CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyMental Health via Writing

“What Can We Learn From First-Person Narratives?” The Case of Nonfatal Suicidal Behavior

Bantjes, Jason, Swartz, Leslie·2019·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/1049732319832869
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Responding to the limitations of dominant biomedical quantitative approaches to suicide research, scholars have called for qualitative research documenting first-person narratives of suicide to gain access to the “true experts.” This raises questions about what we can learn about suicide from first-person narratives. In this article, we critically examine the practice of analyzing first-person narratives of nonfatal suicidal behavior to make truth claims about the causes of suicide. We make explicit the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of first-person narratives and draw on research within cognitive neuropsychology and social psychology to explore how memory processes, perception, and attribution errors might influence the way individuals narrate their experience. We employ literature from narrative theory and life-writing to argue that narratives about nonfatal suicidal behavior are at best partial accounts which are constructed within very particular circumstances, making it impossible to interpret them as revealing the true causes of suicide.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732319832869

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These narrative accounts were inevitably affected by the interview context and the many heuristics known to affect human memory recall.

    “While these narrative accounts provided a valuable window into the participants’ sense-making of their experiences, they were also inevitably affected by the interview context and the many heuristics known to affect human memory recall [38].”

    From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bantjes, J., & Swartz, L.
Affiliations
Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Bantjes, Jason
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-03-02
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
1497-1507
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/1049732319832869
OpenAlex
W2918836003
Cited by
32
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
South African Medical Research Council (Career Development Grant)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
first-person narration, suicide research, truth claims, memory processes, attribution error, perception, narrative theory, life writing, causes of suicide, qualitative versus quantitative research, cognitive neuropsychology
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Humans, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Qualitative Research, Personal Narratives as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review