WAITING FOR THE MAGIC: REFLECTIONS ON A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY

WAITING FOR THE MAGIC: REFLECTIONS ON A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY Dr. Viriginia Dickson-Swift La Trobe University, Bendigo V.Dickson-Swift@latrobe.edu.au ABSTRACT Doctoral candidates embark on a journey that takes them through a maze of different theoretical and practical challenges. One such challenge involves engaging with and understanding theoretical concepts in order to produce a piece of research that is theoretically rich and useful. In addition to this, many qualitative researchers are adopting grounded theory methodologies in their research and in doing so are often involved in developing theory that will be used by others. Embarking on a grounded theory study requires that the researcher has a sound understanding of both the method and the process. One of the central tenets of grounded theory is that the theory should emerge from the data collected during data analysis. This emergence is often depicted as if it happens quite magically. This article reflects on the journey of a doctoral student as she grappled with epistemology and ontology, searched for a paradigm, grasped methodology and waited for the magic in her grounded theory study to appear. It details her experiences as she moved from being theory shy to theory smart. 1 INTRODUCTION This paper offers a reflection on the process of undertaking a grounded theory study and documents a journey of discovery. The reflection is presented in chronological order so that the reader can follow the development of theoretical ideas that took place throughout the project. The doctoral study on which this journey is based was a qualitative project examining the experiences of qualitative health researchers undertaking research on sensitive topics. The participants were 30 qualitative researchers with a range of research experience working broadly in public health research who were all involved in researching sensitive topics. The aim of the study was to investigate the experiences of researchers when undertaking health research on a sensitive topic and to generate a theoretical understanding relating to the conduct of research on sensitive topics. The first part of this paper documents my understandings of the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of research that developed throughout the project. This is followed by presenting some of the issues I grappled with when I chose a grounded theory design including a discussion of constructivist grounded theory, adaptive theory and some of the limitations of traditional grounded theory methodology. The final part details some of the aha moments that I had later in the project when I began to realise I had not only learned about theory but that I had also engaged in theory, applied theory and even developed theory as part of the research process.

2 DISCUSSION 2.1 EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY I began this journey with what only can be described as a theory phobia (Morse, 2002:296). I was intimidated by the language of theory and thought that theories were too difficult for me to understand. I did not have the skills of Newton or Einstein so how could I develop theory? I was a novice researcher with little understanding the theoretical basis of research. Although I had undertaken a number of methods courses throughout my years of study I had never fully understood the meanings of those terms and had shied away from engaging with the language of theory. Terms like epistemology and ontology gave me headaches and I felt that I could never understand what they meant. I spent the first few months of my candidature just reading the theoretical literature and trying to place myself within it. I read about positivism, postpositivism, epistemology, ontology, feminist sociology and many others until I finally gained an understanding of some of the theories that could inform the research I was planning to undertake. I read, and re-read Guba and Lincoln (1994) which assisted me to find my place and to examine the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the different research paradigms. I came to understand that the ontological question revolved around a discussion of whether or not there is a single objective reality. The epistemological question related to the nature of knowledge and how knowledge can be obtained (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In many of the classic texts there were a range of arguments about whether or not social science research could be objective, and whether or not there was such a thing as truth. (Habermas, 1988; Weber, 1949). If one assumed the ontological notion of objective reality then the knower (that is, the researcher/scientist) must also assume the position of objective detachment that is free from all bias. At this stage things were still blurry and my head hurt but I soldiered on. I grappled for some time with the four major epistemological theories that are used to explain the nature of knowledge: positivism, realism, critical theory and constructivism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). I realised that all of these traditions offer researchers different understandings of what reality is and how we can come to know that reality. The ontological belief of positivism, firmly rooted in the scientific paradigm seemed attractive at first. As I continued to read Guba & Lincoln (1994) and began to understand that positivistic research does not allow for the researcher s personal point of view or emotions to enter into the research process. I