Phenomenological and recovery models of the subjective experience of psychosis: discrepancies and implications for treatment
J. Hamm, Bethany L. Leonhardt, Jeremy M. Ridenour, John Lysaker, P. Lysaker
Psychosis October 2, 2018 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2018.1522540 via Semantic Scholar
Summary
Two distinct approaches to studying first-person experience in schizophrenia—philosophical phenomenology and the recovery movement—diverge in focus: phenomenology examines how lived experience in psychosis deviates from health, while recovery writings concentrate on experience during a return to health. This conceptual gap hinders integration for treatment. The paper examines major tenets of each literature and proposes future directions for reconciling their contributions.
Study at a glance
| Design | theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Phenomenological and recovery approaches to schizophrenia differ in emphasis—deviation from versus return to health—but potential reconciliation could inform treatment. |
Abstract
ABSTRACT Reductionist models of schizophrenia and psychosis have been criticized for neglecting first person experiences of these conditions. In response, at least two distinct bodies of research have emerged which study first person experience: philosophical phenomenology and approaches linked with the recovery movement. Phenomenological writings have produced a conceptual model of schizophrenia referred to as the ipseity disturbance model, whereas the recovery writings generalize from common and diverse experiences of movements toward well-being. Phenomenological writings focus on how lived experience in psychosis deviates from health whereas recovery writings concentrate on lived experience amid a return to health. These differences make it difficult to see how the two approaches might be integrated to inform treatment. To explore how these views diverge and potentially could converge we carefully examine major tenets in each body of literature and offer future roads which may provide opportunities for reconciliation among each perspective’s important contributions.