Many midcentury continental philosophers, most notably Martin Heidegger (1889--1976), were skeptical about and critical of using technology to mediate human activities. Telephones and computers not only simplify communication, they transform communication (and humans along with it). Postphenomenology is an emerging qualitative research group that examines the transformation of humans by technology. Led by the American philosopher Don Idhe, postphenomenologists maintain that this change is neither bad nor good. Martin Heidegger, however, around whom new and exciting healthcare research is being done, would disagree. There is no discovery without a simultaneous covering. The authors examine whether something of importance is, indeed, covered up when qualitative researchers rely on technology. A three-year international qualitative study on PTSD with active-duty military, which relied heavily on technology, is used to examine the strengths and weaknesses of combining technology with phenomenological healthcare research.

The Introduction provides the context of contemporary antislavery movement, the value and source of survivor narratives, an explanation of the methodology adopted, and overview of the books aims and contents.

Chapter 1 sets the scene for contemporary slave narratives, including comparisons to historic slave narratives. The chapter argues that a failure to look at the lessons of the past in the gathering and representation of narratives has limited the capacity for narratives to be employed effectively today. In this chapter, it is argued that different approaches to interview methods and narrative representation are an important step in reconfiguring the way narratives are gathered for the purposes of abolition and survivor growth. The chapter explores the means by which contemporary narratives are gathered and presented, the roles and responsibilities of the interviewer and listener, and examine present challenges to the credibility of survivor accounts. It moves on to explore the power that narratives have for survivors and the value of adopting interview methods that enable rich testimony, to inform policy, and which allow for the intellectual and emotional growth of survivors.

This chapter provides an introductory coverage of the major issues involved in designing and executing sociolinguistic research with a focus on spoken Arabic in natural settings. It explains the concept of the observer’s paradox and suggests methods to reduce its effects in sociolinguistic interviews. It covers ethnographic, qualitative, and quantitative methods. The use of dependent and independent variables is explained in detail, with a focus on age as a social variable. The chapter ends with ethical considerations as an integral part of research and research conduct.

In this Introduction, we meet two fixer–reporter teams who cover the same event – a terrorism attack in Istanbul – in very different ways. Fixers are news contributors who assist foreign reporters by arranging, translating, and otherwise mediating between them and local news sources. Depending on a fixer’s background, aspirations, and relationship with their client reporter, they can shape the news in significant ways. To understand how and why fixers shape the news, attention to political, historical, and biographical contexts of newsmaking is essential. The Introduction goes on to explain that the fixer and reporter characters who appear in this book are composite characters created from data collected through ethnographic research.

Chapter 3 reflects on the unintended consequences of fieldwork in polarized societies, which may affect the autonomy of both the researcher and the researched. In a context of past violence and intractable conflict, research participants often have concerns about how the research impacts the autonomy of their daily life by potentially compromising their safety. On the other hand, research participants may try to make use of the researcher for their own political and economic objectives, compromising the autonomy of the project. In analyzing the simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment of research participants, the chapter discusses the methodological and ethical challenges of power and neutrality during fieldwork and joins others in showing that conflict research needs to be understood as a form of intervention in local affairs.

Psychopathic Personality Disorder (PPD) plays a central role in forensic clinical practice. It has relevance for violence risk and treatment responsivity; those suffering from it place financial and other burdens on services. PPD remains a controverted concept; the essence of the disorder remains disputed. In this chapter I examine the history of the concept, methods for its evaluation, its demography and its relevance to clinical practice—from the first interview, through risk formulation to intervention. I describe recent attempts to explicate the concept of the PPD, including the development of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). I conclude by considering current controversies regarding the diagnostic significance of criminal behaviour, the predictive utility of historical instruments such as the Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the reliability of that instrument in forensic clinical practice.

Responding to a controversy regarding young witnesses’ legal testimony in cases of child abuse, Professor Ornstein implemented a program of research designed to inform the assessment of children’s reports of forensically relevant events. This chapter provides an overview of this extensive work. Following a discussion of the extant scientific and societal contexts, we examine the research paradigm that enabled Ornstein and his colleagues to investigate ethically children’s reports of real-world, sometimes stressful experiences under conditions of experimental control. Next, we describe differences in the event reports provided by children between the ages of 3 and 7 as documented in this research, and explore the underlying explanations for these differences. We continue with an examination of the contributions of Ornstein and his colleagues for obtaining and evaluating children’s eyewitness testimony, and discuss some continuing challenges for understanding children’s memory for salient experiences.