Page 189 [189]
OCR
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 subjective 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 (Davidson, 2003; de Jager et al., 2015; Hanninen & Koski-Jännes, 1999; Koski-Jännes, 1998, 2002; James McIntosh, 2014; J. McIntosh & McKeganey, 2000, 2001), in Grounded Theory studies (Cloud & Granfield, 2008; Jackson et al., 2011; Kearney, 1998), in studies utilizing discourse analysis (Crowe & Luty, 2005; Malson 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 contribution to the field of recovery from psychoactive and novel psychoactive substance use and recovery from psychosis (voice hearing). After that, I discuss 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 complete 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 experience of the use of SCs are very different from the use of other (psychoactive) drugs, participants reported unpredictable effects and rapid turn of experiences 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