realised that this was not the paradigm for me. An exploration of realism produced many of the same reservations I had about positivism. Whilst realists do believe that there is an objective reality that can be captured, they also believe that it is impossible to capture it in a pure, unbiased form (see Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Researchers grounded in the realist tradition must identify and remove all sources of bias in their search for the truth. I didn t really like the sound of that either, so I continued to read. I began to find my way a little more which led me to the critical theorists, sometimes called postpostivists, who believe that there is no one objective reality but that reality is interpreted through social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender values (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The goal of research in this tradition is to understand how the values of both the researcher and the participants determine how they see the world. I felt that I was moving closer to something that resembled my own beliefs but I wasn t quite there yet. Eventually I began to explore constructivist theory espoused by those who take the ideas of the critical theorists one step further and argue that reality is socially constructed, shaped by social factors such as age, gender, race, class and culture (Charmaz, 2000;

Guba & Lincoln, 1994). One of the central beliefs of researchers working in this paradigm is their belief that research is a very subjective process due to the active involvement of the researcher in the construction and conduct of the research. This was the paradigm that I most closely identified with and I adopted a constructivist stance acknowledging the very subjective nature of the research and the multiple realities of those involved in the research. After being totally theory phobic I had made a breakthrough, I could now have a conversation with someone and use the words epistemology and ontology in context and I had a paradigm - I was a constructivist! 2.2 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY Now that I had my paradigm sorted, my next theoretical challenge came when I was deciding on a study design. Qualitative methodologies are particularly suited to constructivist researchers who are interested in researching experiences from the standpoint of those who are living it (Charmaz, 2000). I also knew that a research design should reflect the research aim, questions and the epistemological understandings that are appropriate to the study (Grbich, 1999; Liamputtong Rice & Ezzy, 1999) (notice the use of the word epistemological in context). So I knew that I would adopt a qualitative approach but I had little idea of what type of methodology I would use. I read widely and was drawn to descriptive qualitative research as defined by Sandelowski (2000). Her words echoed in my head as many of the studies I had read claimed to be grounded theory (GT), phenomenology or ethnography but on closer inspection were nothing more than descriptive qualitative research. I was worried about my ability to complete anything that was more methodologically complicated (again my fear of theory raised its head) so I thought that instead of claiming to do grounded theory or ethnography and not do it well, I would be better to keep it simple. I continued to read the literature and to focus on my research question. When the proposal was almost finished I had some discussions with my supervisors about study design and was given a copy of a grounded theory study undertaken by Kathy Charmaz (1990) to read. Although I was initially quite sceptical about my ability to undertake anything more than a purely descriptive study (and there is nothing wrong with that), after reading this study I developed an interest in GT. This lead me to the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1998; 1990) and I began to get excited about the prospects of undertaking a GT study (I never thought I would admit to getting excited about theory!!). As I read I realised that I had some major problems with the type of GT advocated by these early theorists but I really identified with Charmaz s (1990) study so I decided to read more and to really interrogate my ideas about GT. To me it seemed so rooted in positivism, so rigid and so scientific in its approach that it revived many of the reservations that I had early in the project. I began to read more of Charmaz (1995; 2000; 2002) and discovered the idea of constructivist grounded theory and realised that this was for me (more about this to later). 2.3 FEMINIST FRAMEWORKS As I continued to read I discovered that were many parallels in the values that underpin constructivist and feminist approaches to research. So, having decided that my research methodology would be guided by feminist principles I invited some experienced methodologists to come to a meeting where I would present what I knew so far and explain how feminist theory would also be used to guide the research. In this meeting I discussed how the theoretical frameworks of feminist interpretive research and constructivism differ from the positivist nature of conventional scientific research. I highlighted how the feminist principles like reciprocity and reflexivity would be incorporated into the study (Oakley, 1981; Reinharz, 1992; Ribbens & Edwards, 1998). Researchers working from within a feminist interpretive perspective are also openly encouraged to provide an honest account of the researcher s contribution to and effect on any research project (Harding, 1991; Stanley & Wise, 1993). Stanley and Wise (1991:266) have observed that in many research texts the research process appears a

very orderly and coherent process, often not providing a true reflection of how the researcher was involved in the process. They have termed research lacking personal statements and feeling hygenic research, positing that this research is research that is described rather than experienced. I understood that if researchers were to gain access to private and often intimate parts of people s lives they had to be prepared to give something of themselves in the research. This openness and reflexivity is paramount in qualitative research based on constructivist and feminist research principles. This sounded like the sort of research that I had envisaged undertaking. I chose in-depth interviews as my data collection method and I knew that interviewing the participants would be both a reflective and reciprocal process. After some conversations with one of my supervisors I began to realise that undertaking qualitative research was going to be something that I would experience rather than just do. I was going to need to truly connect with the participants in order for them to share their experiences with me. With some gentle persuasion from my supervisors I began to examine embodiment theory and how that might be applicable in my research. Now I was getting serious. 2.4 EMBODIED RESEARCH Embodiment theory is in contrast to much of the thinking in Western thought of the mind/body split more commonly referred to as Cartesian Dualism (Turner, 1992). Cartesian Dualism presupposes that the person is made of two completely separate parts, one the mind and the other the body. One of the main assertions of embodiment theory is that to be human means that all parts of the body are integral and one part cannot be separated from the other. Much of the research in health and social science has accepted the Cartesian legacy of separation of mind and body. Thus the body became the subject of the natural sciences, leaving the mind for the humanities (Lupton, 1995; Turner, 1992). Embodiment can be defined in a way that reflects the phenomenological philosophy of Merleau Ponty relating to how we live in, and experience the world through our bodies, especially through things such as perception, emotion and language (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). The body is the means by which we, as humans, come to know and experience the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). The importance of the body in social interaction has been well documented (Goffman, 1959). Researchers working in health research do not often communicate the embodied aspects of the research experience. Embodied existence takes place within the contextual world that each person is born into and lives in. This world is essentially shaped by culture, society, history and personal relationships and it must be interpreted to be understood. As embodied beings, we come to know the world through shared understandings, and in the process make our experience of the world a social and intersubjective one. All aspects of research require the researcher to feel, to experience. As researchers we are embodied, situated and subjective in the analysis. I knew that undertaking this research would be an embodied experience for me and I believed that many other researchers would also describe their experiences using embodied language. I was really beginning to engage with the literature now, searching for theories that fitted with the research literature and my own ideas. I was well on my way - constructivist paradigm, qualitative approach based on feminist principles with an understanding of the embodied nature of the research. Now to sort out my methodology. 2.5 GROUNDED THEORY At this stage I focused my reading so that I could develop a good understanding of GT and how it would be applied to my study. One of my supervisors was a strong advocate for the merits of GT and explained how using such an approach would be well suited to the research aims. As documented earlier, I had some understanding of GT, however I needed to know more. I went back to the seminal works of Glaser and Strauss (1967), and later Strauss and Corbin (1990) and followed up with Glaser (1998), Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1998). The early grounded theorists (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987) have been described as being objectivist in that they portrayed grounded theory as being compatible with positivistic assumptions of an external reality that can be

discovered by researchers (Charmaz, 1995). Much of the grounded theory promoted by Glaser, Strauss and to a lesser extent Corbin is imbued with positivism, with its objectivist underpinnings (Charmaz, 2000:510). The position taken by Glaser (1978; 1992) has been heavily criticised by Charmaz (2000:510) who termed it traditional positivism with its inherent focus on some type of objective reality that is waiting to be discovered by a neutral observer who brings no prior theoretical ideas to the research. Whilst traditional grounded theorists advocate for a rigid adherence to the steps for undertaking grounded theory in the systematic way initially proposed by its developers (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), others challenge this assertion (Charmaz, 2002; Gerson, 1991; Morse, 2002) In adopting a traditionalist stance, Glaser (1998:70) advocates that aspiring grounded theorists start out in the beginning tableaurose and put energy into discovery. This perception of researchers as blank slates has certain positivistic overtones and discounts that researchers inevitably bring a number of ideas and assumptions with them when they come to undertake research (Morse, 2002). I identified with the position taken by those more non-traditional grounded theorists and realised that it was important for me to examine the literature available to orient myself with the field. One of the most important rules for grounded theorists to follow is the need for the researcher to study the emerging data (Charmaz, 1995; Glaser, 1978). This enables the researcher to become more aware of the data and the emerging concepts within that data. The data collected in grounded theory studies becomes increasingly more focused as the study goes on because the researcher is undertaking analysis and data collection concurrently. Data analysis drives subsequent data collection as the goal of grounded theory is to develop a conceptually rich theory. As highlighted by Charmaz (1995:34), grounded theory researchers can both gain thick description and foster theoretical development by listening closely to their respondents, attempting to learn the unstated or assumed meanings of their statements and shaping their emerging research questions to obtain data that illuminate their theoretical categories. In some of their early works, Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later Glaser (1978) implied that the categories were inside the data and that they may even leap out at the researcher. My supervisor had also spoken of this magic like quality of grounded theory and how theory would emerge from the data. After a period of initial data analysis using the constant comparative method as proposed by Glaser I found myself doubting the magic and feeling a little despondent. In worrying about the emergence of the theory I continued to read Glaser who assured me that the core concepts would emerge he said they always do. Safe in this knowledge that the theory would somehow magically emerge I pushed on. I was buoyed by Glaser s remark when the GT s main concern emerges and is explained in a generated theory, it will have relevance for professional concerns (Glaser, 2002:25)which gave me comfort that when it finally did emerge that it would at least be useful for others. However, at this stage I was a little in doubt and I, like Charmaz (1995; 2002) and Morse (2002), began to challenge his thinking, instead preferring to believe that the categories do not magically emerge but that they reflect the interaction between the researcher and the researched. This led me to read more about constructivist grounded theory and to challenge some of the ideas of the early grounded theorists. 2.6 CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY Constructivism grew out of a debate about the philosophical paradigms that underpin the basic questions surrounding the nature of research inquiry. Originally, this perspective was termed naturalistic inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; 1994). However, more recently it has come to be known as the constructivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

Epistemologically, the constructivist researcher takes a subjectivist approach to examine the phenomena under investigation. This approach involves interaction between the researcher and the participants so that the findings are literally created (Guba & Lincoln, 1994:111) throughout the study. Lincoln and Guba (1985:188) offer an illustration termed the flow of naturalistic inquiry, which provides the detail of the constructivist methodology. This methodology is characterised by the use of the natural setting and the researcher as human instrument in the study. On entering the field, the researcher engages in purposive sampling, inductive data analysis and grounded theory analysis. The development of constructivist grounded theory stemmed from dissatisfaction with some of the rigid views of the earlier theorists (Charmaz, 2000). Constructivist researchers advocate for the recognition that, the researcher composes the story; it does not simply unfold before the eyes of an objective viewer (Charmaz, 2000:522). One of the principles of constructivist grounded theory is that researchers do not have a set of preconceived ideas or hypotheses when they begin the study but they do have what Blumer (1969) has termed sensitising concepts which are a set of interests and general concepts. Layder (1998:101) refers to these early concepts as background concepts explaining that they are a valuable means of developing theory. These early concepts have the ability to provide grounded theorists with such points of departure for developing, rather than limiting, their ideas (Charmaz, 1995:32) In a similar vein, Morse (2002:296) advises researchers that it is important and valuable to use both the literature and the work of others to (1) deconstruct the concept or interest, (2) develop a skeletal framework which enables a researcher to develop a tentative understanding of where to look and (3) develop a scaffold enabling the researcher to focus but to also undertake some exploratory induction. In adopting a constructivist approach to this research, I developed the research around a number of sensitising concepts using a combination of the above. The concepts and ideas that guided this research were focused around my own experiences of undertaking research on a sensitive topic coupled with the experiences of other researchers reported in the literature. I did not adhere to the rigid framework for grounded theory development as dictated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later Strauss and Corbin (1990), delaying the literature review. Instead I chose to undertake a literature review in the early stages of the research thus enabling me to develop the research around the concepts found in the literature. As previously highlighted, this did not force any preconceived ideas about the experiences of undertaking sensitive research, instead it enabled me to gain an understanding of some of the issues that may be relevant in the study. 2.7 ADAPTIVE THEORY On my theory journey I came across yet another constructivist theorist in Layder (1998:1) who states that adaptive theory endeavours to combine the use of pre-existing theory and theory generated from data analysis in the formulation and actual conduct of empirical research. This approach to research emphasises that theorising should be seen as a continuous process throughout the research which is in direct contrast to the use of theory in traditional grounded theory which reserves the use of theory until after the data has been analysed. I liked his idea. The nature of adaptive theory is that it both shapes and is shaped by the empirical data that emerges from research and that it allows the dual influence of extant theory (theoretical models) as well as those that unfold from (and are enfolded in) the research (Layder, 1998:133). In developing his ideas around adaptive theory Layder (1998) states that it uses both inductive and deductive procedures, it is neither positivist nor interpretivist and openly embraces both objectivism and subjectivism. Layder (1998:113) is highly critical of Glaser and Strauss s theory building, stating that their

insistence that theory should emerge strictly from the data in order to claim that it is properly grounded amounts to a form of dogmatism in that it precludes other ways of proceeding on a priori grounds. In particular, it refuses to confront the uncomfortable fact that it is only possible to begin analysing, theorizing and explaining aspects of social life if one is already in possession of certain assumptions and ideas about the social world. Similar to Charmaz (2000; 2002) Layder s (1998) criticisms focused on the limitations of traditional grounded theorising as a method of developing theory from research. Adaptive theory is inherently different from grounded theory in that it favours theory and data in the emergence of new theory which contrasts with traditional grounded theory privileging data against prior theory. Using adaptive theory in this way allows the researcher more freedom and flexibility to access a range of theoretical ideas thus enabling a range of theoretical ideas to be incorporated into all aspects of the research. In adopting adaptive theory and constructivist grounded theory for my study, I drew on theories throughout the entire research process. Using theory in this way has enabled the research to be more grounded, not only in the data, but also in the use and application of prior theory in all stages of the research. 2.8 THE AHA In a GT study it is often necessary to adapt the initial interview guide to enable new areas to be explored and to delete those areas that are not yielding any new data. Qualitative researchers often refine their questions to enable them to follow leads (Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984), however grounded theorists do this in order to further develop their emerging theoretical categories (Charmaz, 1995). For this study I continually adapted the interview guide to enable me to follow the leads that were emerging from the data. After about 10 interviews and preliminary analysis I was struck how some categories in the data were beginning to take shape. I would not say that the theory emerged by itself but I would agree with Charmaz (1995) and Morse (2002) that the theory developed reflected the interaction between the researcher and the researched. As the interviews were designed to allow the participants to share their experiences the interview guide was quite unstructured. Using this unstructured approach is very valuable for grounded theory studies as adherence to a strict schedule of questions can limit the possibilities and may prevent the researcher from achieving density and variation of concepts so necessary for developing a grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:181). This approach allowed the participants to tell their story and to relate their own experiences. Many of the participant s stories focused around the difficulties they faced in the process of undertaking qualitative health research. Some of the issues raised included the emotional nature of the research and the difficulties encountered setting and maintaining boundaries (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2006). It appeared that many researchers found undertaking qualitative research quite an emotional experience. They reported often feeling sad, angry and frightened throughout the research. They spoke of emotional displays (like crying) and how difficult it was to manage their emotions whilst involved in research interviews. Some of them spoke about suppressing emotions whilst in interview situations and explained how that often led to feeling quite emotionally exhausted afterwards. Here was the emerging theory- qualitative research work was emotional. I had reached the first aha. I was still feeling a little unsure at this stage but I was buoyed by the words of Morse (1997:176), Qualitative researchers are theoretically timid. Some researchers may be more comfortable staying within the safety zone of their data; they may be unwilling to take the risk inherent in an interpretation and move their analysis beyond the descriptive level.

I knew I needed to move on, I needed to move outside the safety zone of the data and begin to interpret what the data was showing me. This revelation led me directly to the emotions literature. I was initially drawn to the work of Arilie Hochschild (1983) a place I had never imagined I would be. After reading her classic text The Managed Heart (Hochschild, 1983) that focused on the experiences of flight attendants and how they managed their emotions on a day to day basis I began to realise that this was relevant to my data. The theory of emotion work provided me with a framework for understanding researchers experiences throughout the research process. The researchers in my study were really doing emotion work as described by Hochschild (1983). As the data collection continued researchers shared stories of how their involvement in research affected them emotionally, especially as they were involved in dealing with other people s emotions (James, 1989:16) whilst managing their own. Whilst the concept of emotion work had been explored with many occupations including supermarket clerks (Tolich, 1993), clerical workers (Rogers, 1995; Wichroski, 1994), nurses and care assistants (Aldridge, 1994; James, 1989,, 1993; Lee-Treweek, 1996; Meerabeau & Page, 1998; O'Brien, 1994; Small, 1995; Smith, 1991; 1992), teachers (Nias, 1996), beauty therapists (Sharma & Black, 2001) and other professional groups (Harris, 2002; Pierce, 1999; Wharton, 1993) there was no empirical work with researchers. There was theory emerging from my data. Researchers were doing emotion work and this was often hard work, undervalued and under-researched. 3 CONCLUSIONS So there was the magic and there was the theory and it really was reflected in the experiences of the researchers I had interviewed. Qualitative researchers working on sensitive health research were doing emotion work in their everyday research work. This illustrates the importance of not being theory shy and that understanding and applying theory is part of the process of doing research and that by using theory we can make our research more applicable to a broader audience. This journey was a long and arduous one for me as it is for any student. It took over three years and countless hours of reading, writing and re-reading for me to finally claim that as a result of my journey I am now, as Morse (2002:295) so succinctly puts it theory smart. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my doctoral supervisors, Dr. Erica James, Associate Professor Pranee Liamputtong and Sandra Kippen who were not directly involved in the writing of this article but who were a constant source of support and encouragement throughout the candidature. 5 REFERENCES Aldridge, M. (1994). Unlimited liability? Emotional labour in nursing and social work. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 722-728. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172. Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. Smith, R. Harre & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 26-47). London: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (2nd ed., pp. 675-694). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research forthcoming. Gerson, E. (1991). Supplementing grounded theory. In D. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley. CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-31. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Grbich, C. (1999). Qualitative research in health: An introduction. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Habermas, Y. (1988). On the logic of social sciences (S. W. Nicholsen & J. Stark, Trans.). Oxford: Polity. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Harris, L. C. (2002). The emotional labour of barristers: An exploration of emotional labour by status professionals. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 553-584. Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. James, N. (1989). Emotional labour: Skill and work in the social regulation of feelings. Sociological Review, 37, 15-42. James, N. (1993). Divisions of emotional labour: Disclosure and anger. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 94-117). London: Sage Publications. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. London: Sage Publications.

Lee-Treweek, G. (1996). Emotional work in care assistant work. In V. James & J. Gabe (Eds.), Health and the sociology of emotions. Oxford: Blackwell. Liamputtong Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Lofland, J., & Lofland, J. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body. London: Sage Publications. Meerabeau, L., & Page, S. (1998). Getting the job done: Emotions management and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nursing. In G. Bendelow & S.Williams (Eds.), Emotions in social life (pp. 295-312). London: Routledge. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge. Morse, J. M. (1997). Considering theory derived from qualitative research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks: Sage Morse, J. M. (2002). Theory innocent or theory smart? Qualitative Health Research, 12(3), 295-296. Nias, J. (1996). Special issue: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 3. O'Brien, M. (1994). The managed heart revisited: Health and social control. Sociological Review, 42, 393-413. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). New York: Routledge. Pierce, J. L. (1999). Emotional labor among paralegals. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 127-142. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press. Ribbens, J., & Edwards, R. (1998). Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives. London: Sage Publications. Rogers, J. K. (1995). Just a temp: Experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical employment. Work and Occupation, 22, 137-166. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334-340. Sharma, U., & Black, P. (2001). Look good, feel better: Beauty therapy as emotional labour. Sociology, 35(4), 913-919. Small, E. (1995). Valuing the unseen emotional labour of nursing. Nursing Times, 91(26), 40-41. Smith, P. (1991). The nursing process: Raising the profile of emotional care in nurse training. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16, 74-81.

Smith, P. (1992). The emotional labour of nursing. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1991). Feminist research, feminist consciousness and experiences of sexism. In M. M. Fonow & J. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 266-291). Bloomington: Indianna University Press. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist consciousness and feminist research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research. The search for meanings. New York: Wiley. Tolich, M. B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work: Supermarket clerks' performance of customer service. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 361-381. Turner, B. (1992). Regulating bodies: Essays in medical sociology. New York: Routledge. Weber, M. (Ed.). (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. Glencoe III: Free Press. Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232. Wichroski, M. A. (1994). The secretary: Invisible labour in the work world of women. Human Organization, 53, 33-41.