This article traces my journey into embodied methodologies as I endeavoured to accurately and ethically research and represent experiences of body-marking practices (i.e. body modification and self-injury). Because of the fundamentally embodied nature of body-marking, I sought methodologies which were equally embodied and able to contain and represent the complex, emotive, fluid and dynamic nature of these experiences. It was also essential to me that the knowledge forms I produced, in empirical and epistemological terms, avoided the dualism and hierarchy which pervade our logocentric norms. Both the form and practice of my research, then, required an ethic which was specifically embodied and which grew out of corporeal experience. Here, I describe the research journey which drew me into the strategy of ‘ethnographic fiction’, and how this practice answered many of the issues and dilemmas posed by the specific and bodily nature of my work, and my own relationship with it.
The 2004 guidelines published by the (UK) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend the use of harm-reduction for people who hurt themselves (self-injure) in primary and secondary health care settings. Nonetheless, harm-reduction is not widely understood or implemented and prevention remains the primary approach of most health care providers. In this article I draw on the experiences of my research participants to explore the ways in which prevention policies not only fail to prevent self-injury but also to meet the basic care and support needs of individuals who hurt themselves. Indeed, confusion around the meaning and purpose of self-injury, and consequently service-provider anxiety, is often at root of prevention policies. I explore self-injury from the perspective of those who experience it and outline some of the basic principles of harm-reduction. I demonstrate that harm-reduction has both physical and emotional benefits and offers practical, meaningful, and constructive responses to those who self-injure.
Two recent contributions to this section have drawn attention to the barriers which academics with disabilities have to navigate in academia where ableism "is endemic" (Brown and Leigh, 2018: 4). Hannam-Swain (2018) highlighted the additional intellectual, emotional and physical labour required of her as a disabled PhD student, and Brown and Leigh (2018) queried "where are all the disabled and ill academics?" However, Brown and Leigh primarily focus on those with invisible "conditions" and the dilemmas raised by disclosure in a context where such conditions negate academic status and credibility. In contrast, since my "disability" is visible, I do not share the dilemma/ "luxury" of secrecy. My presence announces my status before me, and this negates my personhood altogether in academic settings. It also places a burden of additional unpaid labour upon me which has significant mental health and career impacts as well as violating principles of equality.
This article draws from a larger research project in which I used creative methodologies to explore self-injury in a holistic and harm reduction ethos. The conscious presence and reflexive self-awareness of the researcher (and practitioner) is essential to hearing the voices of the participants and understanding their experiences. Here, the participants share the creative and holistic practices that have supported them. These insights offer practitioners opportunities to build a broad repertoire of healing interventions and supports for their clients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.