There are currently a number of criteria available to help judge the quality of qualitative research (e.g., Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992; Elliott et al., 1999).
Generally these quality criteria are based around clear and logical presentation of analyses, which are grounded in data, and take account of the researcher’s personal views and opinions (Willig, 2008; Yardley, 2000). The present research is informed by the evaluation criteria of qualitative research presented by Elliot et al. (1999). These criteria include evaluations of presentation and contribution to knowledge, shared across quantitative and qualitative methodology, but also incorporate criteria specific to qualitative work. These qualitative criteria include coherence and integration of analyses; systematic and comprehensive analyses; a disclosure of the researcher’s reflexivity and ultimately that the analyses should be presented so as to stimulate resonance with the reader (Elliot et al., 1999).
The work was be evaluated in light of its epistemological position, specifically critical realism, following the guidance of Madill, Jordan and Shirley (2000).
Accordingly, the work aimed to demonstrably ground both interviewee accounts and analyses in the conditions in which they were produced, by providing interviewee accounts alongside discussion in the analysis and discussion points.
I also aim to provide a clear reflection on the research procedure, limitations and my own reflection, so that the reader themselves can evaluate the work given its research questions, epistemological stance, and likely impact of my reading of the data in the production of themes. The Loughborough Discourse and Rhetoric group’s guidance on avoiding common pitfalls in discourse analysis was also used to organise and appraise this work (Antaki, Billig, Edwards & Potter, 2003).
Extended Analysis and Discussion 3.1. Section introduction
The following section aims to orientate the reader to the findings outlined in the journal article, and contextualise these and other themes within the wider analyses of interviews and text combined. Three main interconnecting themes arose in the analysis of semi-structured interviews: A loss of control, good vs.
bad sex, and the cultural imperative to intervene in sexual addiction. These three themes were also pervasive within the language used by Patrick Carnes’
within his seminal text ‘Out of the Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction’
(Carnes, 2001), and the items of the Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST-R;
Carnes et al., 2010). In this section these three related topics will be expanded on. Given the focus of the research paper, and in order to avoid repetition, the loss of control theme is presented purely from text analysis here, though the good vs. bad sex and cultural imperative themes are presented using both interview and text data.
The aim of this section is to outline and describe some of the constructions of sexual addiction, and how they make available seeing and ways-of-being to sex addicts and non-addicts. These presented constructions and subject positioning stem from the reading and re-reading of interview transcripts and text whilst drawing on wider research literature. I have sought to increase the quality of the analysis through the quality criteria outlined above (Elliott et al., 1999); though do not propose that this analysis includes all readings of the possible stories and positions available. Indeed the limitations on scope and word count of this work have meant I have had to be selective in what is presented. Likewise, my personal experience will have undoubtedly guided my reading of the data. It is hoped that this analysis offers a useful and interesting opening to exploring prevailing constructions of sexual addiction and their consequent implications for those who identify with this positioning.
3.2. Topics
Interviewees and Carnes’ description of sex addiction and in the text are complex and multifaceted, though can be summarised into several
‘macropositions’ or topics (van Dijk, 2009). As with other literature on addiction (e.g., Benford & Gough, 2006; West, 2010), a loss of control is central in discursive constructions of sex addiction. This discourse utilises biomedical constructions of genetic vulnerability to addiction, but also carries a morally prescribed need for self-control and self-discipline. Foucault describes discipline as a power to control and arrange, and as typically established through external agencies, manifest today in institutions such as medicine and contemporary psychiatry (Foucault, 1977). Disciplinary power involves normalisation, i.e. the construction of an idealised norm of conduct, and the reward or punishment of those who conform or deviate from this ideal. The construction of a normalised or ‘good’ sex is apparent in both Carnes’ and addicts’ definition of sexual behaviour. This assimilated constructions of control and discipline as essential to uphold personal identity within the construction of hetero-normative and monogamous ideals, promoted by wider legislative and socio-political institutions.
Constructions of deviations from this norm, i.e. ‘bad’ sex, are seen as morally problematic, and for the most part addicts’ constructions denoting addictive sexual behaviour incorporate notions of dirt and danger (Benford & Gough, 2006). Indeed ‘bad’ sexual behaviour is read as capable of generating fear, shame, and guilt in the sinful and secretive sexual addict, amplified by the expected judgement from the unaccepting, unforgiving public. The dirt and danger of addictive sexual behaviour also carry the inherent risk of psychological and physical harm. As a consequence the introductory chapters to Carnes’ books construct sex addiction as carrying inevitable negative consequences, indeed ‘a moment’ is said to come for every addict.
Interviewees identifying as sex addicts typically used a personal story narrative to recount comparable ‘moments’, and wider experiences of addiction and their path towards recovery (Wenger, 1998). These narratives typically involved several discursive strategies to construct fact and manage issues of accountability (Potter, 1996).
To manage the conflict between behaviour and assumed personal and social aspirations, the addict was repeatedly positioned using constructions of secrecy or rebellion, to avoid or reject societal rules. This positioning fosters discourses of impulsivity, self-indulgence, and weaknesses to construct the “insane” addict, unaware of this conflict (Carnes, 2001). Addicts’ similarly drew upon discourses of impulsivity, profligacy and selfishness to account for their sex addiction.
Paralleling medical and psychological discourses of disease and distress the addict was also often constructed as a sufferer of a tangible biological and/or psychological malady. These discourses further serve to bolster the positioning of the addict as unhealthy and disconnected from reality. This passive patient-type positioning promoted the reciprocal role of rescuer or medical expert to aid the addict (Berne, 1975).
The scope of the sex addicts’ role as responsible social actors appears to be limited by their awareness and control of their desire and behaviour. The active addict subject positioning contradicts the subject positioning of the ‘free-agent’
associated with careful deliberation and consideration of the potential ‘bad’
effects and consequences of action on the self (Willig, 2008). This fuelled a construction of a sociocultural imperative to intervene in sexual addiction. For example, the exponential rise in access to pornography via the Internet is constructed as a catalyst for sexual addiction in future generations, which necessitates a greater urgency for experts and wider society to acknowledge, prevent and manage sexual addiction.
The following sections present these discursive themes in detail. Though they are presented under individual sub-headings, it should be noted that they are interconnecting and overlapping in constructing and positioning the sex addict.