TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society.
2 Looking at Li... more TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society. 2 Looking at Life from the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. 3 Socialization: Becoming Ourselves. 4 The Social Body: Appearances and Experiences. 5 Health, Illness, and Disability. 6 Emotion Norms, Emotion Management, and Emotional Labor. 7 All Our Families: Diverse Forms, Diverse Meanings. 8 “Always On/Always On Us”: Technology, Interaction, and the Self. 9 Amplifying Social Problems: Claimsmakers and Their Contexts. 10 Individuals and Institutions. 11 Inequality in Interaction. 12 Conclusion: The Benefits of Studying Symbolic Interaction.
The intercalation of periods of change and novelty is the only means by which we can refresh our ... more The intercalation of periods of change and novelty is the only means by which we can refresh our sense of time, strengthen, retard, and rejuvenate it, and therewith renew our perception of life itself-Thomas Mann The theoretical antecedents of my study, Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time, are woven through the fabric of my life.1 The ideas in this study arose as a natural consequence of my earlier experiences and previous studies and have continued to engage me long after publication of the book. As I look back, I draw on George Herbert Mead's (1932, 1934) insights about time and action. The past informs our thinking in the present, the present informs our reconstructions of the past. Both time and action are emergent phenomena. Thus, what we bring to our studies frames but does not determine what we learn from them. Similarly, how we theorize reflects our interactions before we begin and those within and beyond the field. Theorizing arises through analytic thinking about our field experiences, not merely recording and synthesizing them. Good Days, Bad Days is more than a discrete study of 115 interviews.2 Rather, it also evolved from views and questions that had long concerned me.
This article explores what disclosing illness and disability in the workplace means to workers wi... more This article explores what disclosing illness and disability in the workplace means to workers with chronic illness and disabilities. I argue that 1) beginning analysis from the meanings of these workers contributes to a nuanced understanding of their situations; 2) gaining this view requires knowing how individuals define their health as well as their meanings; risks, and dilemmas of disclosing; 3) understanding the employee's perspective and actions help employers to make useful accommodations for illness and disability and 4) this analysis can offer researchers and managers in international business a starting point for making comparisons with worksites across the globe. My analysis derives from qualitative data in which issues concerning disclosure emerged as a recurring theme and on studies reported in literatures that illuminate ill and disabled workers' views and experience.
FOREWORD Italian Translation of Mirrors and Masks Anselm L. Strauss's lovely theoretical essay, M... more FOREWORD Italian Translation of Mirrors and Masks Anselm L. Strauss's lovely theoretical essay, Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity, continues to delight seasoned scholars and new students across disciplines and across the globe. It has become a classic statement of symbolic interactionist and pragmatist social psychology and a leading exemplar of what is commonly called the Chicago school of sociology.1 Strauss first published this book in 1959, although he had developed many of its central ideas by 1953 and circulated early versions amongst his graduate students at the University of Chicago.2 Mirrors and Masks represents Strauss's first major effort to work out the sociological implications of the pragmatist/interactionist traditions. To grasp the significance of Mirrors and Masks, we need to be aware of its intellectual antecedents, locate it within North American sociological concerns of the 1950s, and discern how its central ideas have endured. As an exemplar of 20 th century American social psychology in the pragmatist tradition, the book 1
G rounded theory enables researchers to unravel the complexities of doing qualitative analysis an... more G rounded theory enables researchers to unravel the complexities of doing qualitative analysis and to understand mysteries and moments of human life. 1 This method offers a set of flexible guidelines that demys-tify the analytic process and encourage researchers to stay involved in their projects. Grounded theory is a systematic yet flexible method that emphasizes data analysis, involves simultaneous data collection and analysis, uses comparative methods, and provides tools for constructing theories. As grounded theory has gained acclaim, it has become a general method of analysis, and several of its key strategies, particularly coding and memo writing, have become part of the broader lexicon of qualitative inquiry. Grounded theory coding means applying a shorthand label to a piece of data that takes this datum apart and defines what it means. Codes arise from the researcher's interaction with the data; they are not preconceived and applied to the data, as occurs in quantitative research. Like other qualitative researchers , we grounded theorists code to summarize, synthesize, and sort our data, but moreover, we also use codes as conceptual tools (1) to fragment the data and thus take them apart; (2) to define processes in the data; and (3) to make comparisons between data. We begin our analyses with coding but soon start to write extended notes, called memos, to discuss and analyze our codes. Certain codes account for the data better than others, so we raise these codes to tentative analytic categories to elaborate and check. Grounded theory categories become more abstract and theoretical as we ask analytic questions of them in our memos (see Charmaz, 2006a). We write memos to explore and record as much analytic detail about the cat-Wertz.indb 165
Chronic illness assaults the body and threatens the integrity of self. Having a serious chronic i... more Chronic illness assaults the body and threatens the integrity of self. Having a serious chronic illness shakes earlier taken-for-granted assumptions about possessing a smoothly functioning body. It also disturbs a person's previous assumptions about the relation between body and self and disrupts a sense of wholeness of body and self (cf.
Throughout the history of medical sociology, social scientific study of chronic conditions has ta... more Throughout the history of medical sociology, social scientific study of chronic conditions has taken two major directions: epidemiological studies of specific populations in relation to disease and analyses of the experience of illness, the primary focus of this chapter. In the sociological literature, disease and illness are neither interchangeable nor equivalent. Disease is the undesirable biological process or state affecting the individual, and illness is the person's experience of the disease, including its social and psychological impacts. Just as disease may be unrecognized and unfelt (see Conrad 1987: 2), deeply disturbing symptoms may arise without being diagnosed as a disease, even in the absence of perceivable organic causes. To study illness, then, is to study human experience without reference to organic causes, although it may include lay understandings of these causes and the experience of diagnosing them. To an extent, these directions of inquiry reflect Robert Straus's (1957) distinction between a sociology in medicine and a sociology of medicine-a distinction that is not just heuristic but deeply political. According to Bryan Turner (1992), tensions between these two approaches are grounded in the core question of who the social-scientific study of health and illness serves: medicine itself (expanding and legitimating its existing powers) or the sociological understanding of human action. Sociology in medicine, Turner argues, is beholden to medicine's conceptual resources, concerns, and governing and funding bodies, working within these but remaining outside the ill person's experience (similarly, epidemiological studies use existing medical categories to directly serve health care professionals and policymakers). Sociologists of medicine, however, examine the nature and experience of health and illness, which medically derived categories cannot capture (see also Rosenfeld 2006a). At the same time, it remains free of the task of solving practical problems as established by medical agendas, and critically approaches the institution of medicine and its categories, assumptions, and agendas as social constructions and problematic areas of inquiry. William Cockerham (2010) has, however, critiqued the division between sociology in and sociology of medicine as overly simplistic <1> because the lines between them blur in policy research. Exploring the intriguing question of the extent to which his point applies to chronic illness goes beyond our focus here. This chapter also leaves aside the equally interesting sociological question of the social causes of the unequal distribution of chronic organic conditions; we emphasize the history and contributions of studies of the lived experience of chronic illness. <2>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society.
2 Looking at Li... more TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society. 2 Looking at Life from the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. 3 Socialization: Becoming Ourselves. 4 The Social Body: Appearances and Experiences. 5 Health, Illness, and Disability. 6 Emotion Norms, Emotion Management, and Emotional Labor. 7 All Our Families: Diverse Forms, Diverse Meanings. 8 “Always On/Always On Us”: Technology, Interaction, and the Self. 9 Amplifying Social Problems: Claimsmakers and Their Contexts. 10 Individuals and Institutions. 11 Inequality in Interaction. 12 Conclusion: The Benefits of Studying Symbolic Interaction.
The intercalation of periods of change and novelty is the only means by which we can refresh our ... more The intercalation of periods of change and novelty is the only means by which we can refresh our sense of time, strengthen, retard, and rejuvenate it, and therewith renew our perception of life itself-Thomas Mann The theoretical antecedents of my study, Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time, are woven through the fabric of my life.1 The ideas in this study arose as a natural consequence of my earlier experiences and previous studies and have continued to engage me long after publication of the book. As I look back, I draw on George Herbert Mead's (1932, 1934) insights about time and action. The past informs our thinking in the present, the present informs our reconstructions of the past. Both time and action are emergent phenomena. Thus, what we bring to our studies frames but does not determine what we learn from them. Similarly, how we theorize reflects our interactions before we begin and those within and beyond the field. Theorizing arises through analytic thinking about our field experiences, not merely recording and synthesizing them. Good Days, Bad Days is more than a discrete study of 115 interviews.2 Rather, it also evolved from views and questions that had long concerned me.
This article explores what disclosing illness and disability in the workplace means to workers wi... more This article explores what disclosing illness and disability in the workplace means to workers with chronic illness and disabilities. I argue that 1) beginning analysis from the meanings of these workers contributes to a nuanced understanding of their situations; 2) gaining this view requires knowing how individuals define their health as well as their meanings; risks, and dilemmas of disclosing; 3) understanding the employee's perspective and actions help employers to make useful accommodations for illness and disability and 4) this analysis can offer researchers and managers in international business a starting point for making comparisons with worksites across the globe. My analysis derives from qualitative data in which issues concerning disclosure emerged as a recurring theme and on studies reported in literatures that illuminate ill and disabled workers' views and experience.
FOREWORD Italian Translation of Mirrors and Masks Anselm L. Strauss's lovely theoretical essay, M... more FOREWORD Italian Translation of Mirrors and Masks Anselm L. Strauss's lovely theoretical essay, Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity, continues to delight seasoned scholars and new students across disciplines and across the globe. It has become a classic statement of symbolic interactionist and pragmatist social psychology and a leading exemplar of what is commonly called the Chicago school of sociology.1 Strauss first published this book in 1959, although he had developed many of its central ideas by 1953 and circulated early versions amongst his graduate students at the University of Chicago.2 Mirrors and Masks represents Strauss's first major effort to work out the sociological implications of the pragmatist/interactionist traditions. To grasp the significance of Mirrors and Masks, we need to be aware of its intellectual antecedents, locate it within North American sociological concerns of the 1950s, and discern how its central ideas have endured. As an exemplar of 20 th century American social psychology in the pragmatist tradition, the book 1
G rounded theory enables researchers to unravel the complexities of doing qualitative analysis an... more G rounded theory enables researchers to unravel the complexities of doing qualitative analysis and to understand mysteries and moments of human life. 1 This method offers a set of flexible guidelines that demys-tify the analytic process and encourage researchers to stay involved in their projects. Grounded theory is a systematic yet flexible method that emphasizes data analysis, involves simultaneous data collection and analysis, uses comparative methods, and provides tools for constructing theories. As grounded theory has gained acclaim, it has become a general method of analysis, and several of its key strategies, particularly coding and memo writing, have become part of the broader lexicon of qualitative inquiry. Grounded theory coding means applying a shorthand label to a piece of data that takes this datum apart and defines what it means. Codes arise from the researcher's interaction with the data; they are not preconceived and applied to the data, as occurs in quantitative research. Like other qualitative researchers , we grounded theorists code to summarize, synthesize, and sort our data, but moreover, we also use codes as conceptual tools (1) to fragment the data and thus take them apart; (2) to define processes in the data; and (3) to make comparisons between data. We begin our analyses with coding but soon start to write extended notes, called memos, to discuss and analyze our codes. Certain codes account for the data better than others, so we raise these codes to tentative analytic categories to elaborate and check. Grounded theory categories become more abstract and theoretical as we ask analytic questions of them in our memos (see Charmaz, 2006a). We write memos to explore and record as much analytic detail about the cat-Wertz.indb 165
Chronic illness assaults the body and threatens the integrity of self. Having a serious chronic i... more Chronic illness assaults the body and threatens the integrity of self. Having a serious chronic illness shakes earlier taken-for-granted assumptions about possessing a smoothly functioning body. It also disturbs a person's previous assumptions about the relation between body and self and disrupts a sense of wholeness of body and self (cf.
Throughout the history of medical sociology, social scientific study of chronic conditions has ta... more Throughout the history of medical sociology, social scientific study of chronic conditions has taken two major directions: epidemiological studies of specific populations in relation to disease and analyses of the experience of illness, the primary focus of this chapter. In the sociological literature, disease and illness are neither interchangeable nor equivalent. Disease is the undesirable biological process or state affecting the individual, and illness is the person's experience of the disease, including its social and psychological impacts. Just as disease may be unrecognized and unfelt (see Conrad 1987: 2), deeply disturbing symptoms may arise without being diagnosed as a disease, even in the absence of perceivable organic causes. To study illness, then, is to study human experience without reference to organic causes, although it may include lay understandings of these causes and the experience of diagnosing them. To an extent, these directions of inquiry reflect Robert Straus's (1957) distinction between a sociology in medicine and a sociology of medicine-a distinction that is not just heuristic but deeply political. According to Bryan Turner (1992), tensions between these two approaches are grounded in the core question of who the social-scientific study of health and illness serves: medicine itself (expanding and legitimating its existing powers) or the sociological understanding of human action. Sociology in medicine, Turner argues, is beholden to medicine's conceptual resources, concerns, and governing and funding bodies, working within these but remaining outside the ill person's experience (similarly, epidemiological studies use existing medical categories to directly serve health care professionals and policymakers). Sociologists of medicine, however, examine the nature and experience of health and illness, which medically derived categories cannot capture (see also Rosenfeld 2006a). At the same time, it remains free of the task of solving practical problems as established by medical agendas, and critically approaches the institution of medicine and its categories, assumptions, and agendas as social constructions and problematic areas of inquiry. William Cockerham (2010) has, however, critiqued the division between sociology in and sociology of medicine as overly simplistic <1> because the lines between them blur in policy research. Exploring the intriguing question of the extent to which his point applies to chronic illness goes beyond our focus here. This chapter also leaves aside the equally interesting sociological question of the social causes of the unequal distribution of chronic organic conditions; we emphasize the history and contributions of studies of the lived experience of chronic illness. <2>
Uploads
Books by Kathy Charmaz
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society.
2 Looking at Life from the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.
3 Socialization: Becoming Ourselves.
4 The Social Body: Appearances and Experiences.
5 Health, Illness, and Disability.
6 Emotion Norms, Emotion Management, and Emotional Labor.
7 All Our Families: Diverse Forms, Diverse Meanings.
8 “Always On/Always On Us”: Technology, Interaction, and the Self.
9 Amplifying Social Problems: Claimsmakers and Their Contexts.
10 Individuals and Institutions.
11 Inequality in Interaction.
12 Conclusion: The Benefits of Studying Symbolic Interaction.
Drafts by Kathy Charmaz
1 An Invitation to Learn about Self, Situation, and Society.
2 Looking at Life from the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.
3 Socialization: Becoming Ourselves.
4 The Social Body: Appearances and Experiences.
5 Health, Illness, and Disability.
6 Emotion Norms, Emotion Management, and Emotional Labor.
7 All Our Families: Diverse Forms, Diverse Meanings.
8 “Always On/Always On Us”: Technology, Interaction, and the Self.
9 Amplifying Social Problems: Claimsmakers and Their Contexts.
10 Individuals and Institutions.
11 Inequality in Interaction.
12 Conclusion: The Benefits of Studying Symbolic Interaction.