The article reviews the book "Children in Genocide: Extreme Traumatization and Affect Regulation," by Suzanne Kaplan

Roderick, Carol

OCAD University Open Research Repository

OCAD University Open Research Repository
Faculty  and  Curriculum  Developmen t  Cent re
2010  
Book  review:  Children  in  genocide:  
Extreme  trauma t iza t ion  and  affect  
regula t ion
Roderick,  Carol  
Sug g e s t e d  citat io n:  
Roderick,  Carol  (2010)  Book  review:  Children  in  genocide:  Extreme  
traum a t iza tion  and  affect  regula tion.  Grounded  Theory  Review,  9  (3).  pp.  57-
61.  ISSN  15561542  Available  at  http://open r e s e a r c h .oca d u .ca /id/ep rin t /1490/
Open  Research  is  a publicly  accessible,  curated  repository  for  the  preservation  and  
disse mination  of  scholarly  and  creative  output  of  the  OCAD  Universi ty  com mu ni t y .  
Material  in  Open  Research  is  open  access  and  made  available  via  the  consen t  of  the  
author  and/or  rights  holder  on  a non- exclusive  basis.  
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 
57 
 
 
Book Review: Kaplan, S. (2008).Children in 
Genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect 
regulation, London: International 
Psychoanalysis Library 
Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. 
 
In Children in Genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect 
regulation (2008), Suzanne Kaplan explores the affects and 
memories of individuals who have survived extreme 
traumatization during their childhood, specifically Jewish 
survivors of the Holocaust and teenagers who survived the 
genocide in Rwanda in 1994. In the introduction, Kaplan explains 
that she has aimed to “write a text that can, to the greatest 
extent possible, convey a fraction of the feeling of what it meant 
to be a child during a genocide” (Kaplan, 2008, p.1). The majority 
of the book is devoted to presenting an analysis of the oral life 
histories of the survivors interviewed. The experiences are 
organized into three themes: 1) perforating, how the psychic 
shield is has been perforated by intense trauma; 2) space 
creating, the inner psychic processes through which the 
persecuted create mental space helps to survive the psychological 
damage and trauma; and 3) age distorting, a twisting of time that 
results in participants not feeling their actual chronological age. 
Age distorting is presented as containing aspects of perforating 
and space creating, and is linked to reproductive patterns of the 
survivors. A chronology of genocide events is used to organize 
these themes, through which the life histories of participants are 
presented in rich descriptive detail. Kaplan focuses both on the 
content of the interviews conducted as well as how the memories 
of the atrocities survived were recounted (the affects). The text 
provides readers with a glimpse into lived experience of these 
horrors in a manner that can only be achieved through narrative.  
The analysis of the life histories is presented as a theory in 
the final chapter, From conceptual models to a theory. Here, 
concepts previously presented as life histories are reorganized 
into a table and then into a diagram. The diagram represents 
Kaplan’s theory, the affect propellor. The affect propeller is 
offered as an analytic tool for the affect regulating of extremely 
traumatized individuals. Trauma linking, an inner psychological 
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 
58 
 
consequence of perforating, is contrasted with generational 
linking, the result of successful space creating. These four 
concepts are associated with levels of affect regulation, from low 
to high integration. These levels include affect invading, affect 
isolating, affect activating, and affect symbolizing. Each level of 
affect regulation is assigned one blade of the affect propeller 
diagram. Each blade is subdivided into three levels of linking 
processes two levels of trauma linking (destructive) and one of 
generational linking (constructive). The blades rotate around the 
center of affect regulating.  
Kaplan claims to have used grounded theory methodology for 
this research. Grounded theory is a complete package from 
collection, coding, analyzing, memoing, theoretical sampling, 
sorting, writing, and using the constant comparative method 
(Glaser, 1998). The result is a set of carefully grounded, well 
integrated hypotheses organized around a core category. The 
theory helps to explain as much of the behavior within the 
substantive area as possible with as few concepts as possible 
(Glaser, 1978).  
Kaplan’s theory falls short of a classic grounded theory in a 
variety of ways, three of which I will address here. The goal of 
grounded theory is to uncover a main concern of individuals and 
how these individuals attempt to resolve or process this concern 
(Glaser, 1998). This contrasts with qualitative research methods 
where the goal is description. The author states that the aim of 
her research was to present the life histories of individuals who 
have survived genocide and to communicate what it means to be 
a child during genocide. This aim aligns with the goal of 
qualitative research rather than the goal of grounded theory. 
Data collection within the current study reflects qualitative 
research methods rather than those of grounded theory. 
Interviews followed an in-depth open ended format: “For the 
majority it seemed to be the first time that they found themselves 
in an interview situation in which they were asked to talk about 
their whole life from the beginning to the present day, in the 
absence, generally speaking, of any time limit” (Kaplan, 2008, 
p.21). This contrasts with grounded theory data collection in 
which the research aims to move quickly away from descriptive 
details to abstract concepts and patterns within the data (Glaser, 
1992). While initial interviews within grounded theory are 
unstructured, data collection becomes increasingly focused over 
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 
59 
 
time. Participants are sought out for theoretical sampling 
purposes so that the researcher can test out hypotheses as they 
emerge, and constantly compare incidents in incoming data with 
existing incidents, codes, categories and relationships between 
concepts in the emerging theory (Glaser 1978). Theoretical 
sampling focuses and delimits data collection. Theoretical 
sampling allows the researcher to move her research to higher 
conceptual levels and eventually recognize the emerging theory. 
Proceeding to collect data through open ended descriptive 
interviews limits the ability of the research to theoretically 
sample, take the study to a conceptual level, or to test out and 
develop hypotheses relevant to the core concern and its 
resolution.  
A grounded theory study is delimited to a core concern of the 
participants and how the participants attempt to resolve or 
process this concern (Glaser, 1978). In contrast to qualitative 
research, a grounded theory does not aim for full coverage of 
participants’ experiences. Kaplan acknowledges that she did not 
delimit her research, “I have tried to bring out as many ideas 
concerning phenomena as possible in order to arrive at broad 
picture of interviewee’s memories… I have not have not stopped 
at the high-frequency responses which, as I see it, would not give 
a complete elucidation of the interviewees’ life histories since the 
study is not based on a random sample. Morevoer, information 
can be lost with such an approach” (Kaplan, 2008, p.55). Rather 
than full coverage or focusing on high frequency responses, the 
grounded theory researcher samples, codes, and employs constant 
comparison to until he finds that incidents in the data are 
interchangeable, they keep indicating the same concepts, and 
saturation is achieved (Glaser, 1998). The unwillingness to focus 
on a main concern can lead to the development of many 
interesting concepts, but is very difficult, if not impossible, for the 
relationships between these concepts to be explored and 
developed into a well integrated grounded theory.  
A feature that distinguishes grounded theory from 
qualitative research is theoretical codes. Theoretical codes 
explain how the substantive codes relate to each other. 
Theoretical codes clarify the logic of the theory, remove non 
relevant variables, and integrate the theory (Glaser, 2005; Glaser 
& Strauss, 1967). It may be argued that the propeller is the 
theoretical code of this study. The propeller, however, while 
serving as a diagrammatic aid, does not explain well the 
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 
60 
 
relationships between the various concepts in the study. The 
relationships between concepts are described as associations: “I 
perceive associative connections between perforating, space 
creating, and age distorting, which have led to a conceptual 
model” (Kaplan, 2008, p.57). These are not clear or well-
established, suggesting that they have not been checked 
thoroughly using the constant comparative method. The result is 
a lack of integration and coherence.  
Since Kaplan did not fully use the grounded theory package 
to conduct her research, the outcome is not a classic grounded 
theory. As Glaser warns, “grounded theory being laced with QDA 
procedures and descriptive capture lads to multiple blocks on 
conceptual grounded theory” (p.4, Glaser, 2003). Kaplan’s 
research, while not a grounded theory, is well-worth reading. The 
research contributes new concepts and understanding of the lived 
experiences of individuals who were children during the 
Holocaust and during the Rwanda genocide in 1994.  
 
