Cited by 187Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Bracketing interviews: addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care

Rolls, Liz, Relf, Marilyn·2006·Mortality

Abstract

A major challenge for researchers using qualitative methods is to explore how their assumptions and experiences may be influencing the construction of knowledge. In a study of UK childhood bereavement services, “bracketing interviews” were used to explore the impact of the researcher's personal and professional experiences during data collection and analysis. Bracketing interviews provide an important research-focussed relationship that adapts the skills of clinical supervision in the context of research. While other forms of activity offer opportunities for reflection, the presence of a skilled “bracketer” contributed to the production of knowledge by increasing objectivity and amplifying the researcher's own reflexive capacity. Without entering the researcher's material therapeutically, bracketing interviews enabled the researcher to hold the tension of the dialectic process of investigating the nature of the participants' experience, at the same time as holding her own experience. It enabled the researcher's experience to be used in the service of the research, and contributed directly to the development of a theory about the emotional work of UK childhood bereavement services. Bracketing interviews require an experienced bracketer who understands the nature of a supervisory relationship that differs from both academic and personal supervision, and who also has an understanding of the demands of research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13576270600774893

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Authors
Rolls, L., & Relf, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Gloucestershire (GB)
  • Sobell House (GB)
Corresponding author
Rolls, Liz
Venue
Mortality
Published
2006-08
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
286-305
ISSN
  • 1357-6275 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9885
OpenAlex
W2040518837
Cited by
187
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mortality (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
researcher reflexivity, clinical supervision, palliative care, qualitative interviews, researcher experience, emotional work, scientific objectivity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review