This article sets out two psychoanalytically informed conceptions of fantasy as a resource for reflexivity in research. First is the fantasy as a defensive structure that distorts our perception of reality, and the use of the researcher’s affective responses as an interpretive tool. Second is the fantasy as a signifying structure that constitutes the subject’s engagement in reality, foregrounding unconscious symbolic associations. These approaches are traced in the construction and analysis of interview data, exploring (a) a trajectory that interprets fantasy as a defense against difficult emotions, (b) the construction of free associations, and (c) symbolic material that disrupts the interpretation of fantasy as defense.
GlynosJ. (2002). Theory and evidence in the Freudian field: From observation to structure. In GlynosJ.StavrakakisY. Y. (Eds.), Lacan and science (pp. 13-50). London, England: Karnac.
9.
KuehnerA.PloderA.LangerP. (2016). Introduction to the Special Issue: European Contributions to Strong Reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 22, 699-704.
10.
LacanJ. (1960). The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire. In LacanJ. (Ed.), Ecrits: A selection (pp. 223-250). London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1989)
11.
LacanJ. (1998). Encore: The seminar of Jacques Lacan book XX: On feminine sexuality, the limits of love and knowledge, 1972-1973. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
12.
LappingC. (2011). Psychoanalysis in social research. London, England: Routledge.
13.
LappingC. (2013a). Institutional accountability and intellectual authority: Unconscious fantasies and fragile identifications in contemporary academic practice. In MaxwellC.AggletonP. (Eds.), Privilege, agency and affect: Understanding the production and effects of action (pp. 88-105). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
LappingC. (2013b). Which subject, whose desire? The constitution of subjectivity and the articulation of desire in the practice of research. Journal of Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, 18, 368-385.
15.
LappingC. (2015). Writing and the articulation of disciplinary identifications: A psychoanalytic exploration of methodological practice. In SmeyersP.BridgesD.BurbulesN. C.GriffithsM. (Eds.), International handbook of interpretation in educational research (pp. 1551-1570). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
16.
MillerC.HoggettP.MayoM. (2008). Psycho-social perspectives in policy and professional practice research. In CoxP.GeisenT.GreenR. (Eds.), Qualitative research & social change—UK and other European contexts (pp. 112-131). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
NobusD.QuinnM. (2005). Knowing nothing, staying stupid: Elements for a psychoanalytic epistemology. London, England: Routledge.
18.
Pavon-CuellarD. (2014). The Enunciating Act and the problem of the real in Lacanian discourse analysis. In ParkerI.Pavon-CuellarD. (Eds.), Lacan, discourse, event: New psychoanalytic approaches to textual indeterminacy (pp. 66-76). London, England: Routledge.
19.
ParkerI.Pavon-CuellarD. (2014). Introduction: Lacanian theory, discourse analysis and the question of the “event.” In ParkerI.Pavon-CuellarD. (Eds.), Lacan, discourse, event: New psychoanalytic approaches to textual indeterminacy (pp. 1-13). London, England: Routledge.
20.
WalkerdineV.LuceyH. (1989). Democracy in the kitchen. London, England: Virago.
21.
WalkerdineV.LuceyH.MelodyJ. (2001). Growing up girl: Psychosocial explorations of gender and class. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
WalshJ. (2014). Interrupting the frame: Reflective practice in the classroom and the consulting room. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22, 9-19.
23.
YoungL. S. (2014). Becoming other to oneself: Misreading the researcher through Lacanian discourse analysis. In ParkerI.Pavon-CuellarD. (Eds.), Lacan, discourse, event: New psychoanalytic approaches to textual indeterminacy (pp. 279-290). London, England: Routledge.
24.
YoungL. S.FroshS. (2009). Discourse and psychoanalysis: Translating concepts into “fragmenting” methodology. Psychology in Society, 38, 1-16.
