This article offers a poststructuralist analytic strategy that highlights the political nature of interview analysis. Interviews pose a particular challenge for poststructuralist researchers given a widespread view that they are a method for accessing the ‘truth’. We develop a strategy that bypasses this difficulty by analysing precisely ‘what is said’ in interviews. In our analysis, discourse refers to knowledge, not language. With this understanding, we argue that focusing on exactly ‘what is said’ provides an entry point into the knowledges that make it possible for something to be said and into the eruption of new possibilities. This focus displaces assumptions about an ‘interior’ self who constructs versions of the world, with a concern for the strategic relations – the politics – within which objects and subject positions are produced. The paper draws on interviews conducted during a study into women cycling to demonstrate our poststructuralist analytic strategy.
BacchiC. (2012) ‘Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible’, Open Journal of Political Science2(1): 1–8.
2.
BacchiC.BonhamJ. (2014) ‘Reclaiming Discursive Practices as an Analytic Focus: Political Implications’, Foucault Studies17: 173–92.
3.
BacchiC.BonhamJ. (2016) ‘Poststructural Interview Analysis: Politicizing “Personhood”’, in BacchiC.GoodwinS. (eds) Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BardonT.JosserandE. (2010) ‘A Nietzschean Reading of Foucauldian Thinking: Constructing a Project of the Self within an Ontology of Becoming’, Organization18(4): 497–515.
5.
BastalichW. (2009) ‘Reading Foucault: Genealogy and Social Science Research and Methodology’, Social Research Online14(2): doi:10.5153/sro.1905.
6.
BonhamJ.WilsonA. (2012) ‘Women Cycling through the Life Course: An Australian Case Study’, in ParkinJ. (ed.) Cycling and Sustainability. Bingley: Emerald Group.
7.
BonhamJ.BacchiC.WannerT. (2015) ‘Gender and Cycling: Gendering Cycling Subjects and Forming Bikes, Practices and Spaces as Gendered Objects’, in BonhamJ.JohnsonM. (eds) Cycling Futures. Adelaide: Adelaide, University Press.
8.
BradyM. (2011) ‘Researching Governmentalities through Ethnography: The Case of Australian Welfare Reforms and Programs for Single Parents’, Critical Policy Studies5(3): 264–82.
9.
ButlerJ. (1990) Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
10.
CliftonJ. (2012) ‘A Discursive Approach to Leadership: Doing Assessments and Managing Organizational Meanings’, Journal of Business Communication49(2): 148 –68.
11.
CloughP.T. (2008) ‘The Affective Turn: Political Economy, Biomedia and Bodies (Explorations in Critical Social Science)’, Theory, Culture & Society25(1): 1–22.
12.
DeleuzeG. (1988) Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
DeleuzeG. (1992) ‘What Is a Dispositif?’, pp. 159–68 in ArmstrongT. (ed.) Michel Foucault: Philosopher. London: Routledge.
14.
DeleuzeG. (1997) ‘Desire and Pleasure’, in DavidsonA. (ed.) Foucault and His Interlocutors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
DickinsonJ.KinghamS.CopseyS.Pearlman HougieD. (2003) ‘Employer Travel Plans, Cycling and Gender: Will Travel Plan Measures Improve the Outlook for Cycling to Work in the UK?’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment8: 53–67.
16.
DoucetA.MauthnerN. (2008) ‘What Can Be Known and How? Narrated Subjects and the Listening Guide’, Qualitative Research8(3): 399–409.
17.
DoughtyK.MurrayL. (2014) ‘Discourses of Mobility: Institutions, Everyday Lives and Embodiment’, Mobilities doi: 10.1080/17450101.2014.941257.
18.
DreyfusH.RabinowP. (1983) Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19.
EzzamelM.WillmottH. (2010) ‘Strategy and Strategizing: A Poststructuralist Perspective’, pp. 75–110 in BaumJ.LampelJ. (eds) The Globalization of Strategy Research. Wagon Lane: Emerald Group Publishing.
20.
FadylJ.NichollsD. (2013) ‘Foucault, the Subject and the Research Interview: A Critique of Methods’, Nursing Inquiry20(1): 23–9.
21.
FlynnT. (2005) Sartre, Foucault and Historical Reason, vol. 2: A Poststructuralist Mapping of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
FontanaA.FreyJ. (2005) ‘The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political Involvement’, pp. 695–727 in DenzinN.LincolnY. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
FoucaultM. (1978) The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin: London.
24.
FoucaultM. (1983) ‘The Subject and Power’, pp. 208–26 in DreyfusH.RabinowP. (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
25.
FoucaultM. (1996) ‘An Aesthetics of Existence’, pp. 450–545 in LotringerS. (ed.) Foucault Live: Michel Foucault Collected Interviews 1961–1984. New York: Semiotext(e).
26.
FoucaultM. (2002 [1972]) The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. Sheridan SmithA.New York: Pantheon Books. (1972 edn, Appendix The Discourse on Language).
27.
GibsonC.DuftyR.PhillipsS.SmithH. (2008) ‘Counter-geographies: The Campaign against Rationalisation of Agricultural Research Stations in New South Wales, Australia’, Journal of Rural Studies24(3): 351–66.
28.
GreigR. (2010) ‘Limitations on the Use of the Term “Cyclist” to Describe People Who Ride Bicycles’, Road and Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice19(2): 90–2.
29.
HackingI. (2004) ‘Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between Discourses in the Abstract and Face-to-face Interaction’, Economy and Society33(3): 277–302.
30.
HannaP.JohnsonK.StennerP.AdamsM. (2014) ‘Foucault, Sustainable Tourism, and Relationships with the Environment (Human and Nonhuman)’, GeoJournal doi 10.1007/s10708-014-9557-7.
31.
HeyesC. (2007) Self-transformations: Foucault, Ethics and Normalized Bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
JonesA. (1997) ‘Teaching Post-structuralist Feminist Theory in Education: Student Resistances’, Gender and Education9(3): 261–9.
33.
KrizekK.J.JohnsonP.J.TilahunN. (2005) ‘Gender Differences in Bicycling Behaviour and Facility Preferences’, Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Conference Proceedings 35. Technical Papers, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
34.
MazzeiL.JacksonA. (2012) ‘Complicating Voice in a Refusal to “Let Participants Speak for Themselves”’, Qualitative Inquiry18(9): 745–51.
35.
McCabeJ.HolmesD. (2009) ‘Reflexivity, Critical Qualitative Research and Emancipation: A Foucauldian Perspective’, Journal of Advanced Nursing65(7): 1518–26.
36.
MillerP.RoseN. (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
MolA. (1999) ‘Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions’, pp. 74–89 in LawJ.HassardJ. (eds) Actor Network Theory and After, Sociological Review Monograph. Oxford: Blackwell.
38.
MolA. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
39.
PillowW. (2003) ‘Confessions, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Eduation16(2): 175–96.
40.
PrüglE. (2011) ‘Diversity Management and Gender Mainstreaming as Technologies of Government’, Politics and Gender7: 71–89.
41.
PucherJ.GarrardJ.GreavesS. (2011) ‘Cycling Down Under: A Comparative Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Sydney and Melbourne’, Journal of Transport Geography19(2): 332–45.
St PierreE. (2011) ‘Post Qualitative Research: The Critique and the Coming After’, pp. 611–25 in DenzinN.LincolnY. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
St PierreE.JacksonA. (2014) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis after Coding’, Qualitative Inquiry20(6): 715–19.
45.
Stainton RogersR.Stainton RogersW. (1990) ‘What the Brits Got Out of the Q: And Why Their WorkMayNot Line Up with the American Way of Getting into It!’, Electronic Journal of Communication 1, URL (consulted 25June2017): http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/001/1/00113.html
46.
SternM. (2006) ‘Racism, Sexism, Classism, and Much More: Reading Security-identity in Marginalized Sites’, pp. 174–97 in B. AckerlyB.SternM.TrueJ. (eds) Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WeedonC. (1987) Feminist Practice and Post-structuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
