Social Theory & Health

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 342–363

The Tyranny of Time: Tensions between Relational and Clock Time in Community-Based Midwifery

  • Ruth Deery


This paper focuses on eight National Health Service (NHS) community midwives' experience of linear time during the third phase of a 3-year action research study. Drawing on the words of the midwives, the paper seeks to compare and contrast the ways in which they experienced this temporal framework, individually and organizationally, in their clinical practice. Midwifery work was mostly described as being bound by a ‘technical administrative rationality’ that controlled the organization of paid employment, although this contradicted a cyclical, ‘nurturing rationality’ that was rooted in relational time. The midwives struggled with, and at times resisted, a more relational approach to working when the introduction of a supportive process called clinical supervision was introduced. This approach to working contested their existing temporal boundaries and imposed its own temporal framework. Despite all the midwives commenting on the importance of making time to meet as a group, clinical supervision was experienced as creating more work. There is, therefore, justification for acknowledging that in times of turbulent change and acute staffing crises, NHS community midwives preferred to prioritize work through assembly line production rather than investing time in nurturing, supportive client and colleague relationships.


time community midwives relational time clock time bureaucratic relationships 


  1. Adam B (1990). Time & Social Theory. Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers: London.Google Scholar
  2. Adam B (1995). Timewatch, The Social Analysis of Time. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Adam B (2004). Time. Polity Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson M (2002). Postmodernism and Social Research. Open University Press: Buckingham.Google Scholar
  5. Arney WR (1982). Power and the Profession of Obstetrics. The University of Chicago Press: London.Google Scholar
  6. Ball L, Curtis P, Kirkham M (2002). Why do Midwives Leave? The Royal College of Midwives: London.Google Scholar
  7. Bond M, Holland S (1998). Skills of Clinical Supervision for Nurses: A Practical Guide for Supervisees, Clinical supervisors and Managers. Open University Press: Buckingham.Google Scholar
  8. Bone D (2002). Dilemmas of emotion work in nursing under market-driven health care. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 15: 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryson V (2007). Gender and the Politics of Time, Feminist Theory and Contemporary Debates. The Policy Press, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  10. Butterworth T, Faugier J (1998). Supervision for life. In: Butterworth T, Faugier J, Burnard P (eds). Clinical Supervision and Mentorship in Nursing, 2nd edn. Nelson Thornes Ltd: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  11. Coser LA (1974). Greedy Institutions, Patterns of Undivided Commitment. Macmillan Publishers: London.Google Scholar
  12. Curtis P, Ball L, Kirkham M (2006). Why do midwives leave? (Not) being the kind of midwife you want to be. British Journal of Midwifery 14: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dadds M (2002). Taking curiosity seriously: the role of awe and Wanda in research-based professionalism. Educational Action Research 10: 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies K (1990). Women, Time and the Weaving of the Strands of Everyday Life. Gower Publishing Company Limited: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  15. Davies K (1994). The Tensions between process time and clock time in care-work, the example of day nurseries. Time & Society 3: 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deery R (2003). Engaging with clinical supervision in a community midwifery setting: an action research study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Deery R (2005). An action research study exploring midwives' support needs and the effect of group clinical supervision. Midwifery 21: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deery R, Kirkham M (2000). Moving from hierarchy to collaboration: the birth of an action research project. The Practising Midwife 3: 25–28.Google Scholar
  19. Deery R, Kirkham M (2006). Supporting midwives to support women. In: Page LA, McCandlish R (eds). The New Midwifery, 2nd edn. Science and Sensitivity in Practice Elsevier Limited: London.Google Scholar
  20. Deery R, Kirkham M (2007). Drained and dumped on: the generation and accumulation of emotional toxic waste in community midwifery. In: Kirkham M (ed). Exploring the Dirty Side of Women's Health. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  21. Derbyshire F (2000). Clinical supervision within midwifery. In: Kirkham M (ed). Developments in the Supervision of Midwives. Books for Midwives: Manchester.Google Scholar
  22. DOH (1993). Changing Childbirth, Part 1 (Report of the Expert Maternity Group), HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  23. DOH (2004). Improving Working Lives in Midwifery, a Guide for Midwives and Managers. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
  24. DOH (2006a). Modernising Maternity Care. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
  25. DOH (2006b). Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
  26. Dykes F (2005). ‘Supply’ and ‘demand’: breastfeeding as labour. Social Science & Medicine 60: 2283–2293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dykes F (2006). Breastfeeding in Hospital. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  28. Ely M, Anzul M, Friedman T, Garner D, Steinmetz AM (1991). Doing Qualitative Research: Circles Within Circles. The Falmer Press Teachers Library: London.Google Scholar
  29. Everingham C (2002). Engendering time: gender equity and discourses of workplace flexibility. Time and Society 11: 335–351.Google Scholar
  30. Flint C, Poulengeris P, Grant A (1989). The “Know Your Midwife Scheme” – a randomised trial of continuity of care by a team of midwives. Midwifery 5: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fox M (1989). Unreliable allies: subjective and objective time in childbirth. In: Forman FJ, Sowton C (eds). Taking Our Time, Feminist Perspectives on Temporality. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Frankenburg R (1992). ‘Your Time or Mine’: temporal contradictions of biomedical practice. In: Frankenburg R (ed). Time, Health & Medicine. Sage Publications: London.Google Scholar
  33. Gee H, Glynn M (1997). The physiology and clinical management of labour. In: Henderson C, Jones K (eds). Essential Midwifery. Mosby: London.Google Scholar
  34. Gibson D (1994). Time for clients: temporal aspects of community psychiatric nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 20: 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goffman E (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Northeastern University Press: Boston.Google Scholar
  36. Hall ET (1989). The Dance of Life, The Other Dimension of Time. Anchor Books Editions: New York.Google Scholar
  37. Hassard J (1989). Time and organization. In: Blyton P, Hassard J, Hill S, Starkey K (eds). Time, Work and Organization. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  38. Helman C (2007). Culture, Health and Illness, 5th edn, Hodder Arnold: London.Google Scholar
  39. Hochschild A (1983). The Managed Heart Commercialisation of Human Feeling. University of California Press: Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  40. Hochschild A (2003). The Commercialization of Intimate Life, Notes from Home and Work. University of California Press Ltd: London.Google Scholar
  41. Hunter B, Deery R (2005). Building our knowledge about emotion work in midwifery: combining and comparing findings from two different research studies. Evidence Based Midwifery 3: 10–15.Google Scholar
  42. Hunter B, Deery R (eds) (2008). Emotions in Midwifery and Reproduction. Palgrave Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
  43. Jones AR (2001). Time to think: temporal considerations in nursing practice and research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 33: 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahn RP (1989). Women and time in childbirth and during lactation. In: Forman FJ, Sowton C (eds). Taking our time. Feminist Perspectives on Temporality. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  45. Kirkham M (2003). Midwifery in the NHS. Midwifery Matters 96 (Spring): 2–3.Google Scholar
  46. Kirkham M (2004). Choice and Bureaucracy. In: Kirkham M (ed). Informed Choice in Maternity Care. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.Google Scholar
  47. Kirkham M (2007). Women out of place. In: Kirkham M (ed). Exploring the Dirty Side of Women's Health. Routledge: Oxon.Google Scholar
  48. Kirkham M, Morgan RK, Davies C (2006). Why Do Midwives Stay? Department of Health via Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire Workforce Development Confederation, Department of Health.Google Scholar
  49. Kirkham M, Stapleton H (2000). Midwives' support needs as childbirth changes. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32: 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lavender T, Chapple J (2004). An exploration of midwives' views of the current system of maternity care in England. Midwifery 20: 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lawton J (2000). The Dying Process. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  52. Lipsky M (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York.Google Scholar
  53. Martin E (1987). The Woman in the Body – A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Mason M (2000). Incurably Human. Working Press: London.Google Scholar
  55. Mauthner N, Doucet A (1998). Reflections on a voice-centred relational method. analysing maternal and domestic voices. In: Ribbens J, Edwards R (eds). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research, Public Knowledge and Private Lives. Sage Publications: London.Google Scholar
  56. McCourt C, Stevens T, Sandall J, Brodie P (2006). Working with women: developing continuity of care in practice. In: Page LA, McCandlish R (eds). The New Midwifery, Science and Sensitivity in Practice, 2nd edn. Elsevier Limited: London.Google Scholar
  57. McCrea H, Wright M, Murphy-Black T (1998). Differences in midwives' approaches to pain relief in labour. Midwifery 14: 74–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McKnight J (1995). The Careless Society, Community and its Counterfeits. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  59. McNiff J, Whitehead J (2006). All You Need To Know About Action Research. Sage Publications Ltd: London.Google Scholar
  60. Page LA (2000). The New Midwifery, Science and Sensitivity in Practice. Churchill Livingstone: London.Google Scholar
  61. Polkinghorne D (2004). Practice and the Human Sciences. State University of New York Press: Albany, USA.Google Scholar
  62. Sandall J (1998). Occupational burnout in midwives: new ways of working and the relationship between organisational factors and psychological health and well being. Risk Decision and Policy 3: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sennett R (1998). The Corrosion of Character, The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. W.W. Norton & Company: London.Google Scholar
  64. Silverman D (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data, 3rd edn. Sage Publications: London.Google Scholar
  65. Simonds W (2002). Watching the clock: keeping time during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum experiences. Social Science & Medicine 55: 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simpson J (2004). Negotiating elective caesarean section: an obstetric team perspective. In: Kirkham M (ed). Informed Choice in Maternity Care. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.Google Scholar
  67. Stein M (2007). Toxicity and the unconscious experience of the body at the employee–customer interface. Organization Studies 28: 1223–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walker L, Avant K (1995). Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 3rd edn, Appleton & Lang: Norwalk.Google Scholar
  69. Walsh D, Downe S (2004). Outcomes of free-standing, midwife-led birth centres: a structured review. Birth 31: 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walsh K (1997). Encounters, endings and temporality in psychiatric nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 25: 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K (2001). Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. NHS R&D HTA Programme.Google Scholar
  72. Waterworth S (2003). Temporal reference frameworks and nurses' work organization. Time & Society 12: 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Waterworth S, May C, Luker K (1999). Clinical ‘effectiveness’ and ‘interrupted’ work. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 3: 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilkins P (1998). Clinical supervision and community psychiatric nursing. In: Butterworth T, Faugier J, Burnard P, (eds). Clinical Supervision and Mentorship in Nursing, 2nd edn. Nelson Thornes Ltd: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  75. Zerubavel E (1979). Patterns of Time in Hospital Life. University of Chicago: Chicago.Google Scholar
  76. Zerubavel E (1981). Hidden Rhythms, Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. University of California Press: Berkeley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Deery
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of MidwiferyThe University of Huddersfield, Ramsden BuildingHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations