DEATH STUDIES

2017, VOL. 41, NO. 1, 6–13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2016.1257877

“Doing death”: Reflecting on the researcher’s subjectivity and emotions

Renske C. Visser
Social and Policy Sciences, Centre for Death and Society, University of Bath, Bath, UK

ABSTRACT
Given that death is a universal concept, the idea that a researcher must be objective when studying
this topic is common place and problematic. Thus, this article adds to the literature by discussing
the complexity of subjectivity within death studies. Three key elements of subjectivity form the
basis of this discussion: (a) the researcher’s cultural background, (b) the researcher’s personal
experiences, and (c) the emotional impact of research on the researcher. It is argued that
transparency about the subjective nature of death studies research can be fruitful in understanding
the research process before, during, and after fieldwork.

Although there is a paucity of literature on the
emotional labor (Hochschild, 1979) involved in under-
taking death research, increasingly it is acknowledged
that in preparation to research sensitive issues the focus
on a researcher’s own wellbeing is something that
deserves more attention (Johnson, 2009; Rowling,
1999; Woodthorpe, 2009). This is especially the case
within a discipline like death studies, in which we are
all insiders to some extent based on personal experi-
ences of death in our own lives, and the fact that we
all will die. As a result, the emotional impact of “doing
death” is something that, this article argues, should be
recognized more openly.
In part, this argument stems from this journal.
Although some scholars acknowledge the problematic
nature and question the possible presence of academic
distance when researching death (Bradbury, 1999;
Woodthorpe, 2011), to date this journal’s preference
for more quantitative accounts reflects the ontological
idea that death is something that can be viewed objec-
tively or neutrally. Althoughthere are signs of a growing
number of reflective and qualitative articles (see
Cipolletta & Oprandi, 2014; Neimeyer, Klass, & Dennis,
2014; Neimeyer & Vallerga, 2015; Rimkeviciene,
O’Gorman, & De Leo, 2015) the emotions and subjec-
tivity of the researcher are typically absent in articles
in Death Studies.
This oversight thus neglects the subjective ontology
that is at the basis of much death research. The distinc-
tion between objectivity and subjectivity in the field of
anthropology, in which the author of this article is
trained, have been the source of ample debate (Pels,
2014; Van der Geest, 2007), where division between
object and subject has been argued to be insufficient
as researcher and researched share their subjectivity
within the research context (Van der Geest, 2007). This
sharing has been termed intersubjectivity (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980), which is a
process of meaning- making [that] occurs within the
everyday flow of events, speech and behaviour or dis-
cursive activity through which we define our social
reality. Social discourse then becomes the primary field
of study and the research endeavour an interactive,
intersubjective process, rather than the researcher being
separate from the field of study. (Valentine, 2008,
pp. 5–6)
In other words, both the researcher and the
researched have subjective experiences that shape the
interaction in the field and the interpretation of
researchers in their research output in the subjective
understanding of the phenomenon that has been
studied (Van der Geest, 2007).
However, not all agree that understanding qualitative
research in this way is a good thing. Although the inter-
subjective nature of social research is widely acknowl-
edged in disciplines like anthropology, “any discussion
of personal involvement is contemptuously described
as confession anthropology” (Pool, 2000, p. 9, italics
added for emphasis). As a result, although some
researchers are very transparent about the role that their
personal life played in shaping their research (Hockey,
1990; Kristvik, 2012; Letherby, 2000), sharing personal
stories can make anthropological researchers vulnerable

CONTACT Renske C. Visser R.C.Visser@bath.ac.uk Social and Policy Sciences, Centre for Death and Society, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath,
UK BA2 7AY.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis

to allegations of being “too emotional” (Lee-Treweek,
2000), which can consequently cost them their
reputation in the academic world.
Even among those committed to the reflexive perspec-
tive, some disquiet has been expressed regarding the
danger that social enquiry about others could disappear
altogether, with ethnography becoming a literary
activity mainly concerned with explorations of selves.
(Davies, 2008, p. 8)
In a discipline such as anthropology that welcomes
reflexivity, reflecting on the research process is thus still
handled with caution as sharing personal stories can be
seen as being self-centred and an act of “navel-gazing.”
Given the universal nature of the topic in question,
here we see the problematic nature of the role of a
researcher’s emotions in death studies, and the issue
of what is the appropriate way in which to share them.
One of the common critiques of ethnographic and
qualitative research is that it does not lend itself to
broad generalizations. What they offer is a more
nuanced and critical perspective to quantitative
accounts (Danely, 2014). As McNamara has argued, it
is important to acknowledge that “data could be a pro-
duct of participation in the field, rather than a reflection
of the phenomenon studied” (2001, p. 142). Legitimacy
and credibility are issues that the researcher has to
acknowledge when doing qualitative in-depth research.
As will be argued throughout this article, death research
is always the product of (inter)subjective encounters
and therefore transparency about these issues will
increase the credibility of the field. Ethnographic pro-
jects are difficult to replicate; however, they show the
complexity and dynamics of social life.
Within any research project in which researchers
encounter other people, both quantitative and qualitat-
ive, it is of great importance to acknowledge the
emotional labor (Hochschild, 1979) the research
involves for the researcher and to reflect on the impact
research has on the researcher to understand the inter-
subjective nature of the project. Caetano (2015, p. 231)
discusses three levels of reflexivity that are part of social
analysis: “that of the researcher, that of the individuals
being studied and that specifically being raised by the
research context.” Drawing on my doctoral studies, this
article will discuss these three levels, by firstly discussing
the importance of acknowledging the cultural back-
ground of the research- in this case as a Dutch
researcher working in an English context. Second, it will
address the problematic nature of the boundaries
between the personal and the professional, discussing
how the research can be affected by personal experi-
ences of the researcher, which are often unintentional.
DEATH STUDIES 7
For example, in the case of my doctoral studies, the age-
ing experience of my grandmother has had a profound
impact on the way my research developed. Lastly, the
article will consider the emotional responses which
participants can affect in researchers. One of my parti-
cipants, June Beech, died during the course of my pro-
ject and my research journey with her was pertinent in
prompting questions regarding the appropriate feelings
I should or should not have as a researcher with regards
to my participants. These are issues for all qualitative
research but become especially salient when researching
topics of a potentially sensitive or emotive nature such
as death and dying. The article concludes that subjec-
tivity is a multifaceted concept that needs to be
accounted for both in qualitative as well as in quantitat-
ive research on death and dying in order to preserve the
field’s credibility.
Research background
This article originates from a piece of doctoral research
that focused on the meaning of ‘home’ in the lives of
older people (aged 85–98) living alone in the South
West of England. The research explored topics concern-
ing ageing, death and dying with eight individuals over
a 9-month time period. The majority of older people
live alone in their own dwelling in the United Kingdom
(ONS, 2013) and focusing on people living alone opens
up space to critically examine what ageing and dying
means on an individual level. I visited participants
multiple times (between one and five visits) and we
discussed their everyday life, their past, present, and
expectations for the future. Participants were given a
choice in how they wished to engage in the research
project and what methods they wanted to use (i.e., for
one participant her garden was of upmost importance
and this served as the basis of our encounters). Visits
lasted on average between 1 and 3 hours. Semistruc-
tured interviews in participants’ own houses were the
main method of data generation. By having multiple
visits, various snapshots of the lives of my participants
were offered, which combined form a fuller picture of
their lifeworlds than would a single interview (Hockey,
2002). Furthermore, as the majority of my participants
spent most of their time in their dwelling, spending time
within this living environment offered a good reflection
on the everyday lived experience of the older people in
my study. This study was an attempt to immerse myself
in the lifeworlds of older people and this required the
building of rapport, a term used in anthropology to
describe the relationship of trust between researcher
and researched (Woodthorpe, 2011).
8 R. C. VISSER
Complexities of subjectivity
In the following sections, three issues will be discussed
to explore the complexity of subjectivity within qualitat-
ive research: (a) the cultural background a researcher
brings to the field; (b) personal experiences that impact
on the project; and (c) the way research impacts the
researcher will be explored. A researcher will typically
prepare him or herself before entering a field yet this
section will discuss whether one can ever fully prepare
for the research experience beforehand.
