Abstract

It is encouraging that, in their commentaries, Sarah Carr and Timothy Kelly do not bring the discussion back to the conventional treatment of personal narratives in psychiatry and mental health, but rather take the ideas presented in my paper forward. We seem to agree about the need to disrupt the ultimate interpretative authority of the researcher. This is the point from which both commentaries depart, taking off in their own directions through the thorny questions of how—and indeed whether—any of this can be achieved. This sense that we share at least a point of departure complicates the task of writing a reply, because I would much prefer to engage in a conversation about some of the key issues...