A Brief History of Psychology and Missions in JPT: Looking Back, Around, and Forward
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Beginning in 1983, the Journal of Psychology and Theology has published four special editions devoted to the topic of psychology and missions; on average, these issues were released at a rate of two per decade (i.e., 1983, 1987, 1993, and 1999). After a 17-year hiatus, this fifth psychology and missions special edition of JPT provides an opportunity to reflect on what we have learned thus far through the almost 70 articles published in JPT since 1973 on the interrelationship of psychological and theological concepts--all to the fulfillment of Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. To do so, we will follow Hall & Schram's (1999) outline in their introductory article to the fourth special edition; looking back to the past to consolidate gains, looking around to the present to note current trends, and looking forward to the future to identify gaps. Looking to the past: Consolidating gains Hall & Schram (1999) noted that since the early 1970s, the field of psychology had firmly established a place for itself in missions work, culminating in the creation of the new missionary discipline of member care, the leveraging of advancements in psychometrics on pre-field psychological assessments, and the promotion of a more robust understanding of the missionary family as a whole, with particular attention being given to missionary children. Indeed, these three gains noted by Hall & Schram back in 1999 continue to be influential to psychology practitioners and researchers involved in missions. Care. O'Donnell (1997), in his seminal article, Member care in missions: Global perspectives and future directions, provided the now frequently referenced definition of the term member care: Member care is the ongoing investment of resources by mission agencies, churches, and other mission organizations for the nurture and development of missionary personnel. It focuses on everyone in missions (missionaries, support staff, children, and families) and does so over the course of the missionary life-cycle, from recruitment through retirement (p. 144). Concurrent with O'Donnell's work were the influential Reducing Missionary Attrition (ReMAP) studies (Taylor, 1997; Bloecher, 2005). Over the eight years between the ReMap I and the ReMAP II studies, the missionary attrition rate among New Sending Countries (e.g. Brazil, Ghana, Philippines, etc.) dropped by 50%; moreover, attrition rates in Older Sending Countries (e.g. Canada, Germany, U.S.A., etc.) remained low, in spite of global trends toward shorter appointments and frequent career changes (Bloecher, 2005). Bloecher (2005) in fact credited the contribution of on-field member care efforts and more comprehensive candidate selection procedures for these improvements in attrition rates. Many of the participants in the ReMAP studies who spoke of the effectiveness of member care efforts were mission agency leaders, rather than the missionaries themselves. To address this gap, Camp, Bustrum, Brokav, and Adams (2014) investigated the effectiveness of current member care practices specifically from the perspective of missionaries. This paper augmented O'Donnell's (1992, 2002, 2011) former depictions of member care by positing that effective member care involves a web of supportive and healthy relationships that facilitate fellowship and growth, consistent investment and support from sending and supporting churches, and personal investment in caring for oneself. As O'Donnell's classic definition of member care has guided much of the member care movement, we are excited to include O'Donnell and Lewis O'Donnell's (2016) latest work on the topic in this special issue, where they speak of member care workers as 'global integrators' who engage the world through multiple sectors. Pre-field psychological assessment. One key finding of ReMAP II (Bloecher, 2005) was the relationship between the thoroughness of an agency's selection procedure (i. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».