My personal background
This section explores the nuances that come from
researching particular contexts and the place a
researcher’s cultural background has in shaping
research. In literature often sweeping statements are
made about Western or European thinking when it
comes to death. Ariès’s (1987) historical work on
European attitudes toward death and dying over a
period of 1,000 years is an example of this. These
writings downplay the differences between countries
within the West and do not fully appreciate the nuances
within specific cultural and social contexts. In contrast,
Walter (2005) offered an example that does acknowl-
edge differences within the development of funeral
design within Western contexts. Following this, he
argued that researchers from the West should be more
transparent on the specific social and cultural back-
ground they carry and bring to the field. For me, this
was especially apparent after attending the 12th Death,
Dying and Disposal of the Body Conference (DDD12)
last year in Alba Iulia, Romania, from which this special
issue of Death Studies originates. Here there were a
range of European researchers, from East, West, North,
and South, and it became apparent that although there
is a shared continent, our historical, political, social,
and economic circumstances differed widely (Valentine
& Woodthorpe, 2014).
This conflation of culture thus misrepresents the
complexity of researchers working outside of their
home background. A researcher does not enter the field
as a blank slate but will bring his or her own back-
ground experiences to the field. Although it is impor-
tant to acknowledge the perspective one has and to be
transparent about what baggage a researcher brings to
the field (Knowles, 2006; Woodthorpe, 2009), clearly
these differences are not always accounted for in studies
undertaken in the West. It should be noted that this is
not just the case when researching in a “foreign” con-
text. Even at home, a researcher has certain assertions
and beliefs that colour the way a researcher sees the
world. These may differ widely from the people who
are being studied, and behind every door lies a culture
of its own. In previous research I have undertaken in
the Netherlands (Visser & Parrott, 2015) I had to be
wary of this issue.
In terms of my own background, I was born and
raised in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The Netherlands
is going through rapid changes with regards to secular-
ization and multiculturalism, which form the basis of a
Dutch context of death and dying (Eric Venbrux,
Peelen, & Altena, 2009). This is also reflected in
contemporary work in Dutch thanatology with work
on how minority groups, such as Muslims, incorporate
certain funeral rituals in a Dutch context (Venhorst,
2012) and how secular Dutch people try to invent new
funeral rituals (Eric Venbrux, Heessels, & Bolt, 2008;
Wouters, 2002). Here we can see that on the one hand
there are specific things that add to the “Dutchness” of
death research, yet at the same time this understanding
should not be considered as static as traditions and
beliefs change over time.
One of the things that profoundly shapes the way I
see the world is the prevalence of euthanasia in the
Netherlands. In 2001 the Netherlands became the first
country to legalize euthanasia in the world, and to this
day is one of the few countries that allows specific forms
of assisted dying (Norwood, 2009). This topic has been
the subject of much research, legally, medically, and
anthropologically (Norwood, 2009; Pool, 2000; The,
2009).1 Euthanasia offers a fairly distinctive way of
encountering issues around end-of-life and death. The
availability of euthanasia opens up space for what
Norwood has termed euthanasia talk. In these kinds
of conversations people discuss a hypothetical line in
the sand, the point after which they do not want to live
anymore. At present there is no euthanasia, or English
equivalent of euthanasia, in the United Kingdom. At
the same time coalitions like Dying Matters2 aim to
make people discuss issues around end-of-life in the
United Kingdom and there are several groups which
work to promote the legalization of assisted dying.
When discussing end-of-life, death, and dying it is
important to acknowledge what certain terms mean in
their specific context. Euthanasia for Dutch researchers
is a reality, whereas for researchers from many other
geographical locations this is a hypothetical.
Euthanasia is something that has prompted ample
debate for decades in the Netherlands, and although it
has been legalized, there is still no consensus within
1
Interestingly Pool’s (2000) research on euthanasia in the Netherlands was
undertaken when this was still illegal.
