Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study

IF 3.8 3区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

British Journal of Clinical Psychology Pub Date : 2022-04-24 DOI:10.1111/bjc.12368

Olivia Harris, Carina Andrews, Matthew R. Broome, Claudia Kustner, Pamela Jacobsen

{"title":"Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study","authors":"Olivia Harris, Carina Andrews, Matthew R. Broome, Claudia Kustner, Pamela Jacobsen","doi":"10.1111/bjc.12368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Research has suggested people who hear voices may be at risk of epistemic injustice. This is a form of discrimination whereby someone is unfairly judged to be an unreliable knower (testimonial injustice) or is unable to contribute to, and therefore access, concepts that make sense of their experience within mainstream society (hermeneutical injustice). Voice-hearing occurs both in people who are mental health service users and in the general population (clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers, respectively). The degree of distress and impairment associated with voices has been shown to relate to how individuals make sense of their experiences and how others respond to their identity as a voice-hearer. The aim of this study was to explore people's experiences of epistemic injustice in relation to voice-hearing and to understand how these may differ between clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A qualitative design was used.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Eight clinical and nine non-clinical voice-hearers partook in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three pairs of themes related to (i) identity, (ii) relationships and (iii) power and position were constructed across the clinical and non-clinical groups, and two shared themes within both groups were created relating to testimonial and hermeneutical injustice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers described experiencing epistemic injustice in wider society. The presence of a ‘safe haven’ (e.g. spiritualist churches) for non-clinical voice-hearers ameliorated the impact of this to some degree, by allowing people to make connections with others with similar experiences within a non-judgemental and accepting community.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48211,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":"61 4","pages":"947-963"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790593/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjc.12368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objectives

Research has suggested people who hear voices may be at risk of epistemic injustice. This is a form of discrimination whereby someone is unfairly judged to be an unreliable knower (testimonial injustice) or is unable to contribute to, and therefore access, concepts that make sense of their experience within mainstream society (hermeneutical injustice). Voice-hearing occurs both in people who are mental health service users and in the general population (clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers, respectively). The degree of distress and impairment associated with voices has been shown to relate to how individuals make sense of their experiences and how others respond to their identity as a voice-hearer. The aim of this study was to explore people's experiences of epistemic injustice in relation to voice-hearing and to understand how these may differ between clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers.

Design

A qualitative design was used.

Method

Eight clinical and nine non-clinical voice-hearers partook in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three pairs of themes related to (i) identity, (ii) relationships and (iii) power and position were constructed across the clinical and non-clinical groups, and two shared themes within both groups were created relating to testimonial and hermeneutical injustice.

Conclusion

Both clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers described experiencing epistemic injustice in wider society. The presence of a ‘safe haven’ (e.g. spiritualist churches) for non-clinical voice-hearers ameliorated the impact of this to some degree, by allowing people to make connections with others with similar experiences within a non-judgemental and accepting community.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

临床和非临床听话者之间的认知不公:一项定性专题分析研究

研究表明，听到声音的人可能面临认知不公正的风险。这是一种歧视形式，即某人被不公平地判断为不可靠的知者(证言不公正)，或者无法贡献，因此无法获得在主流社会中有意义的概念(解释性不公正)。语音听力既发生在心理卫生服务使用者中，也发生在一般人群中(分别为临床和非临床语音听力者)。与声音相关的痛苦和损害程度与个人如何理解他们的经历以及其他人如何回应他们作为声音听众的身份有关。本研究的目的是探讨人们在语音听力方面的认知不公正的经历，并了解临床和非临床语音听力者之间的差异。设计采用定性设计。方法对8名临床和9名非临床听话者进行半结构化访谈，采用主题分析法进行分析。结果在临床组和非临床组中构建了与(i)身份、(ii)关系和(iii)权力和地位相关的三对主题，并在两组中创建了两个与证言和解释性不公正相关的共享主题。结论临床和非临床听话者均描述了在更广泛的社会中经历的认知不公。为非临床声音聆听者提供的“避风港”(例如，通灵教堂)在某种程度上改善了这种影响，允许人们在一个非评判和接受的社区中与其他有类似经历的人建立联系。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

British Journal of Clinical Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

3.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The British Journal of Clinical Psychology publishes original research, both empirical and theoretical, on all aspects of clinical psychology: - clinical and abnormal psychology featuring descriptive or experimental studies - aetiology, assessment and treatment of the whole range of psychological disorders irrespective of age group and setting - biological influences on individual behaviour - studies of psychological interventions and treatment on individuals, dyads, families and groups