Embedded Files
discussion about techniques, practices and socio-cultural contexts of death research, and the implications that these have for knowledge production. Moreover, Mortality Special Issue Vol 22 (2) May 2017 2 they intend to stimulate reflection on what is particular about engaging in death-related research specifically – teasing out key issues from more generic ongoing discussions about doing ‘sensitive’ (usually qualitative) research. In doing so, they offer practical tips and guidance – with the authors including key points and summary boxes at the end of each article. By placing these articles together and in dialogue with one another, we hope to encourage further substantive publications that deal with methodological aspects of death research, and that can continue these conversations. If we look at the genealogy of death studies (in English-speaking nations at least), there is a history of key periods of academic reflection and activity. For example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s (in the United States in particular), we saw a plethora of research in the field which produced seminal works that are still regularly cited in research, teaching and professional education today (e.g. Kubler-Ross, 1969; Glaser and Strauss, 1965). In the 1990s, many important theoretical (e.g. Walter, 1994; Mellor and Shilling, 1993) and empirical (e.g. Young and Cullen, 1996; Howarth, 1996; Hockey, 1990) texts where published along with a number of edited collections (e.g. Klass, Silverman and Nickman, 1996; Clark, 1993). Now, in the 2010s, we have several further diverse and novel contributions to the field e.g. (Foster and Woodthorpe, 2016; Kellehear, 2014; Cann, 2014; Christensen and Willerslev, 2013). And yet, despite this established and continually expanding body of work, there are very few substantive publications devoted solely to methodological issues in death studies research (Woodthorpe, 2009). Likewise, although researchers are often required to justify why one would ‘choose’ to work in the (‘morbid’) field of death and dying (Hockey, 2007), there is little in the literature which reflects on matters of identity vis a vis doing death research. This special issue, therefore represents, a rare opportunity to pay extended and explicit attention to what is particular about doing research on the end of life and being a contemporary ‘death researcher’. Mortality Special Issue Vol 22 (2) May 2017 3 Methodology, reflexivity and death studies: a brief outline Whilst death studies is a multi-disciplinary field, it is often the case that those undertaking research in the area look to published work within their own disciplines for methodological guidance. Informal conversations with current doctoral students confirmed our suspicions that less generic methodological texts devoted to issues particular to death research would be a welcome addition to the field. Nonetheless, we do not suggest that any such publications would be starting from a blank canvas, or that the existing more general literatures – particularly about doing sensitive research – are not relevant and helpful. They definitely are, and therefore it is important to acknowledge what has been published and to note (however briefly) certain key issues that have been considered as a way to provide some context for the special issue. For, despite a lack of ‘go to’ textbooks or volumes that deal explicitly with the methodological and practical aspects of researching death, dying, and bereavement, there have been a few important accounts published (more so in recent years) that reflect on issues specific to doing death research. These usually appear as stand-alone chapters or articles drawing on experiences from a particular research project (e.g. Woodthorpe, 2011; Valentine, 2007; Rolls and Relf, 2006; Howarth, 1993) or consider concerns pertinent to a specific subfield such as suicide research (e.g. Boden, Gibson, Owen and Benson, 2016; McKenzie, Li, Jenkin and Collings, 2016). It is more unusual for authors to attempt broader reflexive exploration of methodological matters, which muse on possible motivations for studying death-related topics and the wider cultural and social contexts or research environments within which one’s identity and experiences as a ‘death researcher’ are located (see Hockey, 2014 and 2007 for interesting exceptions and Cann and Troyer as well as Evans, Ribbens McCarthy, Kébé, Bowlby and Wouango in this special issue). Mortality Special Issue Vol 22 (2) May 2017 4 What has been published tends to be highly personal and reflexive, pointing to the emotional labour involved in undertaking a project dealing with mortality and with many offering ‘confessional’ style narratives about what was experienced in the field. Several authors also point to the fallibility of their pre-fieldwork ‘preparations’ (Visser, 2016; Woodthorpe, 2009; 2007; Rowling, 1999) and make recommendations regarding how to better support researchers undertaking future death-related research. They consider various reflexive practices, ‘emotional safety protocols’ (Bowtell, Sawyer, Aroni, Green and Duncan, 2013) and aspects of self-care management (Rager, 2005), such as keeping a diary (Valentine, 2007; Howarth, 1993), scheduling plenty of time between interviews (Rowling, 1999), and taking part in regular debriefing opportunities (Rolls and Relf, 2006). However, as Visser (2016) notes, there is probably a limit to
Report abuse