The “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) approach, developed by Carol Bacchi, is widely used in qualitative policy analysis for its capacity to interrogate how policy problems are constructed rather than assumed. While WPR’s guiding questions offer a useful framework, published studies often provide limited insight into the interpretive decisions through which those questions are enacted in practice. As a result, the analytical labour involved in operationalising WPR frequently remains implicit, posing challenges for researchers seeking to apply the approach rigorously and reflexively. Drawing on a worked example from doctoral research analysing preconception health policy in England, the paper demonstrates how WPR can be operationalised in ways that preserve its poststructuralist commitments while making analytical judgement visible. Through the use of interpretive decision documentation, reflexive memo-writing, and structured analytical tools, the paper shows how researchers may navigate tensions between guidance and proceduralism, transparency and critical openness. By making visible how analytical choices are made, justified, and constrained, the paper contributes to ongoing debates about methodological rigour, reflexivity, and quality in critical qualitative research. It invites further dialogue on how WPR and other poststructuralist approaches can demonstrate rigour through transparency while retaining their critical intent across diverse empirical contexts.
Merissa Elizabeth Hickman (Mon,) studied this question.