Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study.
Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/bjc.12368
复制
发表时间：
2022-11
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Jacobsen, Pamela
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harris, Olivia;Andrews, Carina;Broome, Matthew R.;Kustner, Claudia;Jacobsen, Pamela
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，某人被不公平地判定为不可靠的知识者（证词不公正），或者无法贡献并因此无法获得理解其在主流社会中的经历的概念（解释学不公正）。心理健康服务使用者和普通人群（分别为临床和非临床声音聆听者）都会出现声音听觉。与声音相关的痛苦和损伤程度已被证明与个人如何理解自己的经历以及其他人如何回应他们作为声音听到者的身份有关。本研究的目的是探索人们与语音听力相关的认知不公正经历，并了解临床和非临床语音听力者之间的差异。使用了定性设计。八名临床和九名非临床声音聆听者参加了半结构化访谈，并使用主题分析进行了分析。在临床和非临床组中构建了三对与（i）身份、（ii）关系和（iii）权力和地位相关的主题，并在两组内创建了两个与证词和解释不公正相关的共享主题。临床和非临床声音聆听者都描述了在更广泛的社会中经历的认知不公正。对于非临床声音聆听者来说，“安全港”（例如唯灵论教堂）的存在在一定程度上减轻了这种影响，因为它允许人们在一个不带评判性和包容性的社区中与具有类似经历的其他人建立联系。
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. A qualitative design was used. Eight clinical and nine non‐clinical voice‐hearers partook in semi‐structured interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Johns LC;Kompus K;Connell M;Humpston C;Lincoln TM;Longden E;Preti A;Alderson-Day B;Badcock JC;Cella M;Fernyhough C;McCarthy-Jones S;Peters E;Raballo A;Scott J;Siddi S;Sommer IE;Larøi F
通讯作者：
Larøi F
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Wood, Lisa;Byrne, Rory;Morrison, Anthony P.
通讯作者：
Morrison, Anthony P.
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Carel, Havi;Kidd, Ian James
通讯作者：
Kidd, Ian James
DOI：
10.1080/17522439.2018.1472630
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Best, Michael W.;Grossman, Michael;Bowie, Christopher R.
通讯作者：
Bowie, Christopher R.
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Heriot-Maitland, Charles;Knight, Matthew;Peters, Emmanuelle
通讯作者：
Peters, Emmanuelle