The editors of Feminism & Psychology, Catriona Macleod, Rose Capdevila and Jeanne Marecek, thank Tamara Shefer, who, along with Sally R. Munt, Vivienne Bozalek and Ronelle Carolissen, guest edited the special issue “Feminist Politics of Shame”, published in Volume 29, Issue 2. Guest editing is a lengthy and timeconsuming process. We are grateful for the active and constructive engagement with the authors of this special issue. The following people have taken time to review manuscripts for Feminism & Psychology over the last year. We are indebted to all our reviewers for their commitment to providing in-depth feedback. In addition, a number of people reviewed abstracts and attended presentations to decide on our annual student presentation awards. Thank you for undertaking this labour.

The editors of Feminism & Psychology, Catriona Macleod, Rose Capdevila and Jeanne Marecek, thank Abigail Locke, Rebecca Lawthom and Antonia Lyons, the guest editors of the special issue ‘‘Feminisms and Social Media’’, published in Volume 28, Issue 1, and Lindsay O’Dell, Charlotte Brownlow and Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, the guest editors of the Special Section ‘‘Different Adulthoods’’, published in Volume 28, Issue 3. We also thank our associate editors who action-edited a number of manuscripts in 2018: Ngaire Donaghue, Eva Magnusson, H. Lorraine Radtke, Kopano Ratele, and Sarah Riley. Sue Jackson, our book review editor, ably oversaw the publication of many in-depth book reviews and put together interesting book review newsletters. We are grateful for these editors’ active and constructive engagement with the authors of manuscripts submitted to F&P. The editors have been administratively supported by Ryan du Toit and Sibongile Matebese. We thank them for their responsiveness to our multiple demands, and for keeping our social media up-to-date. Sophie Donnelly, the publishing editor from SAGE, has been an excellent liaison and resource person. We thank her for her guidance and support. We also thank Divya Jyoti Munjal, the production editor, and her team for painstakingly ensuring that the final products are clear of errors. Many scholars reviewed manuscripts for Feminism & Psychology over the past year. In addition, a number of people reviewed abstracts or attended presentations to decide on our annual student presentation awards. They are listed below; we are indebted to them for undertaking this labour. Feminism & Psychology 2018, Vol. 28(4) 562–563 ! The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0959353518809867 journals.sagepub.com/home/fap

In this rejoinder to Mahalik (2014), Silverstein (2014), and Hammond's (2014) commentaries on our presentation of a discursive psychological (DP) analysis of masculinities we focus in on the contention that DP and GRSP (the Gender Role Strain Paradigm) can be combined as part of a mixed methods approach or following a strategy of methodological pluralism. We take issue with Silverstein's claim that GRSP is also poststructuralist, arguing that this relies on a conception of poststructuralism that its advocates would not recognize. Similarly, Mahalik and Hammond's call for mixed methods fail to appreciate the hard theoretical choices at stake around models of the social actor, the nature of social action and representational processes and the crucial differences between discursive and psychometric perspectives.

This article aims to describe and promote a discursive psychological approach to studying men and masculinity. It begins by showcasing some of our own research in this area, before moving on to compare and contrast the central tenets of this approach with those underpinning one of the mainstays of North American scholarship on men and masculinity: the gender role strain paradigm. We argue that, despite significant points of overlap, discursive psychology differs from the gender role strain paradigm in several key respects, including its treatment of variability, its theory of ideology, and its model of the social actor. We claim that, in line with the precepts of discursive psychology, gender researchers need to pay closer attention to the nuances of men's talk and to see masculinities as practical accomplishments, rather than the (inevitable) playing-out of particular role prescriptions.

Aws Alani Sondos Albadri Simon Allum George Aristidou Peter Ash Paul Ashley Paul Averley Jeremy Bagg Graham Ball Mary Colette Balmer Bill Barrett David Bartlett Paul Batchelor Garmon Bell Malcolm Bishop Igor Blum Stephen Bonsor Peter Brennan Paul Brocklehurst William Browning Lucy Burbridge Trevor Burke Lyndon Cabot Peter Carrotte Luke Cascarini Robert Chate Ivor Chestnutt Robert Clark Valerie Clerehugh Joanne Collins John Cottingham StJohn Crean David Croser Julia Csikar Chris Cunningham Gillian Davies Christopher Dean Derek Debuse Debra Dixon Serpil Djemal Gail Douglas John Drummond Stephen Dunne Justin Durham Thomas Dyer Helen Falcon Vickie Firmstone Peter Galgut Jennifer Gallagher Dien Gambon Matthew Garnett Amargit Gill Jennifer Godson Nicholas Goodger Siobhan Grant Mark Greenwood Tony Griffin Dan Haas Rebecca Harris Ken Hemmings Charles Hildebolt Martin Hobdell Nic Hodson Richard Holmes Li Wen Hu Lindsey Hunter Richard Ibbetson Robert Ireland Laurence Jacobs Rob Jagger Waseem Jerjes Chris Johnston Asbjorn Jokstad Derek Jones Judith Jones Rajendra Joshi Vinod Joshi Andrzej Juszczyk Richard Kahan Anup Karki Elizabeth Kay Daniel Knibb Nigel Knott Kerstin Knutsson Jason Leitch Liran Levin Ronnie Levine OBE Debbie Lewis Graeme Lillywhite Martin Ling Yaling Liu L. P. Longman Victor Lopes Victoria Lucas Christopher Lynch Mervyn Lyons Avril Macpherson Jane Macpherson Stanley Malamed George Markose Michael Martin Roger Matthews James McCaul Fraser McCord Shane McCrea Christine McCreary Robert McGeoch Mark McGurk Niall McLeod Alex McMahon John Meechan Christopher Mercer Brian Millar Douglas Miller John Milne Alex Milosevic Paul Moore Simon Moore Christopher Morris Karwan Moutasim James Murphy Daniel Myers Tim Newton Richeal Ní Ríordáin Paul Nixon Richard G. Oliver Richard J. Oliver Niek Opdam Christopher Orr Richard Palmer S. Parekh Benjamin Peretz Nicolaos Pigadas M. Anthony Pogrel Neil Poyser Alison Qualtrough David Radford Sobia Rafique Christoph Ramseier Michael Reeson Sue Reeves John Renshaw Patricia Reynolds Scott Rice Wayne Richards Graham Roberts Peter Robinson Margaret Ross Vivian Rushton Stefanie Russell Jonathan Sandy Suzanne Scott Amalia Scuderi Robin Seymour Aubrey Sheiham Jonathan Shepherd CBE Gill Smith Michael Smith Liviu Steier Tom Thayer Phillip Tomson Mônica Tostes Christopher Tredwin Alexandre Vieira Ellen Vinge Damien Walmsley Johnny Wang Mike Wanless Pamela Ward Saman Warnakulasuriya Keith Webster Richard Welbury Kathy Wilson Nairn Wilson CBE Alain Woda Geoffrey Wood Graeme Wright Xiao Xiangjun Callum Youngson Yehuda Zadik Halla Zaitoun

In this paper we want to return to a particular historical moment (the mid 1990s) and to the identity struggles of a group of young white middle-class men as they negotiate their place within regimes of hegemonic masculinity. We first researched and wrote about this group of young men some ten years ago now (Edley and Wetherell, 1997). Our aim in turning back to this work is to argue for a particular 'take' on gender, discourse and identity. We want to highlight the benefits of approaches to discourse and gender which incorporate both fine-grain micro analysis and more macro-cultural perspectives. Our work is within the broad tradition of discursive psychology (c.f. Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Edwards and Potter, 1992) but unlike forms of discursive psychology which follow conversation analysis (e.g. Edwards, 2006; Potter, 2000; 2005) we seek to combine the study of discourse in action with analyses of the broader social context (Edley and Wetherell, in press; Wetherell, 1998; in press; Wetherell and Edley, 1998; 1999). Indeed, we believe that it is impossible to make sense of gender identities as these appear in the flow of everyday life without this dual focus

Peter Adams Bipasha Ahmed Gill Aitken Pam Alldred Louisa Allen Feona Attwood Martha Augoustinos Lisa Baraitser Paula Barata Betty Bayer Dana Becker Melanie Beres Sylvia Blood Ros Bramwell Nicola Brown Elizabeth Brownlie Erica Burman Angie Burns Jan Burns Maree Burns Angela Byrne Rose Capdevila Laura Carpenter Claire Cartwright Khatidja Chantler Joan Chrisler Victoria Clarke Linda Coates Mary Coffey Marilyn Coleman Colleen Connolly Lisa Cosgrove Adrian Coyle Mary Crawford Michelle Crossley Bronwyn Davies Kathy Davis Nancy Deutsch Lisa Diamond Kathy Doherty Caroline Dryden Liz Eckerman Nigel Edley Mona Eliasson Vivienne Elizabeth Carolyn Enns Walter Everaerd Breanne Fahs James Farrer Michelle Fine Julie Fish

Unfolding Social Constructionism is a book that stands as a testimony to the growing influence of social constructionism right across the social sciences. Gone are the days when it was just a voice from the margins-now it is a force to be reckoned with. Here Hibberd locks horns with social constructionism's most pivotal character: Kenneth Gergen. In a careful review of his work, she dissects the key components of constructionism's meta-theory, and she also considers (and dismisses) some of the more common lines of critique. Yet for all her sophistication, Hibberd misses (or refuses?) something very simple-that her own critique is a view from somewhere. She simply asserts realist epistemology as the truth, without for one moment seeing the irony of this assertion (from a social constructionist perspective, that is). I put her straight....

In recent years there have been a number of attempts by different researchers to study men and masculinity using a combination of discourse theory and psychoanalysis. The main reason for this development is the sense that, on its own, discourse theory provides an incomplete account of masculine subjectivity. Psychoanalysis is thought to be able to fill those gaps. In this paper I reviewed these arguments, provided an outline of the alleged deficiencies in discursive approaches to men and masculinity, and examined some of the work that has attempted the above synthesis. I argued that, for a number of reasons, such attempts are bound to fail. Instead, I argued that better progress can be made in studies of masculinity by remaining within the theoretical boundaries of Discursive Psychology.

of precisely such questions? Is a focus simply on ANT, particularly where it is challenged inside this book, a sufficient overview of the theoretical trends in this area given the wide range of alternative conceptions of the social study of technology? Overall, this is an ambitious and useful book that will provide those familiar with the area much food for thought, and will provide the committed postgraduate reader with a good orientation to some aspects of ANT and ICT. Inevitably it is the chapters by Latour and Sassen that provide the most interest for those with a STS, sociology or cultural studies background. Yet this book must also be applauded for its commitment to providing an overview that does not duck from presenting a debate as well as a description of key objects of enquiry. As to whether it will change attitudes in management studies or computer science is debatable: perhaps the brand of the LSE will allow this text to cross boundaries that have, unfortunately, been impassable for a long time.

As many readers will no doubt anticipate, this short article and the paper to which it responds are just two turns in a much broader conversation between critical discourse analysts and conversation analysts about how to best study talk (cf. Schegloff, 1997, 1998, 1999a and b; Wetherell, 1998; Billig, 1999a and b – see also Kitzinger, 2000). It is perhaps inevitable that such a debate should emphasize the differences between these two analytic approaches, but it is also important to bear in mind that they share many things in common. Such a recognition is implicit in Susan Speer’s paper in that, compared with my and Margaret Wetherell’s discursive analysis of hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell and Edley, 1999), she offers ‘a more conversation analytic alternative’ (my emphasis). One of the main claims of the present paper is that there is even less of a difference between our approaches than Speer seems to imagine. More specifically, I will show that her work, like ours, reveals there to be some significant problems attending a fully conversation analytic approach to studying men and masculinity. Following from Schegloff (1997), Speer’s main argument is that an adequate discursive psychology need not, and perhaps should not, ‘venture further than the limits of the text to explain why participants say what they do’ (emphasis in original – see abstract). She recommends that analysts restrict themselves to ‘the orientations, meanings, interpretations, understandings etc. of the participants’ (Schegloff, 1997: 166; emphasis in original) rather than reading people’s discourse through various socio-political concepts.1 It is on precisely this basis that she rejects the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1995). It is discarded not because of any conceptual vagueness or operational difficulties (see Wetherell and Edley, 1999), but because it fails to emerge as a participants’ concern. The concept of hegemony has its origins in the political theorizing of Antonio

Social constructionist research is an area of rapidly expanding influence that has brought together theorists from a range of different disciplines. At the same time, however, it has fuelled the development of a new set of divisions. There would appear to be an increasing uneasiness about the implications of a thoroughgoing constructionism, with some regarding it as both theoretically parasitic and politically paralysing. In this paper I review these debates and clarify some of the issues involved. My main argument is that social constructionism is not best understood as a unitary paradigm and that one very important difference is between what Edwards (1997) calls its ontological and epistemic forms. I argue that an appreciation of this distinction not only exhausts many of the disputes that currently divide the constructionist community, but also takes away from the apparent radicalism of much of this work.