Inside the Circle 2025: Exploring the Ontario CPE Supervisors' Lived Experience of the Interpersonal Relations Group Process Portion of CPE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research used a philosophical phenomenological (primarily Gadamer) methodology and asked the question, “What is the lived experience of Ontario Clinical Psychospiritual Education (CPE) Supervisors in the Interpersonal Relationships (IPR) group process portion of CPE?” It used a 90-minute, semi-structured interview format as it sought to understand the supervisor experience of safety in the group. 11 Ontario Certified Supervisors were interviewed and explored this question in relationship to participant supervisors’ experience as students and/or as educators. In the history of CPE, there has been significant harm done to students by some supervisors who were well-meaning, but unaware of their impact on students. This impact has been described as bullying, traumatic, and “surgery without anesthesia” