MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2620636956

Participatory Critical Incident Technique: A Participatory Action Research Approach for Counselling Psychology/ Technique D'incident Critique Participative : Une Approche De Recherche-Action Participative Pour la Psychologie Du Counseling

2016· article· fr· W2620636956 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Fred Chou, Janelle Kwee, Marla J. Buchanan, Robert Lees

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCommunity Health and Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommunity psychologyParticipatory action researchOppressionPsychologyInjusticeSocial psychologyMental healthSociologyPsychotherapistPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

At the heart of the definition of counselling psychology, which was formally adopted by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) in 2009, is social action and responsibility: concern for the growth, well-being, and mental health of individuals, groups, and communities. This view supports the premise that research and practice are mutually informative and strive to adopt culturally appropriate approaches. Embedded in the core values of counselling psychology are awareness of sociocultural factors and of individual and community strengths as central mechanisms of positive change. CPA's definition of counselling psychology supports developing competencies for facilitating change in populations whose well-being is impacted by systemic circumstances. It offers a vision for counsellors and counselling psychologists to be involved in advocacy in order to promote change at various systemic levels, from micro-levels (individual and family) to macro-levels (community and societal).Social justice is not explicitly stated in CPA's definition of counselling psychology; however, its principles of advocacy and emphasis on social and cultural contexts are embedded in the definition. Although there is no unified definition of social justice, its overall aim is to minimize oppression and injustice in favour of equality, accessibility, and optimal developmental opportunities for all members of society (Kennedy & Arthur, 2014, p. 188). Despite social justice being historically part of Canadian counselling psychology and propositions for a social justice orientation to be integrated in training, research, and practice (see Bedi et al., 2011; Palmer & Parish, 2008; Sinacore, 2011), there is a lack of commitment to action for integrating its principles into practice and research (Kennedy & Arthur, 2014). To address these limitations, this article presents a participatory methodology that incorporates the critical incident technique (CIT) into participatory action research (PAR), methods that are both steeped within counselling psychology in Canada (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005; Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson, 2009; Kidd & Krai, 20051PARis a collaborative research process between researchers and participants that involves the development of mutual and reciprocal goals, research design decisions, data collection, analytical processes for interpretation, and ways of representing and implementing results that raise critical consciousness and promote positive social change for the participating group or community (Reason, as cited in Kidd & Krai, 2005). has been supported as an intervention that encourages individual and collective agency and systemic change (Ho, 2002). According to Kidd and Krai (2005), the principles of align closely with counselling psychology, as the discipline has a history of working with disadvantaged persons and recognizes contextual factors that impact individuals. The approach is valuable because it ensures that perspectives that have traditionally been marginalized or discredited are integrated into the current academic discourse, while ensuring that the research is beneficial to the community that is being studied (Herr & Anderson, 2005)Both Kidd and Krai (2005) and Vera and Speight (2003) call for the utilization of participatory methodologies in counselling psychology research.Arguments against the utilization of are pragmatic and methodological. As Kidd and Krai (2005) stated, amongst qualitative methods, PAR as a research approach may well prove to be among the most difficult to establish and integrate (p. 192). Moreover, is sometimes conducted uncritically-research collaborators from the population of interest in the study are often limited in their contributions, and it has been criticized for seeming unscientific and lacking rigour and reliability (Fleming, 2011; Smith, Monaghan, & Broad, 2002).In light of these concerns, we provide a critical examination of the use of both as a research approach and as an advocacy-based intervention for vulnerable populations. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,059
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,780
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0590,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,661
Tête enseignante GPT0,612
Écart entre enseignants0,049 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapyMême sujetCommunity Health and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207