Detailansicht zu WAA-910E 🇺🇸 v7.0
Sprachversionen
| Sprache | Datei | Version | Band | Titel | DOI + Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇪 | WAA-910D | 4.0a | 15 | Grenzen der autoethnographischen Falldokumentation – Methodische Reflexion zum Fall Yenifer/Yenny | ¦ |
| 🇺🇸 | WAA-910E | 15 | Limitations of Autoethnographic Case Documentation – Methodological Reflection on the Yenifer/Yenny Case | ¦ |
Dokumentdetails: 🇺🇸 WAA-910E
Version: (Datum: )
YAML-Daten von WAA-910E
| Schlüssel | Wert |
|---|---|
| wa_id | WAA-910E |
| wb_band | WB_01E |
| title | WAA-910E: Limitations of Autoethnographic Case Documentation – Methodological Reflection on the Yenifer/Yenny Case |
| author | Thor Alexander (ORCID: 0009-0007-8347-0962, 🔗 https://osf.io/snmx5/) |
| version | Version 4.0 dated 2026-05-25 |
| footline | WAA-910E: Limitations of Documentation (V4.0) |
| abstract | This document reflects on the methodological limitations of the case documentation on Yenifer/Yenny (structural dissociation type 2). It addresses the subjective perspective of the companion, the lack of clinical primary data, the interpretative dependence of core concepts, selection and confirmation biases, the role of AI as an analytical tool, and the limited generalizability. The goal is transparency, not devaluation. This document is aimed at critical readers and reviewers. This is an unpublished manuscript and part of Volume 01 of the WA Handbook on Structural Dissociation Type 2. |
| keywords | structural dissociation, type 2, methodological critique, autoethnography, single-case study, limitations, qualitative research, AI, transparency, Yenifer, Yenny, CPTSD, WA Handbook, integrative case example, resonance phenomena, preverbal phenomena, non-clinical companion, long-term accompaniment, lighthouse strategy, phenomenological description |
Kapitel 1 von WAA-910E
## 1. Introduction – Why a methodological boundary reflection is necessary
The present case documentation on the Yenifer/Yenny case is a single-case study from the perspective of a non-clinical companion. It does not claim to meet the gold standard of empirical research – randomized controlled trials, objective measurements, external perspectives. It is what it is: the meticulous, multi-month record of a singular process from the internal perspective of the one who experiences it and simultaneously reflects upon it.
Such an autoethnographic approach has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages lie in the depth, the temporal density, and the access to preverbal phenomena (resonance, bodily synchronization) that would remain invisible in a standardized clinical examination. The disadvantages are the subject of this document.
The methodological limitations are presented up front to show reviewers and critical readers that the author is aware of them. This document is not an apology for lack of rigor, but an invitation to read critically. It is intended to help classify the work – neither over- nor underestimate it.
According to the guidelines of the WA Handbook, each WA document contains a chapter “Limitations and open questions”. In the present document, however, these limitations are not summarized in a single chapter but distributed throughout the entire methodological reflection – which corresponds to the nature of a comprehensive boundary discussion.
---
The present case documentation on the Yenifer/Yenny case is a single-case study from the perspective of a non-clinical companion. It does not claim to meet the gold standard of empirical research – randomized controlled trials, objective measurements, external perspectives. It is what it is: the meticulous, multi-month record of a singular process from the internal perspective of the one who experiences it and simultaneously reflects upon it.
Such an autoethnographic approach has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages lie in the depth, the temporal density, and the access to preverbal phenomena (resonance, bodily synchronization) that would remain invisible in a standardized clinical examination. The disadvantages are the subject of this document.
The methodological limitations are presented up front to show reviewers and critical readers that the author is aware of them. This document is not an apology for lack of rigor, but an invitation to read critically. It is intended to help classify the work – neither over- nor underestimate it.
According to the guidelines of the WA Handbook, each WA document contains a chapter “Limitations and open questions”. In the present document, however, these limitations are not summarized in a single chapter but distributed throughout the entire methodological reflection – which corresponds to the nature of a comprehensive boundary discussion.
---