REMAININGANSWERABLE

1

DialogicActionResearchandtheChallengeofRemainingAnswerable

JanDeFehr

UniversityofWinnipeg

AuthorNote

CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoJanDeFehr,

DepartmentofEducation,UniversityofWinnipeg,515PortageAvenue,Winnipeg,

MB.R3B2E9E-mail:jn.defehr@uwinnipeg.ca

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).