Document AnalysisT Rapley and K N Jenkings, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Documents are a seen-but-unnoticed part of our everydaylives. Whether held in one’s hand or viewed on a screen,they are staple elements of all areas of our lives. Theyshape our thoughts, actions, talk, and writing. We not onlyconsume them in vast quantities, routinely refer to themin conversations, but also produce them. However oneconceives of them, they are essential to the formation ofour contemporary societies and institutions.

Document-based research in qualitative educationalresearch, as in all areas of the social sciences, is a relativelysmall-scale enterprise. The notable exception is histori-cally orientated research – where given the lack of livingsources of evidence – the document is the only potentialsource of evidence. In addition, the practice of reviewingthe literature relies on collecting, analyzing, and speakingabout a range of documents. Commonly, this is oftenrelegated to the front sections of articles and reports,prior to a primary focus on interview-based talk or obser-vations of others’ interactions.

In this article, we begin to explore some of the varietyof ways that qualitative researchers have actively soughtto engage with documents as a central part of theirresearch practice. We explore some more general issuesabout conducting research on and around documents. Wethen focus on two main areas. First, we look at researchthat focuses on the substantive content of documents – therelatively new area of systematically reviewing qualitativeresearch articles – and the more discursive work thatlooks at how documents, be they newspaper articles orpolicy documents, create specific versions of the world.Second, we look at research that focuses on the situateduse and creation of documents – how interview-based andethnographic studies have also looked at the place ofdocuments in the lives and routines of those they studyand on the more ethnomethodological work, that seeks todescribe in detail the practical ways that documents areused and created in specific instances of interaction.

Approaches to Analyzing Documents

In this article, we are using the term documents to referto both paper-based and computer-mediated texts. Thisincludes both the written elements of texts alongsidethe extra-textual elements – images, photos, graphs, anddiagrams – that are routinely embedded in documents.

380

The post-structural and postmodern turn in academia hasled to an expansion of the meaning of the term text, toinclude buildings, bodies, clothing, alongside artifacts,devices, and other aspects of material and technical culture.Simultaneously, interview transcripts, field notes, and videorecordings are referred to and analyzed as texts, but we willnot focus on either of these genres of work here. Instead, weare concentrating on four relatively distinct areas of workaround documents (seeTable 1). The table proves an at-a-glance comparison of the four analytic methods in terms oftheir general focus; a more descriptive account of theiranalytic focus; examples of their typical research questions;the data collected to answer these questions; the key meth-ods involved in data collection; the methodologies oftenrelated to these approaches; and the type of results eachproduces. These four analytic approaches are describedindividually in greater detail below.

Analytic work on documents can be loosely dividedinto two areas (see Table 1, focus):

1. work that focuses on the actual textual and extra-textualcontent of documents (meta-synthesis and discourseanalysis) and

2. work that focuses on the use, role, and function of doc-uments in interactional and organizational settings (eth-nography and ethnomethodological ethnography).

The first focuses on the document as an object in its ownright, as an orphaned or docile text, as a container ofknowledge. Such work forgoes empirical observation ofhow people actually read, refer to, or use the documentsin question. Whereas the second area is primarily obser-vational, seeking to understand how documents are activeagents in organizational and/or interactional life. Obvi-ously, the same topic can be approached in multiple waysand within the same project. Therefore, with a researchproject on, say, student evaluations of lecturers, one mightfocus on: the written comments students give (via dis-course analysis); how results of these evaluations are fedback on websites, internal memoranda or official reports(via discourse analysis); how lecturers introduce, distrib-ute, collect, and read such forms (via observation); whatstudents, lecturers, and managerial staff think is the valueof such documents (via observation and interview); therole of such evaluations in creating institutional change(via observation and interview); and so on.

Whatever approach people take, and irrespective of themethodological traditions they follow, the practical workof analyzing data related to documents closely echoes that

Table 1 Approaches to analyzing documents

Meta-synthesis Discourse analysis EthnographyEthnomethodoligcalethnography

Focus Content of documents Documents-in-actionAnalytic focus Intertextuality Language and intertextuality Social interaction and

organizations

Language and social

interaction

Typical

researchquestions

What is the

evidence for aspecific

intervention?

What versions of the world do

documents create?

What part do documents

play in the organization ofa social institution?

How do documents

shape (and arereflexively shaped by)

ongoing social

interaction?

Data Academicoutputs

Any Any Any

Method Collect

documents

Collect documents Collect documents, field

notes, and interviews

Collect documents, field

notes, interviews, andaudio–visual data

Methodologies Meta-

ethnography,

meta-synthesis,and thematic

synthesis

Discourse analysis, critical

discourse analysis, Foucauldian

discourse analysis, andsemiotics

Interactional ethnography,

grounded theory,

phenomenology, andsymbolic interactionism

Conversation analysis

and ethnomethodology

Results Synthesis of

findings of acollection of

documents

How documents construct and

reflect a specific version of anargument, truth, social

identities, or institutions

Use, role, and function of

documents in specificorganizational contexts

Use, role, and function of

documents in specificinteractional contexts

Document Analysis 381

of all forms of qualitative research. Therefore, the data –whether they are documents, interview, field notes, oraudio–video recordings (see Table 1, method) – will besubject to some form of sampling, as it is collected it willbe coded, and some version of the constant comparisonmethod and deviant case analysis undertaken, as well assome level of reflection on the role of the analysts in theprocess.

The analysis of documents is also related to theresearch tradition of content analysis (Weber, 1990). Inthis, researchers gather specific documents, then establisha coding frame and apply that coding frame to the docu-ments to count the number of times particular words,phrases, or themes are used. This enables descriptiveand statistical findings to be established. However, this isoften seen by qualitative researchers as a relatively lim-ited, albeit systematic approach, in that it predefines thekey aspects of analysis alongside removing words andphrases from their context. Some researchers use contentanalysis alongside other more discursive methodologies,in part to gain a general overview of their data, althoughthis is not discussed here.

Meta-Synthesis: Documents and CreatingEvidence

The social, medical, and political sciences have seen therise of evidence-based policy and practice. Educationresearch has been central in this trajectory, and this shift

has not been without its critics. The growth in systematicreviewing and meta-analysis has also been significant inprescribing a new format for the textual analysis ofresearch (seeTable 1, first column). In relation to reviewsof nonexperimental research, Noblit and Hare’s (1988)work on meta-ethnography has been influential. Theysought to combine the findings of six ethnographies onthe impact of desegregation on urban schools in the USin the late 1970s. They translated the relatively diversefindings of the case studies into a general theory about theimpact of desegregation. Following this intertextual work,a range of approaches to synthesizing the findings ofqualitative research have emerged. They have been re-ferred to under various terms including: meta-synthesis(Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007), critical interpretativesynthesis (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006), and thematic syn-thesis (Thomas and Harden, 2007). They all rely oninsights from Noblit and Hare’s (1988) original work,and all seek to move beyond simply aggregating andsummarizing findings from qualitative research papers toactively create new conceptual models or theories and toprovide evidence for future interventions.

As with quantitative systematic reviewing, this qualita-tive synthesis work involves searching, evaluation, dataextraction, and presentation. However, given the non-numerical nature of the findings, they have adapted eachstage in the process. Importantly, the process echoes anddraws on key ideas from how one conduct’s empirical,primary, qualitative research. For example, when searchingthe literature one seeks a broad range of heterogeneous

382 Qualitative Research

studies, purposively sampling studies that cover a range ofapproaches and findings to the substantive topic of thereview. One may engage in further rounds of sampling tofind further documents that challenge or extend one’sinitial findings. The evaluation of the quality of studies isalso complex, in that there is no hierarchy of evidenceavailable for qualitative research. In this way, inclusionand exclusion criteria and judgments about quality aremore flexible with an initial focus on how relevant thearticle is to the topic and to the development of thesynthesis, and only papers deemed to have major flawsare rejected at the outset. Currently, we have a range ofapproaches for judging quality that draw on and combinethe key aspects of various quality guidelines that exist.

With data extraction, the focus is on collecting data thatenables the researcher to outline the key ideas, concepts,and themes within the article. This also includes extractingverbatim quotes from interviews, field notes, and othersources alongside summarizing key aspects. The finalstage of synthesizing the data shifts the focus beyond justsummarizing the extracted data, to producing explicit inter-pretations. Again, this process is similar to that undertakenin analysis of primary data in qualitative research. Theextracted data is coded in some detail, coded sections arecompared and contrasted, and one generates a coding framewhich outlines the main themes and issues and relationshipbetween them. These recurring lines of argument (Noblitand Hare, 1988) are drawn from both the new conceptuali-zation of the original data alongside some of original con-cepts used in the articles.

This style of working with documents is still verymuch in its infancy, much of the work has been under-taken in relation to health-related topics, and currentlywe have a range of complimentary methods and meth-odologies. What they do share is a concern to compare,combine, and critically interpret the findings of differentqualitative articles. In this way, they attempt to generatenew micro- and meso-level conceptual models of thetopic of the review.

Discourse Analysis: Documents CreateRealities

Rather than see the documents as neutral sources of infor-mation to be searched, evaluated against some externalquality criteria, and then the data abstracted from the con-text, another way that researchers analyze documents is toundertake a relatively close and detailed analysis of thelanguage and meaning within the document (see Table 1,second column). This style of research, known as discourseanalysis, focuses on how documents produce specific ver-sions of reality. Within this approach, language (writtenor spoken) is never treated as a neutral, transparent, meansof communication. Instead, language is understood as

performative and functional. So, for example, describingsomething as systematic review instead of as, say, a reviewof the literature or a child as gifted and talented over, say,bright for their age does specific work, and directs thoughtsand actions. Researchers are interested in the specific ver-sions of the world that documents produce, the effects theyhave both on the potential reader and on the wider culture,society, and institutions.

Within this style of research, the focus is on how wordsare used. Methodologically, there are two main researchtrajectories – discourse analysis (Potter and Wetherell,1987) and critical discourse analysis (Rogers, 2004) –although in practice they often somewhat overlap.Whateverapproach is taken, when studying documents in this wayone is interested in the rhetorical work of the text, how thespecific issues it raises are structured and organized, andhow it constructs a specific version of the world.

One might try to understand how the document seeksto persuade someone about the authority of its understand-ing on an issue. So, for example, one might focus on therange of sources of knowledge and evidence a documentdraws on – so within a newspaper article one may haveverbatim quotes from leading practitioners or academics,references to policy documents or academic articles, andreport on conflicting sides of the argument. Such intertex-tual work helps build the factual status of the account.Moreover, one might focus on the forms and modes oflanguage, knowledge and evidence that are employed. So,for example, systematic reviews and meta-analysis rely onstatistics, graphs, and tables – especially forest plots – along-side a detailed account of the methods employed. We havenoway of knowing whether in practice any of these methodswas actually followed in just this way, but trust and authorityare built in and through presenting the case in just this way.Centrally, one is trying to make sense of how the documentproduces a specific argument, the positions it takes in rela-tion to a topic alongside the other alternate or contradictorypositions that are excluded or silenced.

Another central question asked of documents from workin this tradition is how are specific ideas, practices, oridentities produced, sustained or negotiated within texts?Some researchers seek to understand and describe thehistorical trajectory of the contemporary ideas we all cur-rently take for granted. People often work quite closelywith some of the writings of the French philosopher Fou-cault (1977). One of Foucault’s interests was in how specificdiscourses, specific formations of what he called power/knowledge (e.g., medical, psychological, or pedagogicaldiscourses) produce, shape, and enable specific subjects(e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-diagnosed children) and specific actions (e.g., prescribingmedications like Ritalin). For example, Rafalovich (2004)has focused on the the conceptual antecedents of thecontemporary diagnosis of ADHD. Drawing on articlesand books from 1877 to 1929, Rafalovich looked at the

Document Analysis 383

trajectory of three concepts – idiocy; imbecility; andencephalitis lethargica – and shows the initial attemptsby medicine to establish an organic basis for children’simmoral, or unconventional behavior.

Such histories of the present remind us that what wetake for granted often has complicated and esoteric begin-nings. This style of work may lead to us to the questionwhy exactly we act in just this way or why certain groupsof people have the knowledge and power to understandand act on others. Importantly, it seeks to map the trajec-tories of these discourses, to outline the specific strategiesthat led to our present as well as those that where rejectedor seen to fail. Obviously, given its historical nature, thisstyle of work often uses documents to explore specifictopics or questions, although saying that such historiesmay focus on something that has emerged in the recentpast and may also rely on other forms of data – a multi-method approach. Therefore, in Rafalovich’s (2004) studyof ADHD, he also undertook interviews with parents,children, teachers, and clinicians. In addition, rather thanfocus in great detail on a small sample of texts these studiescan focus on a broad range of texts as they try to show thestyles of thought as they emerge, consolidate, and competeacross and between texts often over a large timescale.Importantly, such work asks ‘‘What are the assumptions inspecific documents?’’

Ethnography: Documents, Interactions,and Organizations

The ethnographic approach to documents (see Table 1,third column) can cover a broad spectrum of activities andsites, although it routinely focuses on the use, role, andfunction of document in the context of schools. In generalterms, such work seeks to combine a more micro-focus onmoments of social interaction with and around documentsin a range of classroom settings, a meso-focus on theorganizational ecology of schools and a macro-focus onbroader community and political factors. One of the mostobvious roles documents play in education is reading,especially reading in class. Ethnographers are not reallyconcerned with reading in terms of the cognitive pro-cesses involved and do not understand it as a monadicactivity – that is, that reading can only be understood assomething people undertake in isolation. Rather, theyfocus on reading as a practice situated within and relatedto the broader contexts of classroom activities and orga-nizational cultures.

For example, the video-based ethnography of literacyby Castanheira et al. (2001) demonstrates the situated rolesand relationships that people can establish around docu-ments. They show how one teacher positions a specificworkbook as the authoritative source of knowledge andhow the student orientated to this text and their partner as

potential resources for defining and completing the task.Whereas in a different lesson, a teacher directly engageswith the student, asking questions, encouraging them,draws a graph on the student’s paper, etc. In this context,the student and teacher collaborate on the problem athand, thus the student is positioned as central in produc-ing knowledge with the workbook supporting him. Suchethnographic work also seeks to make sense of suchsituated reading work within the organizational ecology ofeducation. Therefore, one may compare the use, role, andfunction of workbooks over time, over single classes, overdifferent students, or over multiple subject areas; one mayresearch the background of the teachers or how the work-books get selected as well as the schools or regional policiesaround such workbooks. In this way, such research focuseson the embeddedness of reading documents in relation toboth student’s classroom interactions and their broadereducational and social worlds (Green and Meyer, 1991).

As education is bureaucratically organized – and rou-tinely involves coordinating a diverse array of professionals,administrators, and technicians alongside learners over arange of activities, times, and spaces – documents becomecentral, a glue that binds these people and their worktogether. Mehan’s (1993) ethnographic study of the identi-fication, classification, and labeling of educationally dis-abled children shows us the central role that documentscan play in the coordination of educational interactions,decision making, and organizational work. His study drawson a range of methods; these include observing, interview-ing, video-recording meetings, and lessons alongside askingteachers to reflect on the videos of these lessons. He usesthe sequential paper trail that is created by a student (inclass work, examinations, and educational testing sessionswith the school psychologist) and created about a student(in their personal school records, school appraisal teamcommittee, and eligibility and placement committee meet-ings) to focus the fieldwork on the range of sites wherebureaucratic assessment and classification work occurs inthe special-education referral process.

Documents, in the form of student records, are contin-ually created and discussed by a range of professionals inmultiple sites and spaces. Centrally, these records come torepresent and stand-on-behalf of the student. In meetingsabout students, discussions routinely draw on and high-light aspects of the paper trail created by and about thestudent. The decisions that emerge from these meetingsare central in classifying the child and, therefore, arecentral in creating their specific educational trajectory.In his study, Mehan (1993) does not present us with thedocuments themselves, rather he focuses on the distributedtalk and actions of those people who create and use them.He shows us how the documents created by and aboutstudents become objectified and how the technical talkand decisions they facilitate are given much higher statusthan other forms of evidence such as a parental voice.

384 Qualitative Research

Ethnomethodological Ethnography:Documents-in-Interactions

Research on documents within the tradition of ethno-methodological ethnography – andwe include conversationanalysis within this area – focuses on describing in greatdetail the moment-by-moment social organization of inter-actions with, around, and about documents (see Table 1,fourth column). Like ethnographic work outlined in thelast section, it is not so much interested in the contentof documents, but in the organization of interactions wheredocuments take some role. However, in general terms, thereare two central differences. First, for ethnomethodologicalwork, the immediate, here-and-now, to-and-fro of theparticipants interactions is the central object of interest,description, and analysis. Broader contextual factors, likeparticipants’ backgrounds or organizational policies, aregenerally not drawn on as a resource to explain why aninteraction happens in a specific way. Instead, the focus ison what the participants in the interaction show them-selves to actually do, the resources they drawon in just thatmoment of interaction. Second, ethnomethodologicalwork increasingly relies on audio or video recordings ofnaturally occurring interactions. These form the center-piece of analysis, are subjected to repeated viewings, andsequences of interaction – including verbal and nonverbalfeatures – are transcribed in very fine detail, analyzed, andrevised in conjunction with the original recordings.

An example of this method in practice is Heap’s vari-ous analyses of audiotapes of young children reading inclassrooms (e.g., Heap, 1985, 1991). Rather than assumingwe already know what reading looks like, or when itoccurs in classrooms – through some a priori theory orcriteria – he focuses on the broad range of interactionalactivities that produce the ongoing activity as reading. Forhim, children learn what counts as reading criterially’, bylearning what counts as reading procedurally, in and throughtaking part in interactions where good reading is shown tobe taking place. For example, Freebody and Freiberg(2001) show how in a moment of a parent–child interaction,where a child is reading a book aloud, the parent works topraise, instruct the child to sound the letters, correct asounding, etc. In this moment of reading a document, thecentral interactional task is reading out loud a writtentext, and good reading is orientated to and produced ascorrect word-saying. In other contexts, say a universityseminar on a specific article, in and through debatingand discussing, students learn what good academic read-ing involves – finding fault, contrasting with other doc-uments, quoting and referencing from this and otherdocuments, reading footnotes, following up references, etc.

Such work focuses researchers’ attention on unpacking,in detail, how specific tasks are undertaken.

Documents are not only paper-based, single-user,objects and ethnomethodological ethnographic research

has focused on how mundane and digital technologiesshape the world of educational activities. Such researchhas focused on how people interact, work with, and draw onsuch document-related technologies as white- and black-boards, overheads, computer-based presentations, andvideos. Rendle-Short’s (2006) study of computer-scienceseminar presentations focuses on the academic monolog.She shows us how presenters work to interact with theaudience not only through their talk, but also throughtheir gestures, gaze, and bodily movements. Using a col-lection of videotapes of seminars and transcribing in greatdetail the moment-by-moment verbal and nonverbalbehavior, she focuses on how presenters coordinate a rangeof documents and technologies as they seek to engage withthe audience. As presenters talk, they time their slides tofocus, support, and supplement the issues they are raising.The text-based and visual images on the slides work toillustrate some aspects of their ongoing talk, and presen-ters through their hand gestures work to direct the audi-ences’ attention to a specific aspect or issue. In this way, webegin to see how, what appears as a relatively simple task –giving a seminar – is saturated with a complex range ofinteractional work. The documents the presenters workwith, be it notes available to them, or slides available to all,are brought to life and shaped through the concerted,moment-by-moment, organization of talk, gesture, andtechnology.

Such ethnomethodological ethnographic research find-ings can seem focused on the quite obvious, in that it canshow us what we take for granted. However, researchers inthis tradition argue that it is only through an understandingthe details of what we actually do (the details of which canlargely escape our notice), over what people tells us theydo, or what we think they do, that we can then developtheories or interventions that are actually relevant to cur-rent practice.

Conclusion

Given the ubiquity of paper and computer-based docu-ments in contemporary social and organizational life, therange of potential types of documents open to qualitativeanalysis is immense. However, the primary sources foreducational research are policy documents (be theynational, regional, or local), textbooks, and internal organi-zational documents; the secondary sources are from theacademic canon. Documents in any broader sense – be theyblogs, diaries, magazines, newspapers, or websites – areunderused and underanalyzed. As noted above, the lackof focus on documents is not restricted to qualitative edu-cational research, but is endemic to the social sciences. Onthe one hand, this is quite surprising, given the centrality ofdocuments to everyday experiences, the readiness-to-handof document-based raw data, and that it does not have to

Document Analysis 385

require large amounts of time in the field collecting data.However, ideas around hearing peoples’ voices, witnessingthings with your own eyes, have been increasingly posi-tioned as a central requisite of authentic and high-qualityqualitative research and increasingly involve documents.

Nevertheless, in relation to critical discourse analysisstyle studies of education, Rogers et al. (2005) see the turnaway from a focus solely on written documents toward afocus on talk as a positive direction, in which new theo-retical, methodological, and analytic possibilities emerge.Notwithstanding these potentials for development along-side the existing tradition of ethnographic work focusingon the use, role, and function of documents-in-action, weare still left with a relatively limited corpus of work thatfocuses on the social and educational lives of documents.Documents shape, and are reflexively shaped by, ourperceptions, interactions, institutions, policies, and soci-ety. They are central in the production, reproduction, andtransformation of our educational landscapes. As such, theydeserve a more sustained and systematic analytic focus.

See also: Classroom Ethnography; Conversational Anal-ysis; Discourse Analysis; Ethnography; Ethnomethodolo-gy in Education Research.

Bibliography

Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., and Green, J. (2001).Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the socialconstruction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education11, 353–400.

Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., et al. (2006). How cansystematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A criticalperspective. Qualitative Research 6, 27–44.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. NewYork: Pantheon.

Freebody, P. and Freiberg, J. (2001). Re-discovering practical readingactivities in schools and homes. Journal of Research in Reading24, 222–234.

Green, J. L. and Meyer, L. A. (1991). The embeddedness of reading inclassroom life: Reading as a situated process. In Baker, C. D. andLuke, A. (eds.) Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy:Papers on the XII World Congress on Reading, pp 141–160.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroomknowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry 15, 245–259.

Heap, J. L. (1991). A situated perspective of what counts as reading. InBaker, C. D. and Kuke, A. (eds.) Towards a Critical Sociology ofReading Pedagogy: Papers on the XII World Congress on Reading,pp 103–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case studyin the politics of representation. In Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (eds.)Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Contextpp 241–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noblit, G. W. and Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: SynthesizingQualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology.London: Sage.

Rafalovich, A. (2004). Framing ADHD Children: A Critical Examination ofthe History, Discourse, and Everyday Experience of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Latham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield-Lexington Books.

Rendle-Short, J. (2006). The Academic Presentation. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Rogers, R. (ed.) (2004). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis inEducation. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., and O’GarroJoseph, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A reviewof the literature. Review of Educational Research 75, 365–416.

Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for SynthesisingQualitative Research. New York: Springer.

Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesisof qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMCMedical ResearchMethodology 8, 45.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edn. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Further Reading

Livingston, E. (1995). An Anthropology of Reading. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press.

Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social

Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.Smith, D. E. (1990). Texts, Facts and Femininity: Exploring the Relations

of Ruling. London: Routledge.