This post was originally made available via the Center for Reproduction Research Blog on the 4th March 2026

The “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) approach, developed by Carol Bacchi, is widely used across health, education, and social policy to analyse how policy constructs social problems rather than simply responding to them (Bacchi, 2009; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). In my doctoral research, I use WPR to problematise the concept of “preconception health” in England’s health policy. While conducting my WPR analysis, I noticed that although the approach is frequently cited in research, it is often difficult to see how it is actually enacted in practice. Studies commonly reference the approach but provide limited insight into how the analytical questions guided the research process. This blog considers why that matters, what is at stake methodologically, and how greater transparency could support learning, dialogue, and critical practice.

What is WPR and Why is it used?

WPR is a poststructural policy analysis framework built around a set of questions designed to interrogate how “problems” are produced through policy discourse (Bacchi, 2009). Rather than asking how governments respond to issues, it asks how those issues come to be defined in the first place, what assumptions underpin these representations, and what effects follow from them. This orientation makes WPR particularly useful for examining contemporary policy debates where responsibility is increasingly individualised, including areas such as public health, education, and welfare (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016).The approach has been taken up internationally across disciplines because it offers a way to analyse how policy shapes what can be said, known, and done. Its accessibility and conceptual clarity have contributed to its growth in applied research contexts, particularly in studies concerned with inequality, governance, and subjectivity (Tawell & McCluskey, 2022; Andersson et al., 2022).

In my doctoral analysis of preconception health policy in England, I examined explicit policy proposals before inferring the problem representations that made them intelligible. For example, one document stated:“

“Raising awareness. A public-facing ‘Planning for Pregnancy’ tool will shortly be launched…” (PHE, 2018)

Working backwards from this proposed solution, the implied problem is not explicitly named but can be inferred. If the intervention is a public-facing awareness tool, then preconception health is being constructed as a problem of insufficient individual knowledge, awareness, or preparedness prior to pregnancy. The representation that emerges positions preconception health as an individual-level deficit, in which people lack the knowledge or preparedness required to act responsibly. Responsibility for improving outcomes is therefore located with prospective parents who are expected to seek out guidance and modify their behaviour accordingly. This analytic step illustrates how WPR operates in practice. Rather than identifying an overt problem statement, the analysis infers the problem from the proposed solution and then interrogates the assumptions embedded within it. In this example, there is the presumption that awareness leads to behaviour change and that people have the capacity and resources to act on preconception advice. One would then proceed through the remaining WPR questions along this line of reasoning; examining the presuppositions underpinning the representation, tracing its historical conditions of possibility, analysing its discursive, lived, and subjectification effects, identifying what is left unproblematised, and considering how the issue might be represented differently.

Wider Relevance to Qualitative Research

Academic publishing conventions, page limits, and disciplinary expectations routinely compress methodological discussion, prioritising findings over the interpretive processes that produced them. This pattern extends beyond WPR; however, for researchers learning to use the approach, it can create particular difficulty. Without concrete examples of how others operationalise WPR, translating theoretical understanding into analytical practice becomes challenging. This blog discussion also contributes to ongoing conversations about reflexivity, pedagogy, and methodological practice in qualitative research. It considers how transparency can function as a teaching resource, a basis for scholarly exchange, and a way of clarifying the epistemological commitments that underpin analytical decisions. It also raises questions about how researchers interpret policy texts and manage their own positioning within analysis.

Reflexivity, Structure, and the Practice of Critical Methods

Reflexivity shaped how my analysis is conducted and interpreted. Although I did not enter the project with prior involvement in preconception health policy, I do have a background in biomedical science. This training orients attention toward risk factors, optimisation, and prevention, and carries implicit assumptions about the value of early intervention. Applying WPR required critically interrogating these assumptions rather than reproducing them. In practice, this involved documenting how I moved from policy “solutions” to inferred problem representations, questioning moments where biomedical framings appeared self-evident, and examining how my disciplinary background shaped what I initially noticed or took for granted. Reflexivity therefore functions as an ongoing methodological practice aimed at making the interpretive labour of analysis visible.As WPRs uptake has expanded, so too has variation in how it is enacted. This diversity reflects the interpretive and context-dependent nature of qualitative research.. Different research contexts, questions, and epistemological commitments inevitably produce different methodological choices (Lester and O’Reilly, 2021). The challenge lies less in variation itself than in the lack of visibility surrounding how analytical decisions are made. . When studies present WPR as a label rather than a process, readers gain little insight into how analysis unfolded or how knowledge claims were produced.In my PhD, I have reflected on how WPR is enacted in practice and its broader implications for methodological transparency.Methodological transparency serves multiple functions. It supports teaching by offering concrete examples, strengthens scholarship by clarifying how analytical choices shape findings, and encourages dialogue about the relationship between method, knowledge, and interpretation.Variation in how WPR is applied reflects its adaptability. Different operational choices emerge from context rather than from methodological failure. Their value increases when they are articulated clearly enough for others to learn from, compare, and critique.Structure can support critical methods when it remains flexible and provisional. Guidance can help researchers navigate complexity without reducing analysis to procedural checklists. The central issue is the rationale behind decisions and their alignment with epistemological commitments.Reflexivity remains essential. All methodological practice involves judgment, trade-offs, and situated decisions. Making these visible models the same critical stance that WPR applies to policy and discourse.Where Next for WPR?There is no single way to operationalise WPR, and its strength lies in that openness. At the same time, this flexibility can be difficult for those new to the approach, particularly when published examples provide limited insight into how analysis unfolds. More worked examples would strengthen the field not as templates to follow, but as contributions to a shared methodological conversation. Such examples could show how WPR adapts across contexts, from policy texts to interviews, and across disciplines with different methodological norms.Making methodological choices visible foregrounds the interpretive labour that underpins qualitative research. It shows how theory becomes practice, how decisions shape knowledge, and how different pathways through the method remain possible.

References

Andersson, E., et al. (2022). Policy problem representations in health and welfare: Applications of the WPR approach.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Pearson.

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lester, J., & O’Reilly, M. (2021). Methodological reflexivity in qualitative research.

Tawell, A., & McCluskey, G. (2022). Using WPR in education policy