This thesis is a study of bullying narratives, mainly co-produced in a process of ongoing interaction. The focus is on how narrators rhetorically organize their storytelling and identity work by using discursive resources. The empirical material consists of 12 interviews with, and 12 written stories by people who have been exposed to workplace bullying plus information from three websites about bullying, and previous research. The overarching aim of the study is to identify how a bullying discourse is produced, reproduced, challenged and negotiated in bullied persons’ narratives. Specific aims are to determine how bullying is portrayed publicly, how narrators with experience of being bullied build their stories, how the narratives stand in relation to victimization, what makes it possible to talk about vulnerability and what are its limits, and finally to develop a narrative approach.Theoretically and methodologically, the study has its basis in narrative analysis, discursive psychology, conversation analysis, and metaphor analysis. The study shows how the narrators categorize themselves as active, competent, and consensus seeking. They resist being victimized, but by their use of the interpretative repertoire and a standard story of bullying, they nevertheless become indirectly victimized. What’s at stake, in the narratives, is the question of guilt, which they rhetorically evade by the use of different metaphors. These metaphors depict bullying as a mystery, a lifelong source of suffering, a transformation, a learning experience, a battle, a contagious virus, and a trap. The narrators are constrained by the narrative conditions, the interpretative repertoire, standard story, and narrative form and content – a story of good and evil when creating their own story. The narrative conditions at the same time set the limit for expressing oneself in the identity work. This also means we are part of the production and reproduction of the bullying discourse when I, as a researcher, and the narrators use the repertoire and the standard story in mutual understanding. / <p>Helena Blomberg är verksam som universitetsadjunkt i sociologi vid Mälardalens högskola sedan 2001och vid Örebro universitet sedan 2003. Hennes huvudsakliga verksamhetsområde rör metodologiska frågeställningar kopplat till den kvalitativa forskningstraditionen, främst diskurs- och narrativ analys. Hon ingår även i Diskursgruppen vid Stockholms universitet, en tvärvetenskaplig forskargrupp som arbetar med olika diskursanalytiska ansatser.</p>

This dissertation is a study of a relatively new teacher function in nurse education, a teacher function that can be called clinical teacher, link lecturer, link teacher or lecturer involved in practice. The study departs from a constructivist perspective and the aim is to study the introduction, performance and regulation of this teacher function. The material consists of internationally and nationally published research 1978-2009, reports from the authorities, job ads for clinical teachers, job descriptions and contracts, archive material, evaluation studies, professional journals, texts on the Internet and 15 interviews with clinical teachers in Sweden. Using discourse analysis this material is studied in terms of interpretive repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas. The primary focus of this dissertation concerns what problems the new teacher function is supposed to solve, how the problem should be solved, the effects of the chosen solutions and what´s staged, challenged and reproduced. Secondly, this dissertation highlights what categories of teachers are required and in demand for the new teacher function, how the teachers themselves manage their function and how the teacher function is maintained and challenged. The analysis identifies and highlights current interpretive repertoire, teachers possible subject positions and ideological dilemmas and how they are governed and challenged in the teaching function.