A Narrative Inquiry into Counsellor Trainees' Experiences of Working with Trauma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With the increased attention paid towards the effects of trauma work on counsellors and psychologists in the last 35 years, a singular narrative has emerged that has deemed it a risky practice, leaving one susceptible to vicarious trauma, burnout, compassion fatigue, and a number of other possible negative consequences, and leaving very little space for alternative stories. From this dominant narrative, and my personal experiences during counsellor training, the research puzzle emerged. Coming alongside three counsellor trainees in a PhD counselling psychology program in Canada, I inquired into counsellor trainees’ experiences of working with trauma, while paying attention to social, cultural, institutional, and familial narratives (Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007) within which our experiences are nested. Attending to earlier landscapes that have shaped our views of trauma and trauma work, and experiences within and outside counsellor education programs, we co-composed narrative accounts to build understanding of our experiences. I explored with participants, “how have your past experiences shaped the way you approach trauma survivors? How have you been shaped by your experiences of working with trauma survivors?” Learning about the storied experiences of counsellor trainees was done with the aim of understanding how counsellor training programs can better facilitate personal and professional growth and development in counsellor trainees, and support students as they begin to learn about and encounter clients who have experienced trauma. Drawing on narrative inquiry, and the understanding that we lead storied lives (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006), I understand that individuals shape their lives through stories they live and tell and that are told about them and others. Situating our experiences in the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (sociality, temporality, and place), (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), opened up possibilities to ground our experiences contextually, and attend to different aspects of our experiences that shaped how we each came to learn and understand trauma as it lived in our own lives and the lives of our clients. From looking across the stories of participants emerged four narrative threads: (1) coming to construct what it means to have experienced trauma in different ways; (2) using the trauma lens to reflect on our own lives; (3) storying trauma into our personal and professional lives; and (4) making sense of trauma and vicarious trauma in the silences. Identifying these threads brought to light important considerations for how we teach about trauma and trauma work within counsellor education programs. They opened up new wonders and questions about trauma and vicarious trauma that would be applicable for consideration by professors in counsellor education programs, counsellor trainees, and clinical supervisors. The findings elucidated the importance of finding spaces to share stories within counsellor education programs, engaging in discussions about boundaries in counselling work, and attending to intersecting identities of counsellor trainees. Implications for supervision were also discussed, including defining the scope of supervision and creating spaces for discussions about the effects of trauma work. Additionally, the many misconceptions about vicarious trauma were notable and provided a clear and necessary need for improvement in teaching and supervision in counsellor training programs. Attending to these various aspects within counsellor training programs is pivotal towards heping students manage distress in their work and better prepare as they enter the field and engage in trauma work.
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 | 0,011 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».