Evidence Based Midwifery

Supporting midwife-led care through action

research: a tale of mess, muddle and birth
balls
2009-01-23 10:15

Explores the processes and outcomes of an action research project undertaken to support
midwife-led care in a maternity unit in the north of England.
EBM: Dec 2004

Ruth Deery1 PhD, BSc, ADM, RM, RN. Deborah Hughes2 MA, PGDE, DPSM, RM.
1 Senior Lecturer in Midwifery, Division of Midwifery, Department of Clinical and Health
Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH England.
Email: r.m.deery@hud.ac.uk
2 Sure Start Midwife/Deputy Programme Manager, Sure Start Elland, The Wesley Centre,
Eastgate, Elland HX5 9DQ England.
Email: dhughes@surestartelland.nhs.uk
Abstract
Aim. To explore the processes and outcomes of an action research project undertaken to support
midwife-led care in a maternity unit in the north of England.
Objectives.To identify changes in care given by midwives, to offer developmental opportunities
to midwives to support the continuation of a midwife-led ethos and to examine the process of
cultural shift created by relocation to shared facilities.
Method.Action research, with its emphasis on collaboration and participation, was considered an
appropriate approach, because it facilitates understanding of, and is able to adapt to, changing
situations within clinical practice. A variety of data-gathering methods, including telephone
interviews, personal construct analysis and observation, were used to explore and consolidate
midwife-led care in one setting during a time of transition.

Findings/results.Key weaknesses were identified within a midwife-led unit (MLU) and actions
agreed and taken to address these, with a resulting strengthening of midwife-led care. The
reflective process, an integral part of action research, fostered a shared concept of midwife-led
care and an expanded skill-base for the facilitation of physiological childbirth.
Implications.Action research can stimulate change and development within a midwifery context
providing common values are identified and participation is realised. Although the methodology
can be complex, it has the potential to clarify and solve problems within a specific clinical
context.
Key words: Action research, midwifery, participation, collaboration, values, change, practicedevelopment, midwife-led care

Background and rationale

This paper explores the processes and outcomes of an action research project undertaken to
support midwife-led care (MLC) in a maternity unit in the north of England. Concerns about the
future of MLC, following a geographical merger with a medically-led unit, instigated the
development of a collaborative action research project.
Prologue writing up action research
Jean McNiff, a renowned action researcher, suggests that in parallel with its aims and values,
action research requires a specific approach to publication (McNiff, 2002). She and others
(Schn, 1983; Edwards and Ribbens, 1998) argue that potential data can be rendered redundant
and much of the research story lost as complexities are omitted from the established publication
format. McNiff (2002: 71) suggests the
following headings:
- Review of current practice
- Identification of an aspect needing improvement
- Imagining a way forward
- Trying it out
- Taking stock of what happens
- Modifying the plan in light of findings and continuing with the action
- Evaluating the modified action
- Repeating until satisfaction is achieved with that aspect of the work.
This is not a radical departure from traditional headings and structure, but it captures more of the
complex and changing nature of the real-life situations in which action research is located. We
used McNiffs subheadings to relate a fuller and more accurate story of this midwifery action
research project, and to try to present research in a more accessible way (Deery and Kirkham,

2000).
Review of current practice
Childbirth today would almost be unrecognisable to our predecessors. While mortality rates have
improved over the last 60 years for a wide range of social and medical reasons (Tew, 1998),
medicotechnical surveillance of pregnancy and childbirth has long since passed the point of
optimal effectiveness (Murphy-Lawless, 1998). Ever-increasing rates of caesarean section (CS)
in most western countries now contribute to morbidity and mortality rates rather than decreasing
them (Kitzinger, 1998; Murphy et al, 2001; Rowe-Murray and Fisher, 2001).
Whilst considerable effort has been put into reducing the CS rate in the UK, the cultural
expectations and experiences of both women and midwives have changed (Kitzinger, 1998).
Birth is now largely expected to be normal only in retrospect and therefore has become
pathologised (Murphy- Lawless, 1998; Downe, 2001). Unravelling this dominant view and its
effects on midwives practice has proved difficult, and the UK CS rate has continued to climb,
despite efforts to reduce it (Kitzinger, 1998).
More recently in the UK, it has been suggested that a more useful approach would be to
concentrate on increasing the normal birth rate and rebuilding the skills that underpin
physiological birth (Murphy-Lawless, 1998; Downe, 2001; RCM, 2000). From the late 1990s
onwards, the midwifery profession, the Department of Health (DH) and user groups have
supported the development of birth centres and midwife-led units (MLUs) (Nolan, 2001). These
units are seen as an important way to rebuild a culture of normal birth and the midwifery skills
necessary to facilitate this (Hughes and Deery, 2002; Kirkham, 2003). This approach demands
personal, professional and organisational change that is hugely challenging, as well as rewarding
(Walker, 1996; Jones and Walker, 2003). Such units throughout the UK are proving successful in
increasing the normal birth rate among their clientele (Walker, 1996; Kirkham, 2003) although,
outside them, the CS rate continues to climb ,(Paranjothy and Thomas, 2001).
Working in MLUs involves resisting both external and internal pressures to comply with the
dominant model of birth. The midwives working in these units are committed to skill
development and helping women to give birth in a satisfying and physiological way. This can be
stressful, but proper support for midwives can alleviate such stress (Sandall, 1998; Page, 2000;
Kirkham and Stapleton, 2000).
Identification of an aspect needing improvement
The study setting is a mixed urban and rural area in Northern England with a population of
192000. There are 2300 births per year, 98% of which take place in the district hospital, the
remaining 2% being planned home births. The district hospital has both an obstetrician-led unit
(80% births) and a MLU (18% births) staffed by community midwives. In the old hospital
(demolished in 2001), the MLU was on a separate floor, had no technological gadgets other than
hand-held Dopplers (for fetal heart auscultation) and no obstetricians ever entered the unit.

When a new hospital was planned (opened 2001), the MLU and the obstetrician-led unit were
located in the same area and on the same floor. Midwives expressed many concerns about the
future for MLC in shared geographical surroundings, given the hegemony of the medicotechnical
model of childbirth. These concerns centred on decision-making processes, the use of technology
and interventions, the loss of skills to facilitate physiological birthing, and working relationships
with medical and medically-led midwifery colleagues. The fear was that, as in a nearby
maternity unit that had opted for shared facilities, this would lead to the sinking without trace of
MLC and the ethos and skills that underpinned it, and that the CS rate would increase further.
Imagining a way forward
At a meeting between community midwives who staffed the MLU and midwifery lecturers, the
idea of proactively safeguarding MLC was mooted. Action research was suggested as an
appropriate means to this end, as one of us had previously undertaken a project using this
approach in a different midwifery setting. Financial support was obtained from monies ringfenced for collaborative research ventures involving university and NHS staff. The project ran
from spring 2000 to autumn 2002. The aim of the project was to support MLC by:
- Identifying changes in care-giving by midwives
- Offering developmental opportunities to midwives to support the continuation of the Changing
childbirth (Department of Health, 1993) ethos
- Examining the process of cultural shift, if any, created by relocation to shared facilities.
Action research
Action research is an approach that tries to identify and address the complexities of clinical
practice situations. Waterman et al (2001) in a systematic review of action research studies in
healthcare settings, confirm its appropriateness in rapidly changing clinical situations. Action
research allows a research team to pick and mix methods and take actions based on findings to
achieve change. Decisions as to which methods and actions are appropri- ate are based on the
research teams experience and understanding both of research and the field in which they are
researching. There is no clear divide in an action research team between researchers and
practitioners all actively participate in the study and decision-making regarding research
methods and actions.
The principles of democracy, participation, reflection and change are central to most action
research (McNiff, 1988; Stringer, 1996) and these principles, combined with an action-reflection
spiral of cycles, distinguishes the approach from other forms of research (Elliot, 1991). McNiff et
al (1996) describe action research as a process that moves through systematic cycles of planning,
executing and fact-finding. A more fitting approach for our study was the observe, plan, act,
reflect cycle (Atkinson, 1994: 397), although we found that we could be involved in all four of
these components at any one time. This has led us to adopt McNiffs suggested headings in this

paper, as a means of more authentically conveying the reality of this action research project
(McNiff, 2002).
Midwifery is a research-orientated profession with experience of a wide range of quantitative
and qualitative approaches (Oakley, 1993, 2000; Page, 2000). Despite the complexity of its
sphere of practice, midwifery has only recently turned to action research as an approach and only
a few midwifery action research studies have been reported or published (Henderson, 1997;
Fraser, 2000; Munro et al, 2002; Deery, 2003). We suggest one reason why midwifery has been
slow to embrace action research is because of a long-term dominance by a medical profession
that favours the certainty promised (but rarely delivered) by positivist approaches (MurphyLawless, 1998). The cyclical and participatory nature of action research, as opposed to the
linearity of more positivist methods, means that action research projects are often experienced as
unpredictable and complex the muddle and mess of our title.
The growing interest in action research (International Confederation of Midwives, 2002) is
because it can investigate clinical practice issues in a way that parallels the non-hierarchical and
collaborative relationships between women and midwives that midwifery aspires to (Deery and
Kirkham, 2000). It also mirrors the value the profession places on knowledge that is grounded in
practice.
We used the same framework of critical ethnography employed in an earlier project (Hughes et
al, 2002) as issues of culture, power and institutional working were fundamental in the problems
identified during early discussion (Grbich, 1999). Critical ethnography shares much in common
with feminist ethnography and action research in terms of exploring hierarchies of power and
hegemonic practices (Grbich, 1999), and therefore was a suitable framework for a project
examining the workings of a MLU in relation to its obstetric-led counterpart.
The researchers insider role
Action research deals with situations that are complex and unique and the change it aims to
engender depends on participants understanding of the situation being studied (Winter and
Munn-Giddings, 2001; Waterman et al, 2001). This understanding is interwoven with the beliefs
and values of the participants and researchers themselves (Lomax, 1995; McNiff, 2002). One of
the main aims of the project, namely to support midwife-led care, was embedded in our own
professional beliefs and values and shared by the other participants. Therefore we were not
detached, objective researchers as in mainstream research paradigms, but involved insiders
(Reed and Proctor, 1995) with personally-and professionally-vested interest in the change we
hoped would occur (McNiff, 2002).
Waterman et al (2001) found that action research projects were more likely to be successful
where researchers had an insider role and perspective. In this project, the researchers either
worked in the unit or had a close relationship with the unit as link teachers and through previous
research projects (Deery et al, 1999; Hughes et al, 2002).
However, our relationship to the project was not solely as insiders. Researcher reflective sessions

were an important opportunity to adopt a more outsider stance to the data that we were
generating. We examined our data in the context of midwifery literature, visits to other units and
internet discussion groups to try to gain more objective understanding of the local situation of the
project. These discussions were one of the most fruitful parts of the project as they generated key
ideas for change and cemented relationships in the research team. Our positions were
predominately insider, but the project was enhanced by adoption of outsider perspectives in
reflective discussions, constantly comparing the local situation to the broader midwifery picture.
Trying it out
A research team was established comprising university staff (two psychologists, three midwives
and a business administrator) and maternity service staff, including community midwives
involved in MLC and hospital midwives from the obstetric unit. This collaborative aspect of the
project is crucial to an action research approach (Winter and MunnGiddings, 2001; Waterman et
al, 2001). The perspectives of different participants enriched the data analysis process and
accords with the impetus to encourage multidisciplinary working (Department of Health, 1996a,
1996b). Initially we opted to do some observational data collection of the working practices of
the MLU, in order to understand better the situation we were exploring.
We agreed that it was undesirable to observe direct care-giving, that this would be an intrusion
on birthing women and possibly interfere with the physiological birth processes we wanted to
protect (Odent, 1992). Therefore, we decided to carry out the initial observation in the offices
and corridors of the MLU and obstetric-led unit, listen to the interactions of midwives with each
other and with doctors, watch the comings and goings, and identify emergent themes.
The local research ethics committee gave permission to proceed on the agreement that clients
would not be approached. We acknowledge that research governance (Department of Health,
2001) would now demand that consent would have to be regarded as a process for constant
renegotiation (Hollway and Jefferson, 2002), obtained from all participants at various stages of
the study, given the fluidity of the action research process.
Face-to-face meetings with community midwives took place to explain the aims of the project
and invite those interested to join the research team. All midwives were informed by letter that
observation of the MLU would take place and that this was part of an action research process to
support MLC. Permission was obtained for the use of participants words in report-writing,
publications and conference presentations and the midwives were reassured that all data would
be anonymised, and that no information would be able to be traced back to them.
At this stage, the midwives appeared unsure about the project despite their concern for the MLU.
This failure to fully engage the midwives as participants was largely due to our inexperience as
action researchers. However, participation quickly developed and the increasing engagement of
the midwives with the project reflected the dynamic of action research for change and
development (Winter and Munn-Giddings, 2001).
Four members of the research team carried out a total of 40 hours of observation, including one

24-hour period. No observational tool was used we agreed to log and note (verbatim as much
as possible) all verbal and non-verbal interactions, all movements within and in and out of the
unit, all telephone conversations and all physical movements and expressions. All observation
took place in the corridors and office space and no client was approached.
The researchers typed their observation notes without any editing, other than anonymisation, and
then exchanged them among the research team. Recording all activity in this way minimised
subjectivity, because the researchers did not have to select what to record or edit their notes. A
large amount of rich data was collected about the workings of the MLU and was used as a basis
for future actions.
Analysis of the observational data was done through individual reading of each
transcript by the research team and making notes. One of the researchers pulled out
main themes, grouped the data into categories according to these, and presented these to the
research team (Burnard, 1991). The team considered their own notes and experiences in light of
these and the categories were further developed through collective discussion. Findings were
consistent and the same issues emerged from most observation periods. The issues to emerge are
shown in the flow-chart (see Figure 1).

Taking stock of what happens

The main finding at this stage was that many of our preconceptions were erroneous MLC was
not threatened so much by medical hegemony as by the community midwives themselves. The
data showed that there was no common understanding or shared vision of MLC. The midwives
(the unit was staffed by one community midwife on each daytime
shift) interpreted policies on an individual basis and had different ideas of what they were trying
to achieve in terms of MLC. For example, the policy was that women should be transferred to
the obstetric-led unit when complications arose and that midwifery care was handed over at this
point. A significant minority of midwives felt that continuity of carer was paramount, and would
transfer to theatre or the obstetric unit with the client continuing to provide midwifery care. This
left the MLU unstaffed and all midwives confused as to their role and skill base. If another
woman was admitted to the MLU, the community midwife on-call would be called in and this
disrupted continuity of carer in the community.
Another example was in the use of electronic fetal heart monitors. The policy was that these had
no place on the MLU and that any concern about the babys heart rate indicated transfer to
obstetric unit care. Some of the midwives however, brought monitors from the obstetric unit to
get a tracing before making a decision regarding transfer. This sometimes resulted in women on
the MLU having continuous fetal monitoring and a blurring of understanding about risk and
decision-making. Furthermore, there was very little evidence that midwifery care was
proactively facilitating physiological birth women were apparently, from what the observers
could ascertain, on beds and the rooms had nothing in terms of lay-out or equipment to
encourage alternative approaches.
These issues were not the only ones to emerge from the observational data, but they were
probably the most crucial. Other issues were examination of the newborn, the
postnatal examination of mothers of babies on the neonatal unit, support for MLU midwives and
night cover of the MLU. It is not within the scope of this paper to address these issues in further
depth.
The observations discovered that there was a lack of clarity about what MLC was, other than it
being, in a general way, care led by midwives. That is to say, MLC appeared to be defined by
structure (booking criteria, organisation, geography) rather than process (skills, decision-making,
communication) (Hughes and Deery, 2002) or a common philosophy and goals. There were
many models of MLC operating, with the result that womens experiences were dependent on the
values and practices of the midwife on duty. This was entirely unexpected we had thought that
there was something consistent called MLC that we simply had to find a way of protecting from
medical encroachment locally. Instead the concept of MLC was contingent on midwives
personal models, and individually negotiated by midwives using a range of rationales.
Following a meeting to feedback the findings of the observation, one of the team leaders in
particular was disbelieving and shocked by the data we presented. She had earlier expressed
anxiety about the future of the MLU in shared geographical space, but had otherwise thought that
MLC was strong and thriving locally. At this stage she became very negative about the project,
feeling it was creating further problems. This is a good example of how action research can
become unpredictable and messy (Mellor, 1998; Cook, 1998). It was decided to distribute the

observation notes to the community midwives so that they could comment on the data and
contribute their own insights in counterbalance to the research teams interpretation of the data.
This proved to be crucial the midwives recognised the problem we had identified and their
reading of the data confirmed ours. The team leader, who had been anxious and angry about the
data presented, joined the research team and actively engaged in addressing the issues about
which she had previously been sceptical.
It was only at this stage that the participation crucial to action research (Waterman et al, 2001)
began to be realised and the project came alive and moved towards achieving its aim. The action
research approach was flexible enough to be able to respond to the muddle (midwives various
models of MLC) and the mess (the emotional responses to the data) of the situation that it was
addressing.
Modifying the plan in light of the findings and continuing with the action
It is difficult to have a clearly formulated plan in action research, because the participants steer
the course of the project (Hart and Bond, 1995; Waterman et al, 2001) and because the project is
constantly informed by its own data. While the aim of the project was to support MLC through
the objectives listed earlier, how those objectives were to be achieved would be determined by
the issues that emerged from the data (see Figure 1).
An action plan was formulated to address the emergent issues and the contributions and
suggestions of the participating midwives were found to be the most successful. The various
strands of this plan can be seen in the middle section of Figure 1. It is not possible to explore all
of them in this paper, so we will limit discussion of actions taken to those that relate to the issues
we have discussed already, namely discordant models of MLC and the skill-base for the
facilitation of physiological birth.
One member of the research team undertook 25 telephone interviews with a randomised,
stratified sample of the community midwives, eliciting their views on what MLC comprises
through a semi-structured interview format. Personal construct analysis of the transcripts of these
interviews led to the development of a number of statements. These were distributed to all
community midwives for validation using a Likert scale, the results analysed, and the areas of
philosophical agreement and disagreement identified (Robson, 2001).
These findings were presented and discussed with the community midwives at a series of prearranged sessions, and a common view that all could subscribe to developed.
This meant that the midwives agreed what MLC was all about in the local context. It
subsequently became possible to explain or sell MLC to local women more cohehently, and to
develop the service. Among the issues settled was that of the transfer of care it was agreed that
the care of transferred clients would be handed over to the obstetric-unit midwives.
Secondly, one midwife decided to investigate the rates and reasons for transfer to obstetric-led
care. The research team supported this work by employing a research assistant to undertake a
computer analysis of the statistics. The main issues to emerge were meconium-stained liquor,

slow progress in labour and epidural analgesia. Evidence-based guideline development around
these areas took place to minimise unnecessary intrapartum transfer or inappropriate booking for
MLC.
Thirdly, a bid was successfully made to the local NHS Trust for money to enable a series of
active-birth workshops to be held, attended by all community midwives.
These not only developed and reinforced the skill-base of the midwives, but also gave them
valuable time together to discuss and share their vision and understanding of what they were
trying to achieve together with the MLU. These workshops also inspired the midwives to collate
a list of equipment to encourage and aid active, physiological birth.
This equipment, including a number of birth balls, was purchased with money that was allocated
to all NHS wards at that time.
These interventions were unique to this situation, locality and project. They were successful
because of this and formed an important part of the change process the project aimed to achieve.
By this stage, the midwives were playing a more important role in the action aspect of the project
than the research team. This occurred during months seven to 11 of the project, and shows how
an action research project gathers momentum as it progresses through its cycles (McNiff, 1988).
Evaluating the modified action
After 18 months of the project running, many changes had already taken place and still were (see
Figure 1). At this stage it was decided to employ a research assistant to undertake a further 40
hours of observation, as a basis from which to assess the situation and what further needed to be
done to support MLC. Again no observation tool was used, but the principles of the first
observation round were adhered to.
One of the key findings was the existence of a culture of active birth and the widespread use of
the resources, such as birth balls, purchased after the active-birth workshops. The observer
evidenced that physiological birthing was well-established, and most of the previous issues were
resolved. Difficult working relationships with obstetric unit staff remained an issue and were
subsequently readdressed.
Two further areas for development were identified at this time. The first related to staffing the
difficulties of staffing the unit with community midwives with many
community-based commitments were evident. Continuity of care in the community was being
compromised by the staffing demands of the MLU, causing disruption to clients
and conflict with the underlying aspirations of the midwifery service (Lipsky, 1980). A
commitment to offer MLU contracts to suitable midwives was made by the
midwifery manager.
The second was the identification by the midwives of fetal malposition as an underlying cause
for intrapartum transfer (Sutton and Scott, 1996; Sutton, 2002). Two workshops on optimal fetal
positioning were organised and all community midwives attended.

Repeating until satisfaction is achieved with that aspect of the work

The action research cycle could have been repeated any number of times in this project.
However, funding was running out, the original time-frame (two years) had passed, the midwives
themselves had taken over many of the functions of the research team regarding the facilitation
of change, the research team had other projects to develop and members of the research team
were changing jobs. Overall we felt satisfied that the project had achieved its aims and objectives
during the period of transition in the service. The MLU was thriving, difficulties being
encountered were continuously identified and addressed and relative stability and consolidation
had been attained. Following discussion, the research team decided to draw the project to a close
rather than a conclusion.
Conclusion
In the end, the project turned out not to be just about the MLU. The collaborative nature of action
research, and the discussions that took place between all participants built important
relationships between clinical, managerial and university-based staff. Common values were
identified, articulated and developed, and then amalgamated into the organisation of the
maternity service. For example, community midwives no longer had to update on the obstetricled unit instead, emphasis was put on developing and maintaining the skills necessary for MLC.
The development of a common philosophy alongside shared learning experiences, led to a
culture of active physiological birth that all participating midwives could own. The extension of
night shift cover for the MLU was decided largely because of the shared desire to consolidate
this approach across 24 hours.
Action research therefore has the potential to change profoundly and extensively the culture and
practice of a clinical environment. To achieve that potential, participation and collaboration are
crucial and central to the successful action research process. The experience of these can enrich
the midwives partnerships with their clients through parallel processes.
The limitations of this study are embedded in the method itself, in that action research projects
are unique to the place and time of their setting and are therefore not generalisable. In an
obstetric culture that values positivist approaches, non-generalisability is often seen as a negative
quality. However, as a method of problem-solving within a specific midwifery context, the
specificity of action research can be seen as strength. A limitation of this study is that we did not
address all the problems we identified, particularly the need for more support for midwives.
Midwifery practice environments are complex, messy and ever-changing. Action research has
the potential to manoeuvre within that environment. This study is grounded in one place, during
one period, and its nature is unique to that situation. However, the principles and cycles of action
research can be applied to any setting, although the end story would be different. Action research
cannot achieve its potential for change and development without the true participation we have
described.

References
Atkinson S. (1994) Rethinking the principles and practice of action
research: the tensions for the teacher-researcher. Educational Action
Research 2(3): 383-401.
Burnard P. (1991) A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today 11: 464-6.
Cook T. (1998) The importance of mess in action research. Educational
Action Research 6(1): 93-108.
Deery R. (2003) Engaging with clinical supervision in a community
midwifery setting: an action research study. Unpublished PhD thesis.
University of Sheffield, UK.
Deery R, Hughes D, Lovatt A, Topping A. (1999) Hearing midwives
views: focus groups on maternity care in Calderdale NHS Trust.
Unpublished report. Primary care research group, University of
Huddersfield.
Deery R, Kirkham M. (2000) Moving from hierarchy to collaboration: the birth of an action research project. Practising Midwife
3(8): 25-8.
Department of Health. (1993) Changing childbirth: report of the expert
maternity group (Cumberlege report). HMSO: London.
Department of Health. (1996a) In the patients interest. Multi-professional working across organisational boundaries: a report by the
standing medical and nursing and midwifery advisory committee.
HMSO: London.
Department of Health. (1996b) Patient partnership: building a collaborative strategy.NHS Executive: London.
Department of Health. (2001) Research governance for health and
social care.HMSO: London.
Downe S. (2001) Is there a future for normal birth? Practising Midwife
4(6): 10-2.
Edwards R, Ribbens J. (1998)Living on the edges: public knowledge,
private lives, personal experience: In: Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: public knowledge and private lives. Sage: London:

1-23.
Elliot J. (1991) Action research for educational change: developing
teachers and teaching.Open University Press: Buckingham.
Fraser D. (2000) Action research to improve the pre-registration
midwifery curriculum part one: an appropriate methodology.
Midwifery 16: 213-23.
Grbich C. (1999) Qualitative research in health: an introduction.
Sage: London.
Hart E, Bond M. (1995) Action research for health and social care: a
guide to practice.Open University Press: Buckingham.
Henderson C. (1997) Changing childbirth and the West Midlands
region 1995 to 1996. RCM: London.
Holloway W, Jefferson T. (2002) Doing qualitative research differently:
free association, narrative and the interview method.Sage: London.
Hughes D, Deery R, Lovatt A. (2002) A critical ethnographic approach
to facilitating cultural shift in midwifery. Midwifery 18: 43-52.
Hughes D, Deery R. (2002) Wheres the midwifery in midwife-led care?
Practising Midwife 5(7): 18-9.
International Confederation of Midwives. (2002) Proceedings of the
26th triennial congress. International Confederation of Midwives:
Vienna.
Jones O, Walker J. (2003) From concept to reality: developing a
working model of a stand-alone birth centre: In: Kirkham M. (Ed.).
Birth centres: a social model for maternity care.Elsevier Science:
Oxford.
Kirkham M, Stapleton H. (2000) Midwives support needs as childbirth
changes. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(2): 465-72.
Kirkham M. (2003) Birth centres as an enabling culture: In: Kirkham
M. (Ed.). Birth centres: a social model for maternity care. Elsevier
Science: Oxford.
Kitzinger S. (1998) Letter from Europe: the caesarean epidemic in Great
Britain. Birth 25(1): 56-8.

Lipsky M. (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in

public services.Russell Sage Foundation: New York.
Lomax P. (1995) Action research for professional practice. British
Journal of In-Service Education 21(1): 1-9.
McNiff J. (1988) Action research: principles and practice (first edition).
Routledge: London.
McNiff J, Lomax P, Whitehead J. (1996) You and your action research
project. Routledge: London.
McNiff J. (2002) Action research: principles and practice (second
edition). Routledge/Falmer, Taylor Francis Group: London.
Mellor N. (1998) Notes from a method. Educational Action Research
6(3): 453-70.
Munro J, Ford H, Scott A, Furnival E, Andrews S, Grayson A. (2002)
Action research project responding to midwives views of different
methods of fetal monitoring in labour. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest
12(4): 495-8.
Murphy-Lawless J. (1998) On reading birth and death.Cork University
Press: Ireland.
Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. (2001) Early
maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery
in second stage of labour: a cohort study. The Lancet 358: 1203-7.
Nolan M. (2001) Midwife-led units: a natural home for childbirth?
Practising Midwife 4(9): 22-3.
Oakley A. (1993) Essays on women, medicine and health.Edinburgh
University Press: Edinburgh.
Oakley A. (2000) Experiments in knowing: gender and method in the
social sciences.Polity Press: London.
Odent M. (1992) The nature of birth and breastfeeding.Bergin and
Garvey: London.
Page LA. (2000) The new midwifery, science and sensitivity in practice.
Churchill Livingstone: London.
Paranjothy S, Thomas J. (2001) National sentinel caesarean section

audit report: RCOG clinical effectiveness support unit. RCOG

Press: London.
RCM. (2000) Vision 2000.RCM: London.
Reed J, Procter S. (1995) Practitioner research in health care: the inside
story. Chapman and Hall: London.
Robson C. (2001) Real world research: a resource for social scientists
and practitioner-researchers.Blackwell Publishers: London.
Rowe-Murray HJ, Fisher JRW. (2001) Operative intervention in delivery
is associated with compromised early mother-infant interaction.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 108: 1068-75.
Sandall J. (1998) Occupational burnout in midwives: new ways of
working and the relationship between organisational factors and
psychological health and wellbeing. Risk Decision and Policy 3(3):
213-32.
Schn DA. (1983) The reflective practitioner.Aldershot: Avebury.
Stringer E. (1996) Action research a handbook for practitioners. Sage:
London.
Sutton J, Scott P. (1996) Understanding and teaching optimal fetal positioning. Birth Concepts: Tauranga.
Sutton J. (2002) Reclaiming and rediscovering our heritage. Butterworth
Heinemann: London.
Tew M. (1998) Safer childbirth? A critical history of maternity care.
Free Association Books: London.
Walker J. (1996) Interim evaluation of a midwifery development unit.
Midwives 109(1305): 266-70.
Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K. (2001) Action
research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health
Technology Assessment 5(23): iii-157.
Winter R, Munn-Giddings C. (2001) A handbook for action research in
health and social care.Routledge: London.