We focus on four major tensions pervading much narrative inquiry to date, tensions that threaten to divide the field into alienated enclaves. Of specific concern are psychological vs. social explanations of narrative, structural vs. process orientations to research, approaches that celebrate experience vs. those that textually deconstruct experience, and accounts that center on singularity of self-narratives vs. incoherent multiplicity. Finally, we open discussion on a relational constructionist account of narrative, with an eye toward reconciling these disparate orientations.Inquiry into narrative has swept across the humanities and social sciences, adding rich dimension to an enormous range of topics. Although the vastness and variation in narrative studies militate against a systematic summary, one does begin to sense that narrative work has reached maturity. There is presently an enormous wealth of conceptually, experientially, empirically, and pragmatically illuminating research. More importantly, we begin to find critical deliberation on the nature and significance of narrative in human affairs. In effective, narrative study is becoming reflective about its own undertakings. It is in this context that we wish to focus on several significant tensions emerging in narrative study to date, tensions with far reaching implications both for narrative studies and for related professional practices. In particular, we will focus on four inter-related tensions that currently invite intellectual polarization and the balkanization of what has largely Requests for further information should be directed to: