45 2 RISK AND THE POLITICS OF BOUNDARY WORK Charmaz, 2014; Seaman, 2008). A grounded theory design allowed us to capture the complexity of the SGKL’s decision process, based on the experience of the SGKL’s representatives in the historical context. As such, we were able to move beyond a descriptive account of the SGKL’s decision process ―describing how the SGKL arrived at their decision ―to the development of a theory that is reflective of the context in which the SGKL was situated, allowing us to explain why the SGKL reached their decision. Data collection and analysis Our data are drawn from in-depth interviews and archival material. We use the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ; Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007) to report our data collection and analysis processes. Interviews The SGKL consisted of a chair, a secretary, a scientific advisor, representatives of the Health Insurance Council and the medical inspectorate,7 and representatives of the professional associations of midwives,8 obstetricians,9 GPs,10 paediatricians and maternity home care assistants.11 The SGKL had 16 seats, which were filled by 24 different members during the working period (Werkgroep Bijstelling Kloostermanlijst, 1987, pp. 10–12). We identified the representatives using the list of SGKL representatives published in the SGKL’s final report (Werkgroep Bijstelling Kloostermanlijst, 1987, pp. 10–12). Through purposive sampling, we aimed to recruit the 15 participants who, based on our literature review and conversations with former SGKL members, played the most important role in the SGKL’s decision process, namely the scientific advisor, the secretary, the chair, and the representatives of the professional associations of midwives, obstetricians and GPs. One subject declined participation and ten subjects could not be included because either they had passed away, could not be traced, or were ill. As such, we were able to interview four formal SGKL members. To make sure the perspectives of all key players in the SGKL were represented in our sample, we recruited four more participants who were board members of the professional associations represented in the SGKL at that time, and as such were directly involved in the SGKL’s work. These participants were identified via requests to the professional associations concerned. We thus interviewed a total of eight participants. There were no drop-outs. The first author contacted the participants by e-mail or telephone. Contact information was retrieved via internet. The SGKL was convened more than 30 years ago, and to refresh the memory of participants, we sent them relevant documents and publications regarding the SGKL’s work of that time, such as the SGKL’s draft report and publications about the report (De commissie ter advisering van het bestuur van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, 1987; Eskes, 1987; Honnebier, 1987b; 1987a; Huisjes, 1987; Lems, Groeneveld, & Verdenius, 1987b; 1987a; Nederlandse Vereniging voor Kinderartsen, Landelijke Huisartsen Vereniging, Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, & Nederlandse Huisarsten Genootschap, 1986; Schellekens, 1987c; 1987b; 1987a; Smulders, 1987; Vlek, 1987; Werkgroep Bijstelling Kloostermanlijst, 1987). The participants signed a consent form, allowing us to use the interview data confidentially, striving for anonymity of the participant. Therefore, we report as little as Health, Risk & Society 7