Appearing within a journal which acts as a foci for the dissemination of new death-related knowledge, we hope that this collection of papers provides a reflective ‘stop-gap’ for readers; it can be somewhere to take stock regarding how knowledge is produced and its effects on the researchers involved. Moreover, 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. Hockey suggests this can create a generalised sense of uneasiness about the status of data, and can be seen, for instance, in the difficultly researchers might have fragmenting narratives when coding and selecting data extracts for publications (e.g. 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, 2007, 2014 for interesting exceptions and (Cann & Troyer, 2017) as well as Evans, Ribbens McCarthy, Kébé, Bowlby and Wouango in this special issue). Privacy Policy| Although death’s definition is an issue that arises in these papers, the authors are also concerned with the bigger picture. Perhaps most notably, the special issue does not adequately consider the implications for death studies of three key contemporary methodological developments. Full-text available. Cann, 2014; Christensen & Willerslev, 2013; Foster & Woodthorpe, 2016; Kellehear, 2014). A key question posed is how scholars engaged in visual work can/should bear witness to pain and trauma, and represent their findings about violent death to others. 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. 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). Erica Borgstrom is a lecturer in medical anthropology and end-of-life care the Open University. Moreover, McKenzie et al. The challenge this paper poses for researchers across the two nations is to (re)find points of convergence vis-a-vis their shared history in death studies; to generate ‘a new kind of methodological approach’ (p. 112) that facilitates greater trans-Atlantic dialogue on death-related issues such as policy, education and end-of-life care, which will benefit citizens in both countries and death studies internationally. She argues that research training and regulatory frameworks (e.g. These tasks might not be possible, or even deemed ‘appropriate’ to ask about in the context of interviewing a person who may die very soon (Kendall et al., 2007). She is interested in medical sociology, the social and relational aspects of death and dying and material culture and everyday lives. All Rights Reserved. View full-text. Refuting the accusation that these methods are self-indulgent and merely subjective, Brennan and Letherby argue that auto/biography is rigorous precisely because it highlights explicitly the social location of the researcher and makes clear their ‘role in the process of constructing rather than discovering the story/ the knowledge’ (p. 157). Most individuals at end of life want to be surrounded by family, in familiar settings, and with a chance to say their good-byes. 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. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Several authors also point to the fallibility of their pre-fieldwork ‘preparations’ (Rowling, 1999; Visser, 2016; Woodthorpe, 2007, 2009) and make recommendations regarding how to better support researchers undertaking future death-related research. These are not always easy to negotiate in reality and within the constraints of a pre-approval ethics regulatory framework. Part of Erica Borgstrom’s time dedicated to this special issue was supported by the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness Mildred Blaxter Postdoctoral Fellowship. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our, 2020 American Medical Association. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.19102. Critical Moments – Death and Dying in Intensive Care. In so doing, it echoes sentiments expressed by many contributors to the special issue that reflexive thinking (including about emotional responses) can serve as an additional source of data. Howarth, 1993; Rolls & Relf, 2006; Valentine, 2007; Woodthorpe, 2011 ) or consider concerns pertinent to a specific sub-field such as suicide research (e.g. Reflections on access: Too vulnerable to research? In 2014, approximately 2.6 million people died in the United States, and approximately 55 million people died worldwide. Similarly, lengthy ‘standard’ participant information sheets can be exhausting for someone with serious health complications (Gysels et al., 2013) and researchers cannot assume that participants understand or accept their prognosis or if words like ‘dying’ or ‘end of life’ are suitable and ethical to use (Kendall et al., 2007). Whilst the pragmatics of how to do this kind of research remain a central part of the paper, the epistemological and ethical ramifications of the inherent interplay between language, meaning and power in the context of doing research, are also judiciously impressed on the reader. Attendees regularly share experiential and personal insights on a range of issues, including: the procedural and inter-personal nature of research ethics; attending to and coping with grief during their work; managing gatekeepers and recruitment; and negotiating particular challenges due to the (perceived and actual) ‘sensitive’ nature of their research and the ‘vulnerability’ of the populations being researched. Along with Kate Woodthorpe (University of Bath), a past co-convenor of the group, we have noticed that reflections about methods and methodology (as topics in their own right), reoccur every year in presentations at the symposium, regardless of the substantive theme stipulated as the focus for the day (e.g. Psychologists can help. December 2017, Vol 48, No. Given the aforementioned issues, it is significant that Kendall et al. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. In doing so, they have also problematised how participants are defined by those outside of ‘the field’ – for example, ethics committees pre-asserting that end-of-life care or bereavement research is ‘sensitive’ and that participants are ‘particularly vulnerable’ (Addington-Hall, 2002; Witham, Beddow, & Haigh, 2013). Furthermore, lesser discussed complexities can arise around issues to do with what are usually considered ‘best practice’; for example, asking participants to verify interview transcripts or sending details of study findings once the research has ended. My life after death: Connecting the field, the findings and the feelings, Reflecting on death: The emotionality of the research encounter, Researching death: Methodological reflections on the management of critical distance. The concept of death and dying is a typical concept that interlinks the aspects of medical science and philosophy. When Things Go Missing by Kathryn Schulz. In the article, they provide examples from their own death-related research to illustrate these connecting and contrasting permutations in this methodological approach.