E-Book, Englisch, 169 Seiten
De Leo / Poštuvan / Postuvan Resources for Suicide Prevention
1. Auflage 2017
ISBN: 978-1-61676-454-8
Verlag: Hogrefe Publishing
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
Bridging Research and Practice
E-Book, Englisch, 169 Seiten
ISBN: 978-1-61676-454-8
Verlag: Hogrefe Publishing
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
Keep up-to-date with recent research and practice in suicide
This book is based on the TRIPLE i in Suicidology international conferences, which are organised annually by the Slovene Centre for Suicide Research in memory of the late Prof. Andrej Marušic with the aim of promoting intuition, imagination, and innovation in the research and prevention of suicide and suicidal behaviour. The carefully selected chapters provide food for thought to practitioners, researchers, students, and all those who come into contact with the tragedy of suicide, with the hope of stimulating new ideas and interventions in the difficult fight against suicidal behaviours.
In four parts, the internationally renowned team of authors summarise the achievements of suicidology so far (both in quantitative and qualitative research), present effective interventions in suicide prevention (including for youths and older people) and knowledge gained in bereavement and postvention studies (such as in different cultures and those bereaved by suicide), and highlight future directions for suicide research and prevention.
The volume is thus a useful resource for all those interested in keeping up-to-date with recent research and practice in suicide.
Zielgruppe
Clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and
counselors, as well as students.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Resources for Suicide Prevention;1
1.1;Contents;6
1.2;Foreword by Dragan Maruši?;8
1.3;Preface;10
1.4;Acknowledgments;11
2;Chapter 1 Translating Research Into Practice: The Quantitative Perspective;14
3;Chapter 2 Translating Research Into Practice: The Qualitative Perspective;24
4;Chapter 3 Exploring the Phenomenology of Suicide;52
5;Chapter 4 Assessing the Effectiveness of Suicide Prevention Programmes;68
6;Chapter 5 The European Alliance Against Depression;76
7;Chapter 6 Suicide Prevention in Youths;84
8;Chapter 7 Suicide in Old Age;96
9;Chapter 8 Suicide Prevention and Older People;112
10;Chapter 9 Suicide Survivors Across Cultures;126
11;Chapter 10 Bereaved by Suicide – Evidence-Based Findings;132
12;Chapter 11 Suicide Survivors’ Reintegration;140
13;Chapter 12 Future Directions in Suicide Research and Prevention;152
14;Contributors;168
Chapter 2 Translating Research Into Practice (p. 13-14)
The Qualitative Perspective
Heidi Hjelmeland
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Social Work and Health Science,Trondheim, Norway
Introduction
The title of this chapter is “Translating Research Into Practice: The Qualitative Perspective.” The qualitative perspective and my response to the question of what we have achieved so far, would have to be not that much, yet – if we were to base our answer on what is found in the main suicidological journals.
Hjelmeland and Knizek (2011a) found that in the 4-year period 2005–2008 only 3% of the studies published in these journals employed a qualitative approach; 7% of studies published in Crisis did so, and only 2% in both Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior and Archives of Suicide Research did so. Furthermore, the qualitative element in these studies was often just a small appendix to a mainly quantitative study; although there were also a few pure qualitative studies. A quick check of the 2011 volumes of these journals reveals that there have not been any developments in terms of more qualitative studies being published. There was one reported in the Archives of Suicide Research, and in Crisis there was also only one qualitative study published in all of 2011, plus another describing the challenges faced in doing qualitative research in a developing country. I did not even bother to count publications in Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior for 2011, because the editor there, Thomas Joiner, has taken a clear stance against qualitative research (Joiner, 2011). Therefore, if anything, the situation was even worse in 2011 than it was in the period of 2005–2008. The low proportion of qualitative studies published in the main suicidological journals says something about the status or position held by qualitative research in suicidology, and about the negative attitudes toward qualitative research voiced by some journal editors.
This paucity of qualitative studies in suicidology has in fact been discussed previously. Over a decade ago, in 2002, the Archives of Suicide Research published a special issue on Qualitative Versus Quantitative Studies in Suicidology, and therein both Goldney (2002) and Leenaars (2002) (the latter was the editor of the journal at the time) argued that both qualitative and quantitative approaches were needed in the field. However, there since has been a change of editor at that journal, and in her inaugural editorial, the new editor, Barbara Stanley (2007), listed criteria for “successful manuscripts” that in many ways excluded qualitative studies (Hjelmeland & Knizek, 2011a). The current editor of Crisis has, to the best of my knowledge, not taken any public stance for or against qualitative research, but the publication rate of qualitative studies in Crisis is not exactly impressive either.
There are a number of possible reasons for this low publication rate of qualitative studies. I have already mentioned negative attitudes among editors. Other possible explanations are low submission rates and/or low quality of the submitted manuscripts. However, negative attitudes among editors will also carry some of the responsibility for a low submission rate. A researcher will, of course, not submit a qualitative paper to a journal at which the editor has publicly announced that they do not like qualitative research and thus do not want to spend journal space on such papers. Even more seriously, editors’ negative attitudes might even contribute to qualitative research not being done at all. If it is difficult to publish qualitative studies, many researchers might be reluctant to conduct such studies, since funding requires publication. Hence, the negative attitudes among editors might have serious consequences in many ways (Hjelmeland, 2010). In addition to those already mentioned, they also result in the field missing out on quite important knowledge that only qualitative research can produce, and that is what I hope to demonstrate in this chapter.
As one of the former editors of the new journal Suicidology Online and also a frequent reviewer for many other journals, I can certainly say that the quality of submissions is low in many cases; however, so is the quality of reviews. I have seen many reviews that reveal to an embarrassing degree that the reviewers do not know the most basic things about qualitative research and, therefore, recommend rejection of even excellent qualitative studies on completely false grounds due to their ignorance. So, the problem here is manifold.
With editors’ negative attitudes in mind, it is perhaps worth noting that in 1999, the National Institute of Mental Health Consortium of Editors on Development and Psychopathology (1999) published an Editorial Statement in which they acknowledged their responsibility to also publish qualitative studies.
