Oldal 68 [68]
66 = USING INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Chadwick’s (2003, 2006) cognitive model integrates four fields of voice
hearing experiences: giving meaning to the voice, connecting with the inner
experience (acceptance of the voice), schema (acknowledgment of the positive
aspects of the self) and the symbolic self (understanding of the self as dynamic
and changing). The basic assumption of the personalisation model is that the
relationship between the voice hearing person and the voice can be identified
with the same rules as in an interpersonal relationship between two people
(Paulik, 2012). The cognitive models, predominantly those developed by
Chadwick and Birchwood (Birchwood & Chadwick, 1997; Chadwick & Birch¬
wood, 1994), focus on explaining the reasons of the distress of voices and the
ways in reducing this distress with the cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).
The interpersonal theory is more consistent with the HVM (Hayward et
al., 2013). Qualitative findings have demonstrated interconnection between
the relational theory, the HVM and the experience of recovery (Chin et al.,
2009; Holt & Tickle, 2014; Jackson et al., 2011). The results of relationship
therapy (Hayward et al., 2013) and recovery experiences (de Jager et al., 2015;
Holt & Tickle, 2014) could all be explained with the help of the relational
theory. Chin and colleagues’ (2009) interpretative phenomenological analysis
(IPA) study explained the relationship between the T and the voices using
elements of Birtchnell’s relating theory (Birtchnell, 1993, 1994): the person¬
alisation of voices, the opposition or united relationship between the T and
the voices, the proximity between the T and the voices. A grounded theory
study (Jackson et al., 2011) revealed three explanatory factors of the positive
relationship between the person and the voices: reduction of fear, recognition
of positive feelings and the establishment of control. These factors were
grounded in different processes: personalisation of voices, personal connec¬
tion to the voices, strong self-sense (the sense of independence), connection
to the community and a personal and meaningful narrative about voice hear¬
ing in the life story. Consequently, these experiences led to the recovery-cen¬
tred approaches and to the functional concepts of self-help groups.
Holt and Tickle (2014) emphasised the importance of the personal perspec¬
tive and use of first-person singular in understanding voice hearing. The empty
chair technique offers a therapeutic space where hearers can personalise the
utterances of the voices and explore and seek to change the relationship with
their predominant voice (Hayward, Overton, Dorey, & Denney, 2009). Woods
(2013) offered a Geertzian thick description of voice hearers through her study
concentrated on the social and symbolic meanings of voice hearing. Kapur et
al. (2014) investigated the role of mental health and psychiatric institutions in
voice hearers’ lives. They stated that hearers - in the initial phase of voice hearing
- struggled with their providers. They anticipated receiving medical explanations
for voice hearing but were met with confusion from these professionals (“What
is voice hearing? Is it a disease?’). As a result, patients were primarily frustrated