↓ Skip to main content

Remembering Collective Violence: Broadening the Notion of Traumatic Memory in Post-Conflict Rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Remembering Collective Violence: Broadening the Notion of Traumatic Memory in Post-Conflict Rehabilitation
Published in
Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11013-016-9490-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Kevers, Peter Rober, Ilse Derluyn, Lucia De Haene

Abstract

In the aftermath of war and armed conflict, individuals and communities face the challenge of dealing with recollections of violence and atrocity. This article aims to contribute to a better understanding of processes of remembering and forgetting histories of violence in post-conflict communities and to reflect on related implications for trauma rehabilitation in post-conflict settings. Starting from the observation that memory operates at the core of PTSD symptomatology, we more closely explore how this notion of traumatic memory is conceptualized within PTSD-centered research and interventions. Subsequently, we aim to broaden this understanding of traumatic memory and post-trauma care by connecting to findings from social memory studies and transcultural trauma research. Drawing on an analysis of scholarly literature, this analysis develops into a perspective on memory that moves beyond a symptomatic framing toward an understanding of memory that emphasizes its relational, political, moral, and cultural nature. Post-conflict memory is presented as inextricably embedded in communal relations, involving ongoing trade-offs between individual and collective responses to trauma and a complex negotiation of speech and silence. In a concluding discussion, we develop implications of this broadened understanding for post-conflict trauma-focused rehabilitation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 33%
Psychology 17 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Unspecified 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,435,037
of 12,340,287 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry
#139
of 414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,880
of 281,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,340,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.