But as I was writing my ‘homework chapter’, I was also very conscious of creating categories for my informants, which they didn’t necessarily inhabit, at least during the interview.
I was making them into people that ‘we’, academics, consider important.
So here comes the criticism levied from the point of view of clinical psychology.
The author of the research did not give two pieces of information: the informants’ medical history and their diagnosis (although it was not explicitly stated, I understood it as the diagnosis pertaining to the F section of the ICD-10).
Marsh convincingly shows the steady encroachment of psychiatric discourses onto suicide.
Indeed, it will probably culminate in pathologising all suicidal behaviour, which has already been announced by the APA.
As we describe our research, particularly its methodology, we often make a series of assumptions underlying it.
And yet, I think there is another set we tend not to explicate, simply going along with how things are done. The post is inspired by an academic promotion procedure in which a portfolio of qualitative work was reviewed and a number of criticisms were made with regard to it.
Or perhaps I should describe the person by what I did?
I remember a moment in one of the interviews when I looked at my watch.