Advertisement

Blurring Boundaries Between Researcher and Participant: The Ethical Use of a Psychoanalytically Informed Research Interview

  • Clare HarveyEmail author
Chapter
  • 614 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter is a reflection on remaining ethical when collecting participant information using the psychoanalytically informed research interview. The specific ethical tensions include when participants relate to researchers as confidants and advice-givers, and how to approach such emotionally demanding work. The author shares how she attempted to ethically manage encounters with participants using examples from her study on maternal subjectivity in which able-bodied mothers raising visibly, physically disabled children were interviewed. The author also has a visible physical disability, as does her daughter. Unexpectedly, participants turned the interview relationship around, asking her questions as they shared certain particularities and experiences. The researcher describes how she ethically managed this blurring of roles. She argues for constant psychoanalytic-researcher reflexivity to manage these complex emotional encounters.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Parts of this chapter were originally published in:

Harvey, C. (2017). The intricate process of psychoanalytic research: encountering the intersubjective experience of the researcher-participant relationship. British Journal of Psychotherapy 33(3), 312–327. Thanks to the British Journal of Psychotherapy for agreeing to my using some of the material in this chapter.

References

  1. Birch, M., & Miller, T. (2000). Inviting intimacy: The interview as therapeutic opportunity. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, L. J. (2009). Bion’s ego psychology: Implications for an intersubjective view of psychic structure. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 78, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright, D. (2004). The psychoanalytic research interview: Preliminary suggestions. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 52(1), 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 853–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7(3), 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elliott, H., Ryan, J., & Hollway, W. (2012). Research encounters, reflexivity and supervision. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(5), 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 679–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freud, S. (1910/1953). Five lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed & Trans). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (vol. XI). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  9. Freud, S. (1912/1959). Future prospects of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. In J. Strachey (Ed & Trans). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (vol. XI). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  10. Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed & Trans). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frosh, S., & Baraitser, L. (2008). Psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 13, 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gabbard, G. O., & Hobday, G. S. (2012). A psychoanalytic perspective on ethics, self-deception and the corrupt physician. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 28(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodley, D. (2017). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  14. Harvey, C. (2017). Ethical emotional encounters: Contemplating challenges in psychoanalytically informed research. Psycho-analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 25(1), 34–65.Google Scholar
  15. Harvey, C. (in press). Subjectivity and the return of the abject in mothers of physically disabled children.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, J. A. (2004). The inner world of the psychotherapist: A program of research on Countertransference. Psychotherapy Research, 14(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland, J. (2007). Emotions and research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently. Free association, narrative and the interview method. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horton, W. A., Hall, J. G., & Hecht, J. T. (2007). Achondroplasia. Lancet, 370, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph, B. (1985). Transference: The total situation. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 66, 447–454.Google Scholar
  21. Kleist, D. M., & Gompertz, K. (1997). Current use of qualitative research methodology in couples and family counselling. Family Journal, 5, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kvale, S. (1999). The psychoanalytic interview as qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(1), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long, C., & Eagle, G. (2009). Ethics in tension: Dilemmas for clinicians conducting sensitive research. Psycho-analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 17(2), 27–52.Google Scholar
  24. Marks, S., & Mönnich-Marks, H. (2003). The analysis of counter-transference reactions is a means to discern latent interview-contents. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), 36.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, W., & Irvine, A. (2008). I’m okay, you’re okay? Reflections on the well-being and ethical requirements of researchers and research participants in conducting qualitative fieldwork interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogden, T. H. (1994). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 75, 3–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker, I. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing—An “unnatural situation”? Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(6), 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stromme, H., Gullestad, S. E., Stänicke, E., & Killingmo, B. (2010). A widened scope on therapist development: Designing a research interview informed by psychoanalysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 214–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations