Faith as a Therapeutic Companion: Instructing Counselling Students on the Import of Religion/La Foi Comme Compagne De la Thérapie : Instruire Les éTudiants En Counseling De L'importance De la Religion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The muzzling of faith in most counselling curricula is a direct by-product of the acrimonious relationship between psychology and religion. religion and spirituality elicit deep feelings in people and because they speak to people's deepest values, practicing psychologists must be careful to approach these processes with knowledge, sensitivity, and care (Pargament, 2013, para. 8). This environment, void of neutrality and defined by strong and passionate opinions, presents unique and challenging dynamics for students who are in the midst of reconciling their personal and professional realities.Care and sensitivity extended to religious clients has been the exception rather than the rule, and their absence was germinated not in the offices of practicing therapists but in the classroom, where instructors frequently present religious beliefs as a therapeutic afterthought. Although psychoanalytic theory does not garner much airtime in counselling programs, the root cause of this dismissive stance toward the impact of religious beliefs in training programs can be traced to a fundamental misinterpretation around a simple question posed by Freud (1927/1961): Wherein lies the peculiar value of religious ideals? (p. 21). I take the stance that Freud was not precluding the value of religion in psychotherapeutic training and practice, but rather was critical of passive, reactive, and regressive theological systems. For educators, this critical engagement is an integral part of any effective pedagogy.Thus, in a fresh context, Freud's (1927/1961) premature closure of the religious question can become a point of debate and self-reflection for students to evaluate their respective views about religion as a therapeutic companion. My experience is that even the most adamant atheists in a counselling cohort are willing to expand the embedded reality of faith in cultural and existential landscapes to the assessments and interventions of counselling. This reality was emphasized by Fromm (1955), who noted that every human being is innately religious in the wider sense of not being able to extract oneself from systems of meaning while also remaining sane.RELIGION AS ACTIVITY VERSUS OBJECTUnderlying the fallacies I address in this article is the core principle of religion as an activity. The majority of counselling programs continue to introduce students to a paradigm of religious life that is archaic, static, and removed from the relevance of daily life. No matter how innovative and accommodating a curriculum might be, instructing religious traditions as static objects undermines any subjective inroads that might be made. When religion enters the counselling classroom as an activity, students are better able to integrate religion and spirituality into their professional evolution. This creates a fluid space for the ineffable mysteries of faith to encounter the unique learning styles of counselling students, a space emphasized by Huxley (1945) as a continuum, a spectrum for meaning otherwise not captured by conventional syntax.Instructionally, the clinical ramifications of this shift are instantaneous. When a student is presented with the historical and contemporary facts about a religion, two very important reference points are established that define the curricular experience. The first involves the reciprocal relationship between a student's sense of self and the religious framework provided. Because the nature of religion automatically incorporates the ontology of the learner, a significant and overlooked consequence develops in which a narrow presentation of religious reality equates to an equally myopic sense of self. The second reference point around the objectified vision of religion involves self-awareness of counselling students projecting their own unexamined and hidden agendas onto their religious clients, making the curricular responsibility of emphasizing student self-awareness all the more important. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».