Author: 
Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. 
Centre for Academic and Instructional Development 
Saint Mary’s University 
Halifax, NS 
E-mail: carol.roderick@smu.ca  
 
 
The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 
61 
 
References 
Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the 
methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: 
Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: 
Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and 
discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B.G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: 
Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. 
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B.G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: 
Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded 
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: 
Adline Publishing Company. 
Kaplan, S. (2008). Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization 
and affect regulation. London, UK: International 
Pyschoanalytical Association. 
Copyright of Grounded Theory Review is the property of Sociology Press and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.


Book review: Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation

OCAD University Open Research RepositoryFaculty and Curriculum Development Centre2010 Book review: Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulationRoderick, Carol Suggested citation: Roderick, Carol (2010) Book review: Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation. Grounded Theory Review, 9 (3). pp. 57-61. ISSN 15561542 Available at http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/1490/Open Research is a publicly accessible, curated repository for the preservation and dissemination of scholarly and creative output of the OCAD University community. Material in Open Research is open access and made available via the consent of the author and/or rights holder on a non-exclusive basis. The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 57   Book Review: Kaplan, S. (2008).Children in Genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation, London: International Psychoanalysis Library Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D.  In Children in Genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation (2008), Suzanne Kaplan explores the affects and memories of individuals who have survived extreme traumatization during their childhood, specifically Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and teenagers who survived the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. In the introduction, Kaplan explains that she has aimed to “write a text that can, to the greatest extent possible, convey a fraction of the feeling of what it meant to be a child during a genocide” (Kaplan, 2008, p.1). The majority of the book is devoted to presenting an analysis of the oral life histories of the survivors interviewed. The experiences are organized into three themes: 1) perforating, how the psychic shield is has been perforated by intense trauma; 2) space creating, the inner psychic processes through which the persecuted create mental space helps to survive the psychological damage and trauma; and 3) age distorting, a twisting of time that results in participants not feeling their actual chronological age. Age distorting is presented as containing aspects of perforating and space creating, and is linked to reproductive patterns of the survivors. A chronology of genocide events is used to organize these themes, through which the life histories of participants are presented in rich descriptive detail. Kaplan focuses both on the content of the interviews conducted as well as how the memories of the atrocities survived were recounted (the affects). The text provides readers with a glimpse into lived experience of these horrors in a manner that can only be achieved through narrative.  The analysis of the life histories is presented as a theory in the final chapter, From conceptual models to a theory. Here, concepts previously presented as life histories are reorganized into a table and then into a diagram. The diagram represents Kaplan’s theory, the affect propellor. The affect propeller is offered as an analytic tool for the affect regulating of extremely traumatized individuals. Trauma linking, an inner psychological The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 58  consequence of perforating, is contrasted with generational linking, the result of successful space creating. These four concepts are associated with levels of affect regulation, from low to high integration. These levels include affect invading, affect isolating, affect activating, and affect symbolizing. Each level of affect regulation is assigned one blade of the affect propeller diagram. Each blade is subdivided into three levels of linking processes two levels of trauma linking (destructive) and one of generational linking (constructive). The blades rotate around the center of affect regulating.  Kaplan claims to have used grounded theory methodology for this research. Grounded theory is a complete package from collection, coding, analyzing, memoing, theoretical sampling, sorting, writing, and using the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1998). The result is a set of carefully grounded, well integrated hypotheses organized around a core category. The theory helps to explain as much of the behavior within the substantive area as possible with as few concepts as possible (Glaser, 1978).  Kaplan’s theory falls short of a classic grounded theory in a variety of ways, three of which I will address here. The goal of grounded theory is to uncover a main concern of individuals and how these individuals attempt to resolve or process this concern (Glaser, 1998). This contrasts with qualitative research methods where the goal is description. The author states that the aim of her research was to present the life histories of individuals who have survived genocide and to communicate what it means to be a child during genocide. This aim aligns with the goal of qualitative research rather than the goal of grounded theory. Data collection within the current study reflects qualitative research methods rather than those of grounded theory. Interviews followed an in-depth open ended format: “For the majority it seemed to be the first time that they found themselves in an interview situation in which they were asked to talk about their whole life from the beginning to the present day, in the absence, generally speaking, of any time limit” (Kaplan, 2008, p.21). This contrasts with grounded theory data collection in which the research aims to move quickly away from descriptive details to abstract concepts and patterns within the data (Glaser, 1992). While initial interviews within grounded theory are unstructured, data collection becomes increasingly focused over The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 59  time. Participants are sought out for theoretical sampling purposes so that the researcher can test out hypotheses as they emerge, and constantly compare incidents in incoming data with existing incidents, codes, categories and relationships between concepts in the emerging theory (Glaser 1978). Theoretical sampling focuses and delimits data collection. Theoretical sampling allows the researcher to move her research to higher conceptual levels and eventually recognize the emerging theory. Proceeding to collect data through open ended descriptive interviews limits the ability of the research to theoretically sample, take the study to a conceptual level, or to test out and develop hypotheses relevant to the core concern and its resolution.  A grounded theory study is delimited to a core concern of the participants and how the participants attempt to resolve or process this concern (Glaser, 1978). In contrast to qualitative research, a grounded theory does not aim for full coverage of participants’ experiences. Kaplan acknowledges that she did not delimit her research, “I have tried to bring out as many ideas concerning phenomena as possible in order to arrive at broad picture of interviewee’s memories… I have not have not stopped at the high-frequency responses which, as I see it, would not give a complete elucidation of the interviewees’ life histories since the study is not based on a random sample. Morevoer, information can be lost with such an approach” (Kaplan, 2008, p.55). Rather than full coverage or focusing on high frequency responses, the grounded theory researcher samples, codes, and employs constant comparison to until he finds that incidents in the data are interchangeable, they keep indicating the same concepts, and saturation is achieved (Glaser, 1998). The unwillingness to focus on a main concern can lead to the development of many interesting concepts, but is very difficult, if not impossible, for the relationships between these concepts to be explored and developed into a well integrated grounded theory.  A feature that distinguishes grounded theory from qualitative research is theoretical codes. Theoretical codes explain how the substantive codes relate to each other. Theoretical codes clarify the logic of the theory, remove non relevant variables, and integrate the theory (Glaser, 2005; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It may be argued that the propeller is the theoretical code of this study. The propeller, however, while serving as a diagrammatic aid, does not explain well the The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 60  relationships between the various concepts in the study. The relationships between concepts are described as associations: “I perceive associative connections between perforating, space creating, and age distorting, which have led to a conceptual model” (Kaplan, 2008, p.57). These are not clear or well-established, suggesting that they have not been checked thoroughly using the constant comparative method. The result is a lack of integration and coherence.  Since Kaplan did not fully use the grounded theory package to conduct her research, the outcome is not a classic grounded theory. As Glaser warns, “grounded theory being laced with QDA procedures and descriptive capture lads to multiple blocks on conceptual grounded theory” (p.4, Glaser, 2003). Kaplan’s research, while not a grounded theory, is well-worth reading. The research contributes new concepts and understanding of the lived experiences of individuals who were children during the Holocaust and during the Rwanda genocide in 1994.   Author: Carol Roderick, M.Ed., Ph.D. Centre for Academic and Instructional Development Saint Mary’s University Halifax, NS E-mail: carol.roderick@smu.ca    The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.3 61  References Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Adline Publishing Company. Kaplan, S. (2008). Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation. London, UK: International Pyschoanalytical Association. Copyright of Grounded Theory Review is the property of Sociology Press and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/1490/1/Roderick_Review_2010.pdf

Book review: Children in genocide: Extreme traumatization and affect regulation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OCAD University Open Research Repository

OCAD University Open Research Repository

OCAD University Open Research Repository