Bracketing interviews: addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The lead author sought support using bracketing interviews with a colleague throughout the research process to help understand how the lead author's assumptions and experiences may impact upon the research design and process.
“The lead author sought support using bracketing interviews with a colleague throughout the research process due to the sensitive nature of the research and to help understand how the lead authors’ assumptions and experiences may impact upon the research design and process.35”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gooding, H., Stedmon, J., & Crix, D. (2020) · British Journal of Pain · doi:10.1177/2049463719857099 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Strunel, A.-M., & Cordoba, S. (2025) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2025.2505460 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rolls, L., & Relf, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Gloucestershire (GB)
- Sobell House (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Rolls, Liz
- ORCID
- Rolls, Liz
- Venue
- Mortality
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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