The research relationship, enactments and ‘counter-transference’ analysis: On the significance of scenic understanding

Countertransference in qualitative research: a critical appraisal

“…The communicative aspects of researcher bodily reactions, both from phenomenological (e.g. Finlay, 2005Finlay, , 2008 and psychoanalytic (Jervis, 2009;Morgenroth, 2010) perspectives, has been emphasised. Some of the ways in which, according to Jervis (2009), countertransference manifests in the research setting are 'a fluttery sensation in my chest'; 'becoming aware of an attempt to make more eye contact with Joanne [participant]'; other people who had entered the room during the interview being 'largely disregarded by both researcher and participant ' (p. 158).…”

“…157-158, emphasis in original) Again revealing the traces of positivism ('researchers should … recover their objectivity') rooted in visions of psychoanalysis that has infiltrated qualitative research, the above quotation also brings to the fore the debate about accessing feeling states in relation to research data. Morgenroth (2010) distinguishes between countertransference-type reactions that occur in the primary research relationships (e.g. during a research interview) and those that occur in response to text and data interpretation (p. 277).…”

“…someone listening to a recording of a research interview as opposed to someone actually doing one] does not afford … an opportunity for abreacting anxiety through activity' (p. 85). Morgenroth (2010) argues that the interview data will house unconscious data, which can then be examined in the phase of analysis: 'as the data are read and discussed by an interpretation panel, so the scene will re-emerge in the feelings of and relations among panel members' (p. 277). Marks and Monnich-Marks (2003) also used a panel to investigate their data, in a process they called 'intervision'.…”

“…This is a valiant attempt, but it is important to exercise caution in aiming to reach a ‘consensus’ in such a process. It is possible that the essence of the psychic material in question could be to produce the effect of disagreement (see Morgenroth, 2010).…”

“…An important aspect of the application of psychoanalytic ideas in the research setting includes an awareness of the researcher’s emotional and behavioural responses. Many such attempts (Angorsino, 2005; Clarke, 2002; Elliot et al, 2011; Ellis, 2009; Froggett and Wengraf, 2004; Gemignani, 2011; Jervis, 2009, 2011; Lorimer, 2010; Lucey et al, 2003; Marks and Monnich-Marks, 2003; Morgenroth, 2010; Robben, 2012; Roper, 2003; Strømme et al, 2010) have examined the idea that psychic states can be transferred from participant to researcher, in a process analogous to the psychoanalytic concepts of ‘projection’ (the patient/participant describing the feelings in another, which actually come from within themselves; Freud, 1905) and ‘projective identification’ (the patient/participant inducing or putting – usually unbearable – feelings into the therapist/researcher; Klein, 1946). The latter reactions have broadly been labelled as ‘countertransference’.…”