Understanding recovery: the perspective of substance misusing offenders

Abstract

Abstract:Purpose The aim of the research was to critically regard the concept of recovery from the perspective of substance misusing offenders. It intended to understand how these individuals came to define recovery by asking 'what does recovery mean to you?' Design/methodology/approach 35 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with individuals with a history of heroin and crack cocaine use as well as convictions for a range of offences. Interviews took place in both prison and community settings, reflecting a spectrum of experience. Findings Whilst the constellation of recovery varied, it was at times made up of the same 'stars' -and some re-occurring themes emerged; recovery was transient, fragile and unpredictable, it was ongoing, lacking a definitive end, it was more than abstinence and often involved a total psychological overhaul, recovery was about reintegrating with society and feeling 'normal'. Implications of the work Practitioners and services need to value the individual interpretations of recovery rather than being prescriptive around what it 'should' look like. The components of recovery that were raised by participants permit specific recommendations for practice to be made. Originality/valueThis study sought the perspectives of those actually affected by and experiencing drug treatment in the Criminal Justice System. It allowed participants to tell their story without preconceived ideas or hypotheses, putting their voice at the centre of the stage. The study uses feedback from the ground to make informed recommendations for practice.

Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) be Used With Focus Groups? Navigating the Bumpy Road of “Iterative Loops,” Idiographic Journeys, and “Phenomenological Bridges”

“…There is a gap in the research field involving communitybased offenders who use drugs, who form part of the UK Government (England and Wales) criminal justice strategies (Senker & Green, 2016), in the use of qualitative methods (Hucklesby & Wincup, 2010). Although the wider body of literature on relapse and recovery might have some relevance, it was important to understand whether this resonated with the experiences of this specific participant group.…”

Experiences of care continuity and recovery for people at the interface of primary and secondary mental health care in Wales: a thematic discourse analytic approach

“…For instance, individuals leaving the rehabilitative programme prematurely or in an unplanned way would often lead to full-blown relapses and potentially fatalities due to overdose. These experiences crystallised my interest in recovery, an approach that was often ill-defined but grasped by clients as something fundamentally important for their progression out of addiction and towards a better state of mental health and wellbeing (Anthony, 1993;Deegan, 1988;Senker and Green, 2016). This was also the origin of my comprehension of the concept of care continuity and the relationship it has with recovery.…”

“…This work led to the development of my interest in the concept of 'recovery' which was used as a generic term by clients to describe the various approaches and pathways which they undertook in tackling their mental health and addiction issues (Senker and Green, 2016). I also saw the crucial role of continuous, good quality care in supporting recovery.…”

“…I propose that the concept of floating signifier is highly appropriate for describing the polyvalent concept of recovery , whose meaning has not been fixed by a particular discourse or related agent. Instead, agents construct discourses which are engaged in a process of continual discursive struggle to fix and appropriate the meaning of floating signifiers such as the recovery concept (Bonney and Stickley, 2008;Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002;Laclau and Mouffe, 1085;Senker and Green, 2016). In this case, Hannah attempts to fix the uncertain meaning of recovery by fixing it with the meaning of the particular concrete discursive perspective offered by the Recovery Star.…”

“…The status of recovery as a floating signifier, subject to hegemony in the sense provided by Laclau and Mouffe (1985), can be related to the inherently self-oriented nature of recovery, with its emphasis on individual empowerment and self-sufficiency (Copeland, 2000;Davidson, 2005;McKeith and Burns 2010;Pilgrim and McCranie, 2013). The flexibility and unfixed nature of its significance makes it suitable for highly individualised discursive appropriations and interpretations of its meaning (Senker and Green, 2016). I regard these appropriations as types of low-level hegemony enacted by service users and workers at the ground-level as they seek to interpret paradigms, theories and policies of recovery (Lipsky, 1980).…”