Oldal 80 [80]
78 a USING INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Many standardized measures have been developed to assess recovery (e.g.:
Buckingham, Frings, & Albery, 2013; McLellan et al., 2005; O'Connor, Berry,
Inaba, Weiss, & Morrison, 1994). Since recovery is considered to be a subjective
process and the patterns of experiences could be explored only through sub¬
jective accounts, qualitative methods could enlighten pieces of this dynamic
and complex experience (Larkin & Griffiths, 2002). That is why examination
of the aspects of recovery appeared in narrative psychological studies (David¬
son, 2003; de Jager et al., 2015; Hanninen & Koski-Jannes, 1999; Koski-Jannes,
1998, 2002; James McIntosh, 2014; J. McIntosh & McKeganey, 2000, 2001), in
Grounded Theory studies (Cloud & Granfield, 2008; Jackson et al., 2011; Ke¬
arney, 1998), in studies utilizing discourse analysis (Crowe & Luty, 2005; Mal¬
son et al., 2011; Rudge & Morse, 2001) interpretative phenomenological
analysis (Hill & Leeming, 2014; Rosen et al., 2015; Shinebourne & Smith,
201 1a) and qualitative metaphor analysis (Shinebourne & Smith, 2010a). Since
the present book aims to assess recovery stories, it includes qualitative studies
that examine recovery processes from the individuals’ perspective.
The present chapter aims to discuss and reflect upon the book in general.
It comprises a summary of the main findings (of the four empirical studies)
and a discussion of the practical implication of each study and their contri¬
bution to the field of recovery from psychoactive and novel psychoactive
substance use and recovery from psychosis (voice hearing). After that, I dis¬
cuss the main limitations of the studies, the most important aspects for further
research and closing the book with final conclusions.
6.2. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
A detailed summary including the aims, research questions, methods and
primary results (master themes and emergent themes) of the four empirical
studies are summarized in Table 3.
Overall Study 1 suggests that the work of recovering helpers could com¬
plete their recovery process because the constant recall of the past as an addict
serves the needs of the present; therefore, it is not actually recalling but it is
a constant reconstruction. The institutional background serves an important
role here, where helpers continuously meet users, so they are always exposed
to factors triggering drug use. Study 2 and Study 3 could be treated together
as important research results on novel psychoactive substance use. The expe¬
rience of the use of SCs are very different from the use of other (psychoactive)
drugs, participants reported unpredictable effects and rapid turn of experi¬
ences from positive to negative. The results of the Study 2 and Study 3 suggest
a big difference in the aspects of the process of identity change because of the
rapid turn of experiences, the “user self”, the “turning points” and the “non-ad¬