Regenerative Supervision: A Restorative Approach for Counsellors Impacted by Vicarious Trauma/ Supervision Regenerative : Une Approche Retablissante Pour Les Conseillers Affectes Par Traumatisme Vicariant
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Counsellors who provide services for clients with traumatic material are vulnerable to vicariously experiencing emotional aspects of their clients' experiences (Jordan, 2010). This vicarious experiencing, a phenomenon known as vicarious trauma (VT), can impact the counsellor's personal and professional functioning. Over the last two decades, research has focused on the debilitating impacts of trauma counselling, such as burnout and withdrawal, with a number of articles addressing the cognitive and emotional effects of working as a trauma counsellor (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Fahy, 2007 Harrison & Westwood, 2009). These effects may impact the counsellor's personal and professional functioning (Adams & Riggs, 2008; Branson, Weigand, & Keller, 2013; McCann & Pearlman, 1990; Trippany, Kress, & Wilcoxon, 2004). While much of the literature has discussed hazards related to working with trauma, some authors have also focused on the potential benefits of providing trauma counselling (Harrison & Westwood, 2009; Hernandez, Engstrom, & Gangsei, 2010). These benefits have been identified as outcomes of vicarious posttraumatic growth (VPTG), a phenomenon that occurs in response to processing the client's posttraumatic growth (PTG; Cohen & Collens, 2013). Counselling supervision plays an important role in ameliorating the effects of VT (Harrison & Westwood, 2009) and in facilitating the development of VPTG (Linley & Joseph, 2007). Expressive arts supervision, in particular, appears to have implications for working with supervisees with trauma-laden caseloads.This article provides readers with an overview of VT, identifying and describing symptoms commonly experienced by trauma counsellors. Concepts related to PTG and VPTG will follow. A brief discussion of the specific supervision needs of trauma counsellors will be included, followed by a detailed description of an expressive arts counselling supervision model, known as the regenerative model (RM). This model offers supervisors a framework for structuring supervision sessions to mitigate the effects of VT while eliciting dynamics of VPTG. Case examples are provided to illustrate the supervision process and rationale.VICARIOUS TRAUMA AND POSTTRAUMATIC GROWTHIdentified by McCann and Pearlman in 1990, the term vicarious trauma (VT) denotes the phenomenon of emotional and cognitive shifts counsellors experience when working with clients who have experienced trauma. Examples of these cognitive shifts include disruptions in memory, beliefs, and perceptions of self and others, while emotional shifts may include emotional exhaustion and detachment of the counsellor from the client (Trippany et al., 2004). Over time, continuous exposure to client trauma and the need to consistently empathize with the emotional pain and injustices experienced by some clients may cause counsellors to develop maladaptive coping strategies such as hypervigilance or isolation as ways to protect themselves emotionally. Professionally, VT can manifest itself through counsellors' avoidance of discussing their clients' concerns (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995), thus halting the therapeutic process (Harrison & Westwood, 2009). It may evidence in boundary concerns related to the counsellor's work, such as working too many hours in a day or week, or by the counsellor unintentionally revictimizing his or her clients, debasing the profession, or misdiagnosing clients (Munroe, 1995).Effects on the counsellors' personal lives may include trauma counsellors distancing themselves emotionally from significant people in their lives and isolating from family and friends (Trippany et al., 2004). Counsellors experiencing VT may also experience a generalized sense of fear (Pearlman & Mac Ian, 1995), powerlessness (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995), distrust (Schauben & Frazier, 1995), loss of meaning (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995), psychic numbing (Saakvitne & Pearlman, 1996), nightmares (Adams & Riggs, 2008), or a decrease in sexual desire (Branson et al. …
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».