Marlot Kuiper

94 Connective Routines 1991; Miller & Bell, 2002; Whyte, 1955) played an important role in gaining access and acceptance at both research sites (see also the intermezzo on the gate-keeper). Lastly, since ethnographic fieldwork requires close involvement in the research setting, personal affinity of the researcher with the object of study is at least desirable (M. Dixon-Woods, 2003). Because of my personal interest in this specific setting, I already had some background knowledge of the field, as well as close relationships with people working in this professional domain. Therefore, I could more easily pick up the language and interact with actors in the field. More notes on how I got to know the usually ‘close world’ of surgical care can be found in paragraph 4.2.5. 4.3.2 Constructing an analytical lens Next, a good deal of headwork involved developing a research perspective, a framework, that fit my particular research question. I had decided the focus of my question would be on how standards work in professional settings, without yet knowing the exact standard to start from. The framework I developed highlights practice, using organisational routines as a way to frame that practice. Although this framework provides analytical guidance, It must be noted the distinction between the different aspects of a routine serves an analytical purpose. In the complex reality of professional work, these ‘boundaries’ between abstract ideas and behaviour are more blurred, and their representation therefore to a certain extent always involves categorizations by the researcher. Further, this framing, like all analytical frames, foregrounds some aspects of the phenomenon under study (practice, i.e. interactions) and backgrounds others (e.g. individual characteristics of routine participants). Still, this analytical framework allows me to understand the practice of a standard as constituted in the interactions among surgical team members. Besides, this perspective allows me to take into account the duality of structure and agency. I further developed the analytical framework by inserting the various ‘sensitizing’ concepts (Blumer, 1954; Glaser, 1978; Patton, 2002) that emerged from the literature study to inform the fieldwork. Although the various theories I had read provided relevant background knowledge, I maintained an open outlook. Theoretical considerations of how professionals encounter standards included for example notions of both resistance and acceptance. I thus explicitly remained open to all kinds of empirical findings.