ArticleBMC psychology2024
Towards validating invalidated knowledge: a discourse analysis of firsthand accounts of hearing voices.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs Foucault historically traced, dialogs about madness were silenced with the emergence of biomedical psychiatry. The silence entailed the epistemic violence of invalidating persons who hear voices as knowers, arguably leaving them without validating sensemaking languages for firsthand experiences. This article analyzes five Norwegian firsthand accounts of hearing voices, and how they differed from the predominating biomedical psychiatry discourse, in search of validating languages and knowledge that may facilitate making sense of voice-hearing for persons who hear voices.
methodsThe text material consisted of four sets of blogs authored by four young women and a short interview with a man, all of whom had firsthand experiences of voice-hearing in a Norwegian context. Ian Parker's version of Foucauldian discourse analysis was used to analyze the material.
resultsSix discourses were identified: biomedical psychiatry-discourse, discourse of reason, psychodynamic discourse, discourse of personal characteristics, spiritual discourse and discourse of personal relationships between hearer and voices. Within the discourses of biomedical psychiatry and reason, voice-hearing was rendered as hallucinations, unreason, and as a problem to be solved, preferably by professionals, thus silencing the person who hears voices. In contrast, within the discourses of psychodynamics, personal characteristics, spirituality, and personal relationships between hearer and voices, voice-hearing has diverse meanings, and they grant voice hearers greater freedom concerning voice-hearing. The psychodynamic discourse nonetheless aligns with the discourses of reason and biomedical psychiatry in allowing professionals the prerogative of determining the meaning of voice-hearing. The remaining three discourses appear to facilitate more space for voice-hearers to narrate and engage with their voice-hearing at their discretion, with little to no professional impingement.
conclusionsDiscursive complexity notwithstanding, I consider that particularly the discourses of personal characteristics, spirituality, and personal relationships facilitate languages that may enable a person to narrate their own experiences and actions at their own discretion, without needing an expert commentator on the side. To have such languages available is argued to entail clear strides towards more empowered positions in one's life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.