This study involved a discourse analytic investigation of 15 women’s accounts of their experiences of recovery from depression. Participants’ descriptions of depression revolved around their lives as women, consumed by domestic practices and governed by the needs of others. In contrast, recovery was constructed within a narrative of personal transformation in which participants relinquished their good woman practices and attended to their own needs. However, participants appeared to face a discursive double bind whereby letting go of domestic and caring work and beginning to care for themselves were both central to their wellness and threatening to their identities as women. The analysis explores the ways in which participants negotiated and resisted dominant discourses of femininity in their accounts of recovery from depression.

Narratives and language available within a cultural context reflect and reify power structures that are reproduced in everyday social interactions. In this article, we explore the narrative challenges and possibilities that emerged in our respective research programmes with women who have faced depression or rape. These experiences are, at least in part, products of patriarchy and are regulated by hegemonic discourses that individualize and depoliticize women’s experiences. In our studies, we faced significant challenges of conducting research when dominant narratives fail the storytellers, and came to understand these as products of what Marjorie DeVault has termed ‘linguistic incongruence’. We examine women’s attempts to negotiate the telling of their stories without adequate language and framings, and our attempts to listen carefully to the emergence of counterstories. We introduce the notion of ‘tightrope talk’ to refer to participants’ attempts to make meaning of their experiences, as they negotiate both agency and blame in ways that dominant narratives fail to do. We conclude by discussing the potential dangers of these efforts.

In this article, we propose 'narrative resistance' as a potent and useful concept for both social work research and practice. A concept that attends to power and oppression, narrative resistance provides a platform for tangible applications to support people's efforts to resist harmful storyings of their lives. The aim of this article is to provide practical guidance for how social workers can attend to and support people's acts of narrative resistance. This is achieved by introducing the functions of narrative in people's lives and its inextricable links to power; discussing 'master narratives' and their potential for harm; and exploring narrative resistance by articulating the role of 'counter narratives' as a means to 'talk back' to injurious master narratives. The remainder of the article outlines considerations, skills and tools required to enhance counter-storying efforts in the service of emancipatory change. We spotlight examples of narrative resistance in the literature to illustrate the pragmatic mobilization of this work.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) offers a biomedical framing of people's experiences of distress and impairment, and despite decades of criticism, it remains the dominant approach. This dominance is maintained not only by powerful corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical industry, but also through the everyday talk of people as they attempt to make meaning of themselves and their experiences. This paper explores how and why the DSM holds such cultural currency for individual speakers, and unpacks what is being accomplished in their taking up the language of psychiatric diagnosis. In particular, we argue that a biomedical construction of distress offers the lure, or promise, of validating persons' pain and legitimizing their identities. However, we also argue that the very assumptions of biomedicine ensure that this promise can never entirely be fulfilled and, despite its lure, a biomedical construction of 'mental illness' all too frequently fails to protect individuals from delegitimation and stigma.

This article serves as a welcoming introduction to feminist epistemologies and methodologies, written to accompany (and intended to be read prior to) the Virtual Special Issue on ‘Doing Critical Feminist Research’. In recalling our own respective journeys into the exciting field of feminist research, we invite new readers in appreciating the steep learning curve out of conventional science. This article begins by sketching out the emergence of feminist scholarship – focusing particularly on the discipline of psychology – to show readers how and why feminist scholars sought to depart from conventional science. In doing so, we explain the emergence of three main ways of doing and thinking about research (i.e. epistemologies): feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and the various ‘turn to language’ movements (social constructionism, constructivism, postmodernism, poststructuralism). We then connect the dots between feminist epistemologies, methodologies and methods. We close by offering suggestions to guide the readers in using the Virtual Special Issue on their respective research journeys.