimacy(arank,an
authority)forourselvesthatwedenytothem”(p.75).
AlongthewestcoastofCanada,ChristopherKinmanandotherclose
colleaguesofLynnHoffmansharethecollaborativedialogueemphasison
responsivity.Describingthecentralityofresponsivitytohispractice,Kinman
(2004)suggestshisworkis“amovementofresponse,”topersons,tofaces,to
relationships(p.242).Kinman’scolleague,publichealthnurse,MarjorieWarkentin
REMAININGANSWERABLE
13
(2004)similarlydescribesresponsivityasthecentreofherwork.“Iliketheword
‘responding,’”shesays.“WhenIgointoaclinicIknowIhavetaskstodo.Butour
workisreallyaboutresponding.WhenIgointoahomeitisaboutresponding…”
(Kinman,Finck,&Hoffman,2004,p.242).Practitionersintheopendialogue
traditionfromFinlandechothewordsoftheirCanadiancolleagues.Incontrastto
theNarrativeemphasisoninterviewquestionsaschangeagents,JaakkoSeikkula
andTomArnkil(2006)emphasizethecriticalimportanceofresponding,suggesting
“replyingbecomesmoreimportantthanaskingquestions”(p.102).Becausenothing
ismoredevastatingthanlackofresponsetodialogue,SeikkulaandArnkil(2015)
encouragepractitionerstoaimtorespondtoeveryutteranceinpractice,evenifitis
onlywithanod.
Theprimaryactioninadialogicencounterisspontaneous,embodied,
responding—mutualresponsivity(Katz,Shotter,&Seikkula,2004;Shotter,2008;
Katz&Shotter,2004;Shotter,2010).Insteadofsteppingawayfromresearch
participantvoicesandassumingrolesasanalystsandinterpretersofutterances,
researchersinadialogicmodecontinuetheconversationintheireffortsto
understandit,andbeled,andtransformedbyit.Inthisway,theyunderstandthe
dialogue—notanalytically,norinterpretively—butdialogically,fromtheir
engagementasfellowrespondentswithinit.
Respondingasunderstanding.
Justasindialogicpractice,dialogicscholarshiplinksrespondingto
understanding;respondingenablesunderstanding,andbothhappen
REMAININGANSWERABLE
14
simultaneously.Russianliterarytheorist,MikhailBakhtin,afoundational
inspirationtothecollaborativedialogicpracticesmovement,writesasfollows:
Tosomeextent,primacybelongstotheresponseastheactivatingprinciple:
Itcreatesthegroundforunderstanding;itpreparesthegroundforanactive
andengagedunderstanding.Understandingcomestofruitiononlyinthe
response.Understandingandresponsearedialecticallymergedandmutually
conditioneachother;oneisimpossiblewithouttheother(Bakhtin,1981a,p.
232).
Hereandelsewhere,Bakhtin(1986)emphasizes“active”response—
respondingthatcreates,preparesand“activates”understanding(DeFehr,2008).
Wespeakwithoneanotherincontinualanticipationofactiveresponse:
“Fromtheverybeginningthespeakerexpectsaresponsefromthem,anactive
understanding.Theentireutteranceisconstructed,asitwere,inanticipationof
encounteringthisresponse”(Bakhtin,1986,p.94).“Anyunderstandingisimbued
withresponseandnecessarilyelicitsitinoneformoranother…”(Bakhtin,1986,p.
68).
Insteadofgeneratingunderstandingofourinquirydialoguesthroughthe
applicationofanalyticorinterpretiveproceduresforeigntoprojectmembers,we
furtheredunderstandingbyrespondingtooneanotherasparticipantsinaliving,
dialogicevent.Theroleofrespondentwasfamiliartousaspractitionersinthe
collaborativedialoguetradition,andaslivingbeings,navigatingoureveryday
curiositiesandchallenges.Ijoinedtogetherwithmycolleaguesintheworkand
pleasureoffurtheringourdialoguesasawayofgeneratingpracticalunderstanding.
REMAININGANSWERABLE
15
Wedidnotwanttocloseandfinalizeourinquiry,subjectingourconversationsto
analyticorinterpretiveproceduresmadeelsewhere.
Responding—nottheperformanceofanalyticorinterpretivetactics—isthe
primaryactivityofdialogue.Insteadofsystematicallydissecting,filing,andranking
theimportanceofparticipantcontributions,Iallowedthecontinualdevelopmentof
ourinquiryinteractionsto‘winnow’ourwords.Justasineverydayconversation,we
gavegreaterattentiontoexpressionsthatstruckusandstirredourinterest.Inthis
way,wewereabletogeneratedialogicunderstandingsofourcommunications,
derivedfromourprojectmembers’ownfamiliarconversationalmethods.Affirming
ourpreferencetoavoidmanualizeddataanalysisandinterpretivetactics,Shotter
(2006)writes,
Whenconfrontedwithaperplexing,disorienting,bewildering,orastonishing
(!)circumstance,wetakeitthatourtaskistoanalyzeit(i.e.,dissectit)intoa
uniquesetofseparateelements,tofindapattern…andthentotrytoinventa
theoreticalschematism…toaccountforthepatternsoobserved….(p.141)
Shotter(2005)goesontosuggestthehabitofdissectingresearchdialogue“…
misleadsusawayfromthephenomenawewishtoknowmorefully“…whilewe
cudgelourbrainsintheattempttoconstructanappropriatetheoreticalschematism
intowhichtofitthem”(p.142).
Respondingasspontaneous,embodied,“withness.”
Withness.Respondingiscentraltodialogue,butcollaborativedialogue
practitionerswouldsuggestthattransformativedialogueischaracterizedbya
particular‘liquidgold’qualityofresponse:Theresponsivityofthecollaborative
REMAININGANSWERABLE
16
dialoguepractitionerischaracterizedbywithness.Andersonandothercollaborative
dialoguepractitionersconsistentlystresstheimportanceofthewordwith,doing
withratherthandoingto,ordoingfor(Anderson,1997;2012;AyoraTalavera,
2012),walkingalongsideothersasfellowlearners,notnudgingfrombehindor
coaxingfrompositionsinfront(Anderson,1997;Ness,Borg,Semb,&Karlsson,
2014).
LynnHoffman(2007a;2007b)describesthepracticeof“withness”asanart.
Shotter(2011)describesthespecialqualityofknowingthatemergesfromdialogic
interactionas“withnessunderstanding”(pp.99-116),agenerative,close-up,
‘insiders’understandingthatvariesfrommechanisticortechnical‘knowingabout’
or‘knowingthat.’Participantsinmydissertationresearchwroteofnotonlybeing
with,butbeing“inwith”theirconversationalpartners,notinawaythat
transgressesappropriateprofessionalbehavior,butinawaythatcompassionately
humanizestheirinteractionswithpeople(DeFehr,2008,pp.321-323).Hoffman’s
referencetotheclassicAliceinWonderlandstoryillustratestherichnessanddepth
ofthepracticeofanin-withstance;Aliceplungesintothepooloftearswiththe
othercreatures(Hoffman,2007,p.66).Opendialoguepractitionerandscholar,
JaakkoSeikkula(Katz,Shotter,&Seikkula,2004),similarlywritesthatdialogic
practice“meansgivinguptheideaofprimarilyhavingcontroloverthingsand,
instead,jumpingintothesameriverorrapidswithourclientsandtryingtosurvive
bytakingeachothershands”(p.38).
Spontaneous.Shotter(2011)describesthecontinualmutualresponsivity
comprisingdialogicengagementasspontaneous.Itisspontaneousbecausedialogic
REMAININGANSWERABLE
17
responseforms‘inthemoment’asweactintoanemergingconversation,doing
whattheoccasionseemstocallfromus,inthemannercalledfor(Anderson,2007,
p.52).Wecanprepareforconversation,butwecannotpre-planit;thejoint-action
ofdialoguealwaystakesusbeyondourintentions(Shotter,2011,pp.57-82;
Gadamer,1975/2004,p.385).Suchspontaneityimpliesriskanduncertainty;we
cannotknowinadvancewhereaconversationwilllead.Dialogueischaracterized
by“surprisingness”(Morson&Emerson,1990,p.2).
Embodied.Wedescribetheresponsivitycharacterizingdialogueasembodied
becauseitinvolvesthewholeperson,includingthesenses,“gutfeelings,”
anticipations,attunements(Shotter,2015),notonlycognitiveintellectualaction,
whichisalsobodilyactivity(Johnson,2007).Oftheindivisibilityofresponding,
understanding,andbodilyparticipation,TomAndersen(1992)wrote,“Whenlife
comestome,ittouchesmyskin,myeyes,myears,thebulbsofmytongue,the
nostrilsofmynose.AsIamopenandsensitivetowhatIsee,hear,feel,taste,and
smell,Icanalsonotice‘answers’tothosetouchesfrommyself…(p.55).For
Andersen,understandingisthereciprocal“intuitive”actionofthewholebody:“My
body,”hewrites,“’frominside’,letsmeknowinvariouswayshowitthinksabout
whattheoutsidetouches,whatshouldbeconcentratedonandwhatnot”(1992,p.
55).
PossibilityFour:From“ResearchParticipant”to“Co-author”
Thewritingoftheco-respondent.
Usingourresearchprojectmembers’dialogicmethodsofsocialinquiry—the
conversationalmethodsofpeopleeverywhere—weengagedinresponsivewriting
REMAININGANSWERABLE
18
asawayofgeneratingpracticalunderstandingofthedialoguesinmydissertation
project.Myintentionwastoextendourconversationinsteadofcloseitandsubject
ittoanalyticandinterpretivestrategiesmadeelsewhere.
Participantsinmydissertationresearchofferedtwoweeksofjournalingin
responsetoourproject’scentralquestion,‘Howcouldyoudescribeyourpracticeas
generatingandtransformingforyourself,asapractitioner?Insteadofwritingabout
thejournaling,Iwrotedirectlyintotheirjournalwritings,respondingtotheir
utterancesasawayoflisteningandhearingthemattentivelyandfully,asawayof
honouringthem,andasawayenteringtheirtextsandreceivingtheminsteadof
observingthemasan‘on-looker’positionedoutsideofthem(Bortroft,2012).AsTo
understandourspokenandwrittendialoguesinadialogicway,weneededto
continueourdialogicengagement.Iwroteresponseasawayoflistening(DeFehr,
2008,p.105).Creativewritingmentor,NatalieGoldberg(2005)suggests,writingis
“…90perentlistening.Youlistensodeeplytothespacearoundyouthatitfillsyou,
andwhenyouwrite,itoursoutofyou”(p.90).Throughtheactivityofresponsive
writing,Imetmycolleaguesinthegenretheyofferedinsteadofretrospectively
reporting‘about’theirwritingasanalystorinterpreterpositioned‘over’them.
Dialogicunderstandingisproducedinourliving,emergingengagement,not
afterwardsintheconventionalgoaloffinalizingandsystematizingit(Schwandt,
2000,p.195).“’Whatwegooninsideof’”isofgreaterimportancethanthatwhich
“’goeson’”insideofus”(Shotter,inpress).Iusedwritingtomovearoundwithinthe
utterancesofmycolleagues,justastheyusedresponsivewritingto‘visit’their
everydayworkaspractitioners.
REMAININGANSWERABLE
19
Addressivesurplus.
Inmyeffortstowriteresponsively,Iwantedtoachieve“addressivesurplus”
(Morson&Emerson,1990,p.242)—listeningthatgenerouslyexceedsthe
pragmaticrequirementswithinaparticulardialogue:“Theaddressivesurplusisthe
surplusofthegoodlistener,onecapableof“liveentering”(Bakhtin,1984,p299).
Hopingmywritingwouldhelpclosethegeographical,cultural,andlinguisticgaps
betweenourprojectcolleagues,Iwantedtoshowmyattentivepresenceall
throughouttheirjournals.
Responsivewritingassituatedand‘situationally-driven.’
Myresponsivewritingprocessderivedfromourgroupofcollaborative
practitioners;itwasaddressedtomembersofourgroup,anditemergedwithand
withinthegrouptowhomIbelong(Hunt&Sampson,2006).Anexampleof“joint
action,”Iwrotewithintention,butthewritingwasgenerativebeyondmyintentions
(Shotter,2011,pp.57-82).InsteadofwritingwhatIthoughtIshouldwrite,or
writingaccordingtooutsidetheoreticalormethodologicalrequirements,Iaimedto
attentivelywritemy‘first’response,the‘beginnings’ofmyresponse.Iwroteina
mannercoherentwiththejournalwriterIaddressed.Havingrespondedtoeach
writer,andinturnheardresponseinreply,Iwroteresponsetothejournalingasa
whole.
Similarly,Iuseresponsivewritingtofurthertheface-to-facespokendialogue
atthebeginningofourproject.Havingtranscribedthedialogue,aperilousprocess
inherentlyunflatteringtothespokenutterancesofparticipants(Poland,2003),I
becamefamiliarwithit,noticingitscharacter,momentsofintensity,excitement,and
REMAININGANSWERABLE
20
tentativity.Tobefairtoit,I‘narratedit,’tellingitinstoryform,andthen,wrotemy
responseintothedialoguestory,distinguishingmylatercontributionthroughout
thetext(DeFehr,2008,pp.1-22).Again,respondingtoourdialoguehelpedme
understanditdialogicallyasaparticipantwithinit,sensitivetoitsdynamic
constraintsandpossibilitiesforaction.
PossibilityFive:ContinuousEmergenceofOutcomes
Insteadofdrivingtowardstheproductionofafinalsocialscience
systematization(Morson&Emerson,1990,p.251),or“researchproduct”(Gergen&
Gergen,2000,p.39)—anewtheory,framework,representation,ormodel—
outcomesemergecontinuouslyand‘surprisingly’incollaborativedialogicinquiry
(Anderson,2007,p.52;Morson&Emerson,1990).Theseoutcomes,oftenpartial,
modest,particular,anddelightful,ratherthangrandandgeneralizable,tendtohave
value,meaning,andpracticalutilityforparticipants.Theybecomespringboardsfor
additionalpossibility(Anderson,2007,p.52).Understandings,indialogicinquiry,
areopen-ended,opentofurtherinfluence;theyaresituated,provisional,fluid,
always‘ontheway’(Anderson,1997,p.116).Dialogicinquiryisadevelopingevent,
notasystem,norastructure(Morson&Emerson,1990,p.251)
PossibilitySix:SocialInquiryasSocialActionandTransformation
Participantsinmydissertationresearchnotonlyspokeofreciprocityintheir
practices,butmoreimportant,theirengagementwithourresearchquestionhelped
createthephenomenatheydescribed.Ourcentralquestionasked,“Howcouldyou
describeyourpracticeasgenerativeandtransforming…”whichdiffersfrom“Howis
yourpracticegenerativeandtransforming…”Thisisnottosuggestparticipant
REMAININGANSWERABLE
21
responsewasfictitiousbutrathertoacknowledgethatdialogicinvolvementis
inherentlygenerativeandtransforming.Whenwedescribeour‘experiences,we
participateincreatingthem.Whenwespeakaboutthegenerativeandtransforming
aspectsofourworkforourselves,wesharpenourawarenessofthenurturing
qualitiesinherentincollaborativedialoguework.‘Wording’ourlifeexperience
equipsuswithaheightenedsensitivitytothepresenceofthatwhichwedescribe.
Newpossibilities,sensitivities,priorities,andpracticesemerge.Whetherspokenor
written,whenweengagewithoneanotherdialogicallyandcollectively,wechange
irrevocably.AgainGadamer(1975/2004)remindsus,“Toreachanunderstanding
inadialogueisnotmerelyamatterofputtingoneselfforwardandsuccessfully
assertingone’spointofview,butbeingtransformedintoacommunioninwhichwe
donotremainwhatwewere”(p.371).
Conclusion
Thesocialscienceprivilegingofready-made,automatedresearch
methodologyrisksperpetuatingthelongstandingcolonialpracticeofresearch‘on’
and‘for’people.Beginningwiththeimpositionofaresearchquestionofmoderate
orlittleinteresttostudyparticipants,conventionalsocialscienceresearchoften
movesontorequireparticipationinspeechgenres,analyticandinterpretive
strategiesunfamiliartoparticipants,derivedfromdecadesofelite,‘in-bred’
academictraditionratherthanfrom‘local’participantlivedexperience.Notonlyis
thesystematicmethodologicalresearchprocessdis-indigenoustoeachparticular
researchcontext,pre-figuredmethodologycannothear,see,feel,orsense,andasa
deadthing,itcannotrecalibratecontinuouslyinresponsetotheever-shifting
REMAININGANSWERABLE
22
requirementsintrinsictoeverylivingsocialinquirycontext.Insteadofamulti-
voiced,communalactofsolidaritycontributingdirectlytothebettermentofa
community,researchcommonlyfunctionsasanautomatedextractiveindustrythat
takesdeeply,andkeepstaking,answeringprimarilytoitsownprivilegedpriorities,
traditions,andgoals.
Everypartoftheresearcheventchangeswheninquiryisledbyitsmembers’
familiardialogicmethodsofinquiry.Theresearchquestionemergesfromthe
researchparticipants.Researchparticipantsarefreetocommunicateintheirusual
dialogicwaysoftalkingandwriting.Theresearcherjoinsparticipantsintheroleof
co-respondent,ratherthananalystorinterpreterpositionedoverandoutsideof
participantutterances.Freefromthetraditionsofproducingafixedhierarchyof
themesanddevelopingastaticresearchproduct(Garfinkel,2006,p.128;Gergen&
Gergen,2000),theresearcherjoinswithfellowparticipantsgenerating
understandingandactionthroughmutualresponsivity,aconversational‘method’of
inquirythoroughlyfamiliartoparticipants.Authorshipbecomesmoredialogicand
democraticasresearchparticipantscontributedirectlytoacollectivetext.And
insteadofcapturingandmasteringphenomena,participantsthemselvesbecome
‘captured’byphenomena,‘taken’byit,moved,andchangedirrevocably,intheir
actions,attitudes,priorities,desires.Aradicallyparticipatoryevent,dialogic
collaborativeinquirymattersandmakesadifferencetoitsparticipantsandtheir
socialcontexts.
Moreover,insteadoffaithfullyfollowingthepre-figuredstepsofa
systematicresearchmethodology,thesocialresearcher—ineveryphaseofthe
REMAININGANSWERABLE
23
project’sdevelopment—remainsorientedprimarilytothepeople,voices,and
developing‘occasion’atthecentreofeachinquiryproject.Inasense,the
collaborativedialogueresearchernever‘leavesthefield’throughouttheentire
inquiryevent.Aboveallotherobligations,theresearcherremainsattunedtothe
participantsandthedynamicrelationalcontextattheheartoftheparticular
researcheffort.Stepsandlandmarksarediscernedasparticipantsdowhatthe
situationcallsfor,inthemannercalledfor(Anderson,1997;AyoraTalavera&
ChavesteGutierrez,2009).Thewholeinquiryeventdemonstratesreadiness,
openness,and‘answerability,’notonlyintheinitialphasewhentheprimaryauthor
‘seeksdata,’butallthroughout,ineverynewunfoldingofthework.For,“ifweareto
let“something”speaktousofitself,ofitsowninner“shape,”weneedtofollow
whereitleads,toallowourselvestobemovedinawayanswerabletoitscalls”(Katz
&Shotter,2004,p.78).
REMAININGANSWERABLE
24
References
Abram,D.(1996).Thespellofthesensuous:Perceptionandlanguageinamore-than-humanworld(1sted.).NewYork:PantheonBooks.
Andersen,T.(1992).Reflectionsonreflectingwithfamilies.InS.McNamee&K.Gergen(Eds.),Therapyassocialconstruction(pp.54-68).London:Sage.
Anderson,H.(1997).Conversation,language,andpossibilities:Apostmodernapproachtotherapy.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Anderson,H.(2007).Theheartandspiritofcollaborativetherapy:Thephilosophicalstance—“awayofbeing”inrelationshipandconversation.InH.Anderson&D.Gehart(eds.),Collaborativetherapy:Relationshipsandconversationsthatmakeadifference(pp.43-62).NewYork:Routledge.
Anderson,H.(2007).Dialogue:Peoplecreatingmeaningwitheachotherandfindingwaystogoon.InH.Anderson&D.Gehart(Eds.),Collaborativetherapy:Relationshipsandconversationsthatmakeadifference(pp.33-41).NewYork:Routledge.
Anderson,H.&Gehart,D.(2007a).Collaborativetherapy:Relationshipsandconversationsthatmakeadifference.NewYork:Routledge.
Anderson,H.(2012).Collaborativerelationshipsanddialogicconversations:Ideasforarelationallyresponsivepractice.FamilyProcess,51,8-24.Doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01385.x
Anderson,H.(2012).Collaborativepractice:Awayofbeing“with.”Psychotherapyandpoliticsinternational,10,130-145.doi:10.1002/ppi.261
Anderson,H.(2014).Collaborative-dialoguebasedresearchaseverydaypractice:Questioningourmyths.InG.Simon&A.Chard(Eds.),Systemicinquiry:Innovationsinreflexivepracticeresearch(pp.60-73).Farnhill,UK:EverythingisConnectedPress.
AyoraTalavera,D.&ChavesteGutierrez,R.(2009).Fromplanningtospontaneity:Alessonincollaborativetrainingfordomesticviolenceworkers.InternationalJournalofCollaborativePractices1(1),9-17.
AyoraTalavera,D.&Faraone,M.(2012).Languagebarrierorportholetodiscovery?Dialogicalexperiencewithinatherapeuticrelationship,revisitingtheprocessofdialogue.InternationalJournalofCollaborativePractices,3(1),53-63.Retrievedfromhttps://ijcp.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/talavera_final_english-language-barrier_new.pdf
REMAININGANSWERABLE
25
Bakhtin,M.(1984).ProblemsofDostoevsky’spoetics(C.Emerson,Trans.&Ed.).Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Bakhtin,M.(1986).Speechgenresandotherlateessays(V.McGee,Trans.;M.Holquist,Ed.).Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Bortoft,H.(2012).Takingappearancesseriously:ThedynamicwayofseeinginGoetheandEuropeanthought.HarrisonGardens,Edinburgh:FlorisBooks.
DeFehr,J.(2008).Transformingencountersandinteractions:Adialogicalinquiryintotheinfluenceofcollaborativetherapyinthelivesofitspractitioners(Doctoraldissertation).Retrievedfromtaosinstitute.net.
Denzin,N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S.(2011).Preface.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Thesagehandbookofqualitativeresearch(4thed.)(pp.ix-xvi).LosAngeles:Sage.
Gadamer,1975/2004).Truthandmethod(J.Weinsheimer&D.G.Marshall,Trans.).(Originalworkpublishedin1975).NewYork:Continuum.
Gergen,M.M.&Gergen,K.J.(2000).Qualitativeinquiry:Tensionsandtransformations.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(wnded.),(pp.2025-1046).London:Sage.
Gergen,K.J.(2014).Frommirroringtoworld-making:Researchasfutureforming.Journalforthetheoryofsocialbehavior.doi:10.1111/jtsb.12075
Goldberg,N.(2005).Writingdownthebones:Freeingthewriterwithin.Boston:Shambhalapublications.
Gurnaes,J.(2012).Internationaloutsiderthoughts.InT.Malinen,S.J.Cooper,F.N.Thomas(Eds.),Mastersofnarrativeandcollaborativetherapies:ThevoicesofAndersen,Anderson,andWhite(pp.54-59).NewYork:Routledge.
Gustavson,B.(1996).Actionresearch,democraticdialogue,andtheissueof‘criticalmass’inchange.WualitativeInquiry,2,90-103.
Heritage,J.(19840.Garfinkelandethnomethodology.Cambridge,MA:PolityPress.Hoffman,L.(1997).Foreword.InConversation,language,andpossibilities:Apostmodernapproachtotherapy(pp.xi-xvi).NewYork:BasicBooks.
Hoffman,L.(1998).Settingasidethemodelinfamilytherapy.InM.F.Hoyt,(Ed.),Thehandbookofconstructivetherapies:Innovativeapproachesfromleadingpractitioners(pp.100-115).SanFransisco,CA:Jossey-BassInc.
REMAININGANSWERABLE
26
Hoffman,L.(2007a).Theartof“withness”:Abrightnewedge.InH.Anderson&D.Gehart(Eds.),Collaborativetherapy:Relationshipsandconversationsthatmakeadifference(pp.63-79).NewYork:Routledge.Hoffman,L.(2007b).Practicing“withness”:Ahumanart.InH.Anderson&P.Jensen(Eds.),Innovationsinthereflectingprocess(pp.3-15).London:KarnacBooks.
Holstein,J.A.&Gubrium,J.F.(2003).Insideinterviewing:Newlenses,newconcerns.InJ.A.Holstein&J.F.Gubrium(Eds.)Insideinterviewing:Newlenses,newconcerns(pp.3-30).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Hunt,C.&Sampson,F.(2006).Writing:Selfandreflexivity(3rd.).NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.
Johnson,M.(2007).Themeaningofthebody:Aestheticsofhumanunderstanding.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Katz,A.&Shotter,J.(2004).Onthewayto“presence”:Methodsofa“socialpoetics.”InD.A.Pare&G.Larner(Eds.),Collaborativepracticeinpsychologyandtherapy,(pp.69-78).NewYork:TheHaworthClinicalPracticePress.
Katz,M.K.,Shotter,J.&Seikkula,J.(2004).Acknowledgingtheothernessoftheother:Poeticknowinginpracticeandthefallacyofmisplacedsystematicity.InT.Strong&D.Pare(Eds.),Furtheringtalk:Advancesinthediscursivetherapies(pp.33-51).
Kinman,C.J.&Finck,P.&Hoffman,L.(2004).Response-ablepractice:Alanguageofgiftsintheinstitutionsofhealthcare.InT.Strong&D.Pare(Eds.),Furtheringtalk:Advancesinthediscursivetherapies(pp.233-251).NewYork:KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers.
Rilke,M.(1934).Letterstoayoungpoet(M.D.HerterNorton,Trans.).NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.
Law,J.(2004).Aftermethod:Messinsocialscienceresearch.NewYork:Routledge.McNamee,S.&Hosking,D.M.(2011).Researchandsocialchange:Arelationalconstructionistapproach.NewYork:Routledge.
Morson,G.&Emerson,C.(1990).MikhailBakhtin:Creationofaprosaics.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Ness, O., Borg, M., Semb, R. & Karlsson, B. (2014). “Walking alongside:” collaborative practies in mental health and substance use care.” International journal of mental health systems, 8, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.ijmhs.com/content/8/1/55
REMAININGANSWERABLE
27
Penn,P.&Frankfurt,M.(1999).Acircleofvoices.InS.McNamee&K.J.Gergen(Eds.),Relationalresponsibility:Resourcesforsustainabledialogue(pp.171-179).ThousandOaks:Sage.
Perakyla,A.&Ruusuvuori,J.(2012).Analyzingtalkandtext.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Thesagehandbookofqualitativeresearch(4thed.)(pp.529-543).LosAngeles:Sage.
Poland,B.(2003).Transcriptionquality.InJ.Holstein&J.Gubrium(Eds.),Insideinterviewing:Newlenses,newconcerns(pp.267-288).ThousandOaks:Sage.
Reynolds,V.(2014).Asolidarityapproach:Therhizomeandmessyinquiry.InG.Simon&A.Chard(Eds.),Systemicinquiry:Innovationsinreflexivepracticeresearch(pp.127-154).Farnhill,UK:Everythingisconnectedpress.
Schwandt,T.(2000).Threeepistemologicalstancesforqualitativeinquiry”Interpretivism,hermeneutics,andsocialconstructionism.InN.Denzin&Y.Lincon(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(2nded.)(pp.189-213).London:Sage.
Seikkula,J.&Arnkil,T.E.(2006).Dialogicalmeetingsinsocialnetworks.London:Karnac.
Seikkula,J.&Arnkil,T.E.(2006).Developingdialogicityinrelationalpractices:Reflectingonexperiencesfromopendialogues.AustralianandNewZealandJournalofFamilyTherapy,36,I42-154.doi:10.1002/anzf.1099
Shotter,J.(1993).Conversationalrealities:Constructinglifethroughlanguage.London:Sage.
Shotter,J.(1995).Inconversation:Jointaction,sharedintentionalityandethics.TheoryandPsychology,5,49-73.
Shotter,J.(2005).Goetheandtherefiguringofintellectualinquiry:From‘aboutness’-thinkingto‘withness’-thinkingineverydaylife.JanusHead,8(1),132-158.
Shotter,J.(2010).Socialconstructionontheedge:‘Withness’-thinking&embodiment.ChagrinFalls,OH:TaosInstitutePublications.
Shotter,J.(2011).Gettingit:Withness-thinkingandthedialogical…inpractice.NewYork:HamptonPress.
Shotter,J.(2012).Morethancoolreason:‘Withness-thinking’or‘systemicthinking’and‘thinkingabout’systems.’InternationalJournalofCollaborativePractices,3,1-
REMAININGANSWERABLE
28
13.Retrievedfromhttp://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2012_07.dir/pdfMWYZ7uQIau.pdf
Shotter,J.(2012).Onbeingdialogical:Anethicsof‘attunement.’Context,137,8-11.Shotter,J.(2015).(inpress).Personsasdialogical-hermeneutical-realtionalbeings—newcircumstances‘callout’newresponsesfromus.NewIdeasinPsychology.Retrievedfromhttp://www.johnshotter.com/john-shotter-papers/
Shuy,R.(2003).In-personversustelephoneinterviewing.InJ.A.Holstein&J.F.Gubrium(Eds.)Insideinterviewing:Newlenses,newconcerns(pp.175-193).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Strong,T.(2004).Meaningfulmomentsascollaborativeaccomplishments.InD.Pare&G.Larner(Eds.),Collaborativepracticeinpsychologyandtherapy(pp.213-227).NewYork:TheHaworthClinicalPracticePress.
Strong,T.&Pare,D.(Eds.).(2004).Furtheringtalk:Advancesinthediscursivetherapies.NewYork:KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers.
Tesch,R.(1990).Qualitativeresearch:Analysistypesandsoftwardtools.NewYork:Falmerpress.
Wilson,S.(2008).Researchisceremony.Indigenousresearchmethods.Winnipeg,MB:FernwoodPublishing.
Wittgenstein,L.(1953/2001).Philosophicalinvestigations(3rded.).(G.E.M.Anscombe,Trans.).Oxford:Blackwell.(Originalworkpublishedin1953).