2
See http://www.dyingmatters.org/

the population. This points to a friction where I as a
researcher feel that euthanasia talk should be possible,
yet, at the same time I understand the complexities of
discussing this topic. I did not want to offend my part-
icipants, and therefore mostly shied away from touching
upon the topic of when to die. Here we see that while
certain topics are less of a taboo in particular cultural
contexts there are still difficulties in researching them.
My personal life
Only after being repositioned through a devastating loss
of my own could I better grasp that Ilongot elders mean
precisely what they say when they describe the anger in
bereavement as the source of their desire to cut off
human heads. (Rosaldo, 1993, p. 168)
This example shows how personal experiences can
offer another layer of understanding to research. Renato
Rosaldo (1993) discussed that it was not until his experi-
ence of the death of his wife, Michelle, that he could
understand the rage in which Ilongot men go headhunt-
ing after a bereavement. The (now outlawed) ritual was
something Rosaldo could not grasp until he had a
relatable experience, when his wife fell off a cliff during
their fieldwork. As is shown by Rosaldo and others (e.g.,
Valentine, 2007) the researcher’s emotions can offer
another layer of understanding to the analysis of the
research.
In another example, only in the epilogue of Scheper-
Hughes (1992) Death Without Weeping do we learn that
she brought her entire family to her fieldwork. There
she briefly reflects on the impact her project on poverty
and child mortality had on her children. This prompts
questions on the problematic nature of social research
which happens simultaneously with normal life and
how researchers deal with those boundaries. Research-
ers may step out their own context, yet do not, or
cannot, put their lives on hold. The issue of the bound-
aries between the personal and the professional is most
often discussed by feminist writers. This is argued by
Cotterill and Letherby (1993, p. 74) who stated that
the lives of participants “are filtered through us and
the filtered stories of our lives are present (whether we
admit it or not) in our written accounts.” In other
words, especially in qualitative accounts it is problem-
atic to separate the experience of the participant and
that of the researcher.
With quantitative research methods such as surveys
and big data set analyses the impact of the interaction
with participants is of a different level, but even quanti-
tative death scholars will have to cope with the fact that
they are mortal. Some of the larger “top down” accounts
of bereavement and other topics may be equally
DEATH STUDIES 9
upsetting. Furthermore the same question of where
the researcher self and the personal self begin and end
applies.
A researcher’s personal experience has the power to
shape a project. This can be anticipated from the outset
(Letherby, 2000) or arise during a research project. In
my case this was the latter, with my grandfather dying
during the first year of my doctoral studies, and my
grandmother having an accident during a visit to me
in the United Kingdom. Needless to say my experiences
were not as traumatic as the earlier mentioned death of
Michelle Rosaldo, but nevertheless they had a pertinent
impact on my research, as I outline below with the case
of my grandmother.
My grandmother’s accident happened a month
before I had to submit my PhD confirmation3 docu-
ments and led to my suspending my studies for a while.
Suddenly everything I was reading about home and
mobility I was relating to my own grandmother. The
experiences I have come across of the reality of older
people ageing and dying are all within my own family.
Therefore I realized I was relating much of what I heard
and read during my research back to my own experi-
ences. How open researchers should or can be about
their own experiences in the writing is something that
is often left to the discretion of the author yet, as Okely
(1992) argued, autobiography is often marginalized in a
Western context. This is due to the earlier mentioned
view that autobiography is a means to confess (Pool,
2000) and the association that it is self-inflating (Okely,
1992).
The experience I had with my grandmother made it
difficult to continue with my project. Yet it also offered
comfort to be able to talk to older people about their
experiences of ageing in a way that I was not able to
do with my grandmother, as she was living in a different
country. At the same time this was painful sometimes,
as I was not able to have the same kind of conversations
with my own grandmother. This shows the complexities
of managing personal and professional boundaries
when a researcher has first-hand experience at the same
time. An important part of the research process is build-
ing rapport and having empathy. Through my own
personal experiences I could empathize more with my
participants, yet it also has affected the set of questions
I asked. The challenge of how much to disclose of one-
self to participants is an ongoing dynamic between
researcher and researched and it is up to researchers
3
In my institution a doctoral student has to go through a confirmation
process in which it is determined whether the research is on the right level
for a PhD or whether the student can complete a MPhil. Documents for
this have to be submitted within a year of starting a doctorate and not
submitting on time will be considered as a failure of the first attempt.
10 R. C. VISSER
to decide what they feel comfortable sharing (Valentine,
2007).
How we “should” feel
This section will discuss the emotional part of conduct-
ing fieldwork and the challenges this brings. During my
project I have encountered instances where I was not
sure how to act or how to feel. Hochschild (1979)
discussed the notion of “feeling rules,” arguing that
people are not only socialized to act in particular ways
in certain situations, they are also socialized to feel
certain emotions during specific situations. In this she
noted a distinction in what people expect to feel and
how they should feel. For example, before starting my
fieldwork I anticipated the likelihood of participants
dying during the course of my project, solely based on
their age. In this I predicted how I would feel if
something like that would occur. I expected a sense of
sadness and loss, yet anticipated that it would not affect
me as much as a loss in my personal life as they were
people I just met. However, I was not sure how I should
feel. This might again be related to the way researchers
write about their projects; only acknowledging their
own emotions in the margins of their work, hidden in
footnotes, introductions, or the afterword (Pool,
2000). The feelings and emotions of the researcher are
something that are discussed in the field diaries but
are often filtered out in the final output of the research
(Valentine, 2007).
The death of June
My first interview was with June, who at age 93 had
been living in her current dwelling for 17 years. She
had been widowed over 20 years ago and had no chil-
dren. For June, home meant various things through
her life. She had lived in various countries working
for the British council as a librarian. At the end of her
life her house increasingly became a burden and less
of a safe haven. We had met for an initial interview
and scheduled a second one, yet this second interview
would never take place. June and I tried to keep her a
part of the project. We negotiated appropriate research
methods, one of them was writing reflections in a note-
book, which she could do in her own time while not
having to worry she would not feel well at the time of
an interview.
I entered June’s life when her health was declining
rapidly, and indeed she died during the course of my
study. She had been planning her death for a long time,
and in the first interview with me she discussed that she
wished she could be like a wild animal, entering the
forest to just never return. However, she was very aware
that as a human this was not possible. She wanted to die
alone, in her own bed. It became apparent for June that
due to her health she could not stay in her own house
and shortly before her death she decided to move to a
nursing home. Soon after, she was taken to hospital.
She had been diagnosed with bowel cancer and the
doctor explained that this was terminal. She could be
operated or they could make her comfortable but she
was going to die of this illness.
With her Quaker background, she asked for a meet-
ing for support. This is a meeting where Quakers invite
people they respect to come listen to a problem. They
then give their suggestions to what they would do when
faced with this issue knowing that the person calling the
meeting is free to ignore all advice and choose their own
path. June called this meeting to discuss the two options
she was faced with: operating or being made comfort-
able. She chose the latter.
The last time I saw June was when I popped in for a
second to say hello, as I just finished interviewing her
neighbor. She was very fragile and looked defeated. She
remarked, “I have to make some important decisions. I
thought I had made all the important decisions at my
age.” June was a woman who wanted to be in control of
things, and planned everything out. She thought this was
what she had done for her end of life as well, yet she
was faced with choices and decisions she never anticipated
on making. As per her wish, June died alone in a room that
was overlooking ‘quintessential English countryside’.
June was my first participant and I entered the field
very excited and full of ideas on how to engage with
her. Though not entirely unexpected, I was not prepared
for the way the dying and death of June impacted me. In
this I have been very reflexive on the issue of emotions
and whether certain feelings were appropriate. We
allow ourselves to have particular feelings, such as close-
ness with participants, and try to deny or get rid of
emotions we deem inappropriate. Fieldworkers, then, do
emotion work (Hochschild, 1979), molding their feelings
to meet others’ expectations’ (Kleinman & Copp, 1993,
p. 2), while also establishing an intellectual objectification
of the topic and participants. Herein lies one of the key
contradictions within qualitative research: As social
researchers we are expected to have a certain critical dis-
tance from our participants (Woodthorpe, 2011), whilst
at the same time building good relationships. This dispar-
ity has been central to my project and has shaped the
research process throughout.
As a way of managing these tensions I kept a journal
in which I kept track of the events during my research
and reflections on how I felt about certain situations.
In my research journey with June I noted how we both
tried to keep her part of the project. She called once to

tell me she had been very poorly and that she might not
be able to keep our appointment—her voice was affec-
ted by her illness so she sounded very fragile over the
phone. One entry reads,
The call that June has made made me realise that there
is the chance participants might die during my research
or shortly after. I discussed this later with a friend who
helpfully added: or they might die during the interview.
He was joking but obviously there is the likelihood of
that happening. These possibilities make me feel slightly
melancholic.
This instance made me realize that the death of a
participant might actually be a reality, and not just a
hypothetical in a research proposal. In this I struggled
with the emotions this brought upon. The moment June
called to tell me she was poorly I realized that it was
likely that a second interview would never take place.
I write about this briefly: “She cancelled the interview,
but rescheduled for a couple of weeks after. So hopes
to feel better then. I worry that the interview I had
might be the only one I ever get.”
As I had recruited June via a friend,4 it felt intrusive
to me to continue to stay in touch with her and quite
naturally my friend became the gatekeeper and acted
as a mediator. When June could no longer phone to
cancel the interview, my friend texted me to cancel
the interview instead. I noted in my fieldwork diary:
This text has really touched me. I have only met J. once
but already I feel a friendship developing. I’m ambiva-
lent to her continuing to participate, but also don’t want
to take away her sense of importance. I hope she is
doing it as much for herself as she is doing it for me.
As can been seen, the example of June illustrates the
disjuncture between what a researcher can plan before-
hand and the messy reality of actually doing research.
It also shows the complexities of doing research with
people at the end of their lives. I struggled with this
issue, as continuing to follow June could potentially
yield interesting data, yet at the same time I thought that
as a researcher I should not be there as I felt dying
should be something she could do alone, without me
being a part of it. Equally, I felt I had to respect her wish
to continue with the project. No amount of training
could have prepared me for this. This may be particular
to studies on death, ageing, and dying as it is a topic that
we are all familiar with and something everyone will
face at some point in their lives. In the following section
I will discuss how researchers might overcome some of
the difficulties of doing death research.
4
It is common to recruit via friends when researching vulnerable, difficult to
reach groups (see Browne, 2005).
DEATH STUDIES 11
Discussion
Researchers are often urged to think about the potential
threats a researcher can encounter before entering a
field (Lee-Treweek, 2000). My own experience leads
me to question how realistic this is and to what extent
researchers can prepare for certain issues. Unsurpris-
ingly, I thought much about how the research might
impact my participants, and how I could prevent them
from being distressed. This is discussed at length in the
literature on researching vulnerable people and sensitive
issues (e.g., Milne & Lloyd, 2009). How the research
would impact me seemed an issue of lesser importance,
perhaps reflecting the idea of academic or professional
distance.
This raises questions concerning what are reasonable
safeguards or supports to put in place before conducting
a project. Obviously, one cannot anticipate fully what
will happen during a research project until it has been
carried out but the point is that before, during, and after
fieldwork there should be space for discussions of
uncertainty, grief and loss as experienced by the
researcher.
The practical management of the research process
within death studies requires more attention. Debriefing
is a key element in social work (Bell, 1995) but is often
absent among social researchers and too often a
researcher’s personal network is the source of support
in doing sensitive research (Moncur, 2013). Debriefing
is something that could potentially benefit researchers
in offloading after an interview, but also raises issues
concerning confidentiality and anonymity of parti-
cipants. Yet the question remains: Debriefing to whom?
Supervisors, colleagues or friends? One tool that was
suggested to me during my Master’s degree is to record
oneself just after finishing an interview. In this way
certain concerns and emotions are voiced. Methods of
support and debriefing seem to happen on an ad hoc
basis and how to cope with the wellbeing of the
researcher appears not to be embedded within the social
sciences.
This article has argued that it is important to
acknowledge the emotional impact of doing death
research and has been an attempt to take “the emotional”
out of the margins of the research outputs. Subjectivity
is multifaceted and needs to be recognized in journals
such as Death Studies to uphold trust in qualitative
research methods and findings. The research journal is
a common tool in qualitative research to reflect upon
emotive and challenging issues during the research
(Rowling, 1999). Yet these reflections rarely make it into
academic writings and researchers often filter them-
selves out of the research when writing their final
12 R. C. VISSER
output (Valentine, 2007). This may be partly due to
practical reasons such as the word limit that is given
in publishing. More importantly, this kind of trans-
parency opens up a researcher to scrutiny of the
academic community. As has been argued, all accounts
in death research are to some extent subjective, thus it is
essential to be forthcoming about both one’s cultural
background and personal experiences which inevitably
affect the research. Although there is a tension between
transparency and navel-gazing within reflexive accounts
of research, this is something that deserves more
attention.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Kate Woodthorpe for her support and
feedback in writing this article. I would also like to thank
the reviewers for their constructive comments. Lastly, I would
like to thank my participants for volunteering in taking part in
this project.
References
Ariès, P. (1987). Het uur van onze dood: Duizend jaar
sterven, begraven, rouwen en gedenken. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bell, J. L. (1995). Traumatic event debriefing: Service delivery
designs and the role of social work. Social Work, 40(1),
36–43.
Bradbury, M. (1999). Representations of death: A social
psychological perspective. London, England: Routledge.
Browne, K. (2005). Snowball sampling: using social networks
to research non‐heterosexual women. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 47–60. doi:10.1080/
1364557032000081663
Caetano, A. (2015). Personal reflexivity and biography:
methodological challenges and strategies. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 227–242.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2014.885154
Cipolletta, S., & Oprandi, N. (2014). What is a good death?
Health care professionals’ narrations on end-of-life care.
Death Studies, 38(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/07481187.
2012.707166
Cotteril, P., & Letherby, G. (1993). Weaving stories: personal
auto/biographies in feminist research. Sociology, 27(1),
67–79. doi:10.1177/003803859302700107
Danely, J. (2014). Aging and loss. Mourning and maturity in
contemporary Japan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Davies, C. (2008). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching
selves and others. London, England: Routledge.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and
social structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 85(3),
551–575. doi:10.1086/227049
Hockey, J. (1990). Experiences of death: An anthropological
account. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Hockey, J. (2002). Interviews as ethnography? Disembodied
social interaction in Britain. British Subjects: An anthro-
pology of Britain, 2002, 209–222.
Johnson, N. (2009). The role of self and emotion within
qualitative sensitive research: A reflective account. Enquire,
2(2), 191–214.
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork.
Newbury Park, NJ: SAGE Publications.
Knowles, C. (2006). Handling your baggage in the field reflec-
tions on research relationships. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 9, 393–404. doi:10.1080/
13645570601076819
Kristvik, E. (2012). The significance of presence: Personal
experience and research among incurable cancer patients.
Medische Antropologie, 24(1), 149–165.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
Chicago, IL: Chigaco University Press.
Lee-Treweek, G. (2000). The Insight of Emotional Danger.
Research experiences in a home for older age. In G. Lee-
Treweek & S. Linkogle (Eds.), Danger in the field. Risk
and ethics in social research (pp. 114–132). London,
England: Routledge.
Letherby, G. (2000). Dangerous liaisons: Auto/biography in
research and research writing. In G. Lee-Treweek & S.
Linkogle (Eds.), Danger in the field. Risk and ethics in social
research (pp. 91–114). London, England: Sage.
Milne, M. J., & Lloyd, C. E. (2008). Keeping the personal costs
down: Minimising distress when researching sensitive
issues. In S. Earle, C. Komaromy, & C. Bartholomew
(Eds.), Death and dying: A reader (pp. 221–230). London,
England: Sage.
Moncur, W. (2013, April 27–May 2). The emotional
wellbeing of researchers: Considerations for practice. In
CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives. Paris, France:
Conference Paper.
Neimeyer, R. A, Klass, D., & Dennis, M. R. (2014). A social
constructionist account of grief: Loss and the narration of
meaning. Death Studies, 38(8), 485–498. doi:10.1080/
07481187.2014.913454
Neimeyer, R. A., & Vallerga, M. (2015). Publication patterns
in death studies: 40 years on. Death Studies, 39(9),
563–569. doi:10.1080/07481187.2015.1064292
Norwood, F. (2009). The maintenance of life preventing social
death through euthanasia talk and end-of-life care–Lessons
from The Netherlands. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic
Press.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2013). What does the
2011 Census tell us about older people? London, UK:
Department of Health.
Okely, J. (1992). Anthropology and autobiography: Participatory
experience and embodied knowledge. In J. Okely &
H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography
(pp. 1–29). London, England: Routledge.
Pels, P. (2014). After objectivity: An historical approach to
the intersubjective. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1),
211–236. doi:10.14318/hau4.1.009
Pool, R. (2000). Negotiating a good death. New York, NY:
Haworth Press.
Rimkeviciene, J., O’Gorman, J., & De Leo, D. (2015). How do
clinicians and suicide attempters understand suicide
attempt impulsivity? A qualitative study. Death Studies,
40(3), 139–146. doi:10.1080/07481187.2015.1096314
Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture & truth: the remaking of social
analysis: with a new introduction. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.

Rowling, L. (1999). Being in, being out, being with: Affect and
the role of the qualitative researcher in loss and grief
research. Mortality, 4(2), 167–181. doi:10.1080/713685968
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: The
violence of Everyday life in Brazil. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
The, A. M. (2009). Verlossers naast God: dokters en euthanasie
in Nederland. Amsterdam, rhe Netherlands: Thoeris.
Valentine, C. (2007). Methodological reflections: Attending
and tending the role of the researcher in the construction
of bereavement narratives. Qualitative Social Work, 6(2),
159–176. doi:10.1177/1473325007077237
Valentine, C. (2008). Bereavement narratives: Continuing
bonds in the twenty-first century. London, England:
Routledge.
Valentine, C., & Woodthorpe, K. (2014). From the cradle to
the grave: Funeral welfare from an international perspec-
tive. Social Policy and Administration, 48(5), 515–536.
doi:10.1111/spol.12018
Van der Geest, S. (2007). Is it possible to understand illness
and suffering ? Medische Antropologie, 19(1), 9–22.
Venbrux, H. J. M., Heessels, M., & Bolt, S. H. (2008).
Creativiteit: Actuele veranderingen in de uitvaart-en
rouwcultuur in Nederland. Zoetermeer, Meinema.
DEATH STUDIES 13
Venbrux, E., Peelen, J., & Altena, M. (2009). Going Dutch:
Individualisation, secularisation and changes in death rites.
Mortality, 14(2), 97–101. doi:10.1080/13576270902807508
Venhorst, C. (2012). Islamic death rituals in a small town
context in The Netherlands: Explorations of a common
praxis for professionals. Omega, 65(1), 1–10. doi:10.2190/
OM.65.1.a
Visser, R. C., & Parrott, F. R. (2015). Stability and change: the
role of keepsakes and family homes in the lives of paren-
tally bereaved young adults in the Netherlands. Mortality,
20(1), 19–35. doi:10.1080/13576275.2014.958450
Walter, T. (2005). Three ways to arrange a funeral: Mortuary
variation in the modern west. Mortality, 10(3), 173–192.
doi:10.1080/13576270500178369
Woodthorpe, K. (2009). Reflecting on death: The emotionality
of the research encounter. Mortality, 14(1), 70–86.
doi:10.1080/13576270802591228
Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Researching death: Methodological
reflections on the management of critical distance. Inter-
national Journal of Research Methodology, 14(2), 99–109.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.496576
Wouters, C. (2002). The quest for new rituals in dying and
mourning: Changes in the We-I Balance. Body & Society,
8(1), 1–27. doi:10.1177/1357034X02008001001
Copyright of Death Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.