When doing research on topics that are sensitive and involve core dimensions of the researcher’s identities and subjectivities, the process of inquiry is likely to generate significant emotions, attachments, and reactions that transgress traditional forms of data and research positions. If embraced and addressed, the researcher’s emotional reactions can be an important source of reflexivity and data as well as creativity, motivation, and engagement. This relational aspect of the research parallels psychotherapists’ experience of reacting to their clients’ concerns and narrations. This process—called countertransference (CT)—may leave the researcher open to vulnerability and the need to account for the necessary presence of personal biographies and identities in qualitative inquiry. From my research with refugees, I provide examples of my CT reactions and interpretations and the ways in which they became crucial assets to the study.
AngorsinoM. V. (2005). Recontextualizing observation. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 729-745). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
BeharR. (1996). The vulnerable observer. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
3.
BergerL. (2001). Inside out: Narrative Autoethnography as a path toward rapport. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 504-518.
4.
DalenbergC. J. (2000). Countertransference and the treatment of trauma. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5.
DeleuzeG. (1988). Foucault (HandS., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1986)
6.
DenzinN.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2003). The landscape of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
DevereuxG. (1967). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. The Hague, Paris, France: Mouton.
8.
Dickson-SwiftV.JamesE. L.KippenS.LiamputtongP. (2009), Researching sensitive topic: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9, 61-79.
9.
EllisC. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic reflections on life and work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
10.
FosshageJ. (1995). Countertransference as the analyst’s experience of the analysand: Influence of listening perspectives. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 12, 375-391.
11.
FoucaultM. (1990). The use of pleasure: Volume two of the history of sexuality. New York, NY: Vintage. (Original work published 1984).
12.
FreudS. (1910). The future prospects of psychoanalysis (Vol. 11, std. ed.). London, UK: Hogarth.
13.
GeerzC. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
GemignaniM. (2011). The past if past: The use of memories and self-healing narratives in refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24, 132-156.
15.
GreenbergJ.MitchellS. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HallS. (1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In HallS.du GayP. (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
HollwayW. (2001). The psycho-social subject in “evidence-based practice.”Journal of Social Work Practice, 15, 9-22.
18.
HolsteinJ.GubriumJ. (2004). The active interview. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 140-161). London, UK: SAGE.
19.
JungC. G. (1985). The psychology of transference. In ReadH.FordhamM.AdlerG.McGuireW. (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 16, pp. 163-326). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1946)
20.
KellyG. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. London, UK: Routledge.
21.
KernbergO. (1965). Notes on countertransference. Journal of the Medical Psychoanalytic Association, 13, 38-56.
22.
Koro-LjungbergM. (2004). Impossibilities of reconciliation: Validity in Mixed Theory Projects. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 601-621.
23.
LincolnY. S. (2001, April). Reconsidering rapport: Interviewing as postmodern inquiry practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
24.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
25.
MitchellS. (2000). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
26.
ParkerI. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
27.
RackerH. (1957). The meanings and uses of countertransference. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 26, 303-357.
28.
ReichW. (1951). On counter-transference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 32, 25-31.
29.
RichardsonL. (2007). Last writes: A daybook for a dying friend. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
30.
RichardsonL.St. PierreE. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959-978). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
RiessmanC. K. (2002). Doing justice: Positioning the interpreter in narrative work. In PattersonW. (Ed.), Strategic narrative: New perspectives on the power of personal and cultural stories. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
32.
SchwandtT. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 303-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
St. PierreE. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10, 175-189.
34.
ToddS. (1997). Looking at pedagogy in 3-D: Rethinking difference, disparity, and desire. In ToddS. (Ed.), Learning desire (pp. 237-260). NY: Routledge.
35.
TolmanD. L.Brydon-MillerM. (Eds.). (2001). From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods. NY: University Press.
36.
ZepfS.HartmannS.ZepfF. D. (2007). Constructivism in psychoanalysis. Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 15, 3-21.
