Orientation on ‘Visions of the Good’: A Narrative Analysis of Life Stories of Patients with Personality Disorders
Peter Antes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Lines 21-23 seem to indicate that the struggle for meaning in life is equivalent for those with personality disorders, rather than a universal problem that has a distinct flavor for this population. Clarifying whether PD faces a different kind of struggle for meaning seems important from the outset.
39-41: You do a good job of summing up how you're using "meaning of life" and why.
48-64: The importance of grasping life as a whole is important, but James Hillman would suggest that image, rather than narrative, is a better approach. Narrative is hardly a simple answer or alternative to a tripartite model, as Ricoeur's Oneself as Another attests. Narrative is a dynamic process, rather than an image which presents the part-as-whole.
80-85: These lines provide a useful transition toward your focal questions and use of Taylor
86-89: ...although you seem to open the door to a different 3 part model, just not the one critiqued in the literature.
104-117: This is useful framing. You show how it is the process of knowing one's orientation and relative location on a plane that goes beyond the self, with Taylor offering an ongoing set of helpful terms.
121-125: This offers a good presentation of your innovative approach. More clarity on how this is/is not specifically useful to PD would help (i.e.: did this just happen to be the population, or is there something about this theoretical scaffolding that's uniquely beneficial to PD).
195-200: You only list four of the five steps. Why not all five?
205-224: Very clear and useful articulation of how you appropriate Taylor's model with previous understandings to offer something new.
232-243: Really good example of how you're evaluating.
252-275: These again are really lucid examples of how to understand implied goods and their positive/negative function relative to a perspective.
286-289: You show how a similar standard for the good is used to define O and S values.
299-310: This suggests that a structuring framework of the good dissociated from family of origin allows revision of assumption that family is good--which often allows space for more negative thoughts, but can lead to more positive appreciations.
311-364: You do a good job of sorting out relevant data and examples for your reader.
398-404: Great summary through complex material.
446-452: The summary again does a nice job of crystalizing the variety of approaches, with the important element whether positive or negative remaining being the ability to reflect on a good that is a separate framework from their experience.
455-480: This is a long list of slightly different goods, but it doesn't seem possible to shorten them.
480-508: The tables show the data nicely. Suicide as a good to consider or source of peace/tranquility is exposed helpfully. Again: good summary.
508-551: Again, helpful display of relevant data
552-582: Good portrayal of conclusion of first research aim.
630-632: This seems like an important point: I'm glad you reflect on it.
649-663: I appreciate the reflection on limitations and the invitation for follow up opportunities to further develop this.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your review. The feedback is very precise and accurate and the points you make for improvement are very helpful. In response to your review, I’m happy I could improve the article in four ways that I listed here:
- Clarifying why is meaning in life is difficult in a specific way for patients with PD
- Portraying narrative not as a solution for the tripartite model, narrative in this research is a dynamic process, in which the spacious process of orientation is visible.
- Making clear that the three axes used in the analysis are not an attempt to formulate another 3 part model for meaning in life
- Clarifying why the use of the philosophical framework of ‘visions of the good’ is specifically used for this population of patients with PD
In response to two other comments:
- For line 195 there was the question why I didn’t list all 5 steps. As far as I can see I did list the 5thstep in line 224. (in the previous version line 197). I do elaborate a bit more on steps 2 and 3 (not on 1,4 and 5). If this needs more explanation this can be added
- Comment 299-310: about visions of the good about family opted by therapy
This is a good point; in this part the descriptions are only focusing on the results as they were written down by the respondents; in this part we didn’t dive in to the reflection on what kind of framework of the good about parents is offered in therapy and how this can have different kind of effects on the visions of the good about the parents. This would be very interesting for further research, also how this can have the double effect; negative thoughts but positive appreciations.
Again, thank you so much for the review and al the detailed feedback. If there is anything else needed please let me know,
Kind regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Since the article shows a high degree of critical reflections no changes are needed. The authors did an excellent work that needs no corrective comments on my behalf. The article is well documented, balanced and reflected, It also mentions in the conclusion where the limits of this research are so that no further comment is needed on my behalf. The article is in its present form ready for immediate print.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your positive review and the accurate feedback.
Kind regards.
