Advertisement

Reverie as Reflexivity

  • Darren T. Baker
Chapter

Abstract

Although diversity categories enable academics to reflect on relationships and power inequities during the research process, psychosocial scholars argue that they also run the risk of homogenising and constraining our understanding of the other. The chapter employs the radical psychoanalytical principles of Reverie by Wilfred Bion (1962) to develop an approach more attuned to affect in the provision of reflexivity. Drawing on the accounts given by men and women executives and non-executives in accounting and finance, the chapter explains how reverie can alert scholars to the role that affect plays in shaping the direction of an unfolding dialogue, the establishment of affinities, and the presence of unconscious relational forms. The chapter makes a methodological contribution by tracing how the pragmatic imbrication of a specific aspect of psychoanalysis can offer hope to scholars wishing to move beyond the confines of diversity categories, as a way to begin to know their research participants.

References

  1. Baker, D.T., and E.K. Kelan. 2018. Splitting and blaming: The psychic life of neoliberal executive women. Human Relations 0 (0): 1–29.Google Scholar
  2. Bion, W.R. 1962. Learning from experience. London: William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble. New York, US and Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, D. 2004. The psychoanalytic research interview: Preliminary suggestions. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 52 (1): 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Code, L. 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. L. Alcoff. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Frosh, S. 2010. Psychoanalysis outside the clinic: Interventions in psychosocial studies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frosh, S., and L. Baraitser. 2008. Psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 13 (S4): 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gill, R. 1998. Standpoints and differences: Writing, reflexivity and the crisis of representation. In Standpoint and differences: Essays in the practice of feminist psychology, ed. K. Henwood, C. Griffin, and A. Phoenix. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2009. Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of the neoliberal university. In Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections, ed. R. Ryan-Flood and R. Gill. Abingdon/New York.Google Scholar
  10. Gill, R., and C. Scharff. 2011. New feminities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism and subjectivity. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grenz, S. 2005. Intersections of sex and power in research on prostitution: A female researcher interviewing male heterosexual clients. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (4): 2091–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grotstein, J.S. 2007. A beam of intense darkness. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
  13. Harding, S., and K. Norberg. 2005. New feminist approaches in social science; an introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (4): 2009–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollway, W. 2008a. The importance of relational thinking in the practice of psycho-social research: Ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics. In Object relations and social relations: The implications of the relational turn in psychoanalysis, ed. S. Clarke, P. Hoggett, and H. Hahn, 137–161. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2008b. Turning psychosocial? Towards a UK network. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 13 (2): 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2010. Preserving vital signs: The use of psychoanalytically informed interviewing and observation in psycho-social longitudinal research. In Intensity and insight: Qualitative longitudinal methods as a route into the psycho-social, ed. R. Thomson. Timescapes working paper. Available from www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/
  17. ———. 2011a. Psycho-social writing from data. Journal of Psycho-Social Studies 5 (1): 92–101.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2011b. Through discursive psychology to a psycho-social approach. In Social psychology: The turn to discourse, ed. N. Bozatzis and T. Dragonas, 209–240. Athens: Metaixmio.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2012. Reverie in psycho-social research methods. Open Seminar video, from our Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2016. Emotional experience plus reflection: Countertransference and reflexivity in research. The Psychotherapist.Google Scholar
  21. Hollway, W., and T. Jefferson. 2000a. Biography, anxiety and the experience of locality. In The turn to biographical methods in social science: Comparative issues and examples, ed. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat, and T. Wengraf, 167–180. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2000b. Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2000c. Narrative, discourse and the unconscious: The case of Tommy. In Lines of narrative: Psychosocial perspective, ed. M. Andrews, S.D. Sclater, C. Squire, et al., 202. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2008. The free association narrative interview method. In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 296–315. Sevenoaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Holmes, J. 2012. A comparison of clinical psychoanalysis and research interviews contextualizing the problem: A question of distance depersonalization and the scientific imperative in psychoanalysis and research. Human Relations 66 (669): 1183–1199.Google Scholar
  26. Johnston, L. 2010. The place of secrets, silences and sexualities in the research process. In Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections, ed. R. Ryan-Flood and R. Gill. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kvale, S. 2003. The psychoanalytic interview as inspiration for qualitative research. In Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design, ed. P.M. Camic, J.E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley, 315. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  28. Letherby, G. 2003. Feminist research in theory and practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Maynard, M. 1995. Beyond the ‘big three’: The development of feminist theory into the 1990s. Women’s History Review 4 (3): 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDowell, L. 1997. Capital culture: Gender at work in the city. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2001. Men, management and multiple masculinities in organisations. Geoforum 32 (2): 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Midgley, N. 2006. Psychoanalysis and qualitative psychology: Complementary or contradictory paradigms? Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (3): 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oakley, A. 1981. Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Doing feminist research, ed. H. Roberts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Ogden, T. 1997a. Reverie and interpretation: Sensing something human. Northvale/London: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1997b. Reverie and metaphor: Some thoughts on how I work as a psychoanalyst. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 78: 719.Google Scholar
  36. Parr, J. 1998. Theoretical voices and women’s own voices: The stories of mature women students. In Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives, ed. J. Ribbens and J. Edwards. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Ramazanoglu, C., and J. Holland. 2002. Feminist methodology: Challenges and choices. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinharz, S. 1979. On becoming a social scientist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Ryan-Flood, R., and R. Gill. 2010. Introduction. In Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections, ed. R. Ryan-Flood and R. Gill. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Scharff, C. 2010. Silencing differences: The ‘unspoken’ dimensions of ‘speaking for others. In Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections, ed. R. Ryan-Flood and R. Gill. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Standing, K. 1998. Writing the voices of the less powerful: Research on lone mothers. In Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research, ed. J. Ribbens and R. Edwards. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Walkerdine, V. 2007. Children, gender, video games: Towards a relational approach to multimedia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolf, D. 1996. Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quinn School of BusinessUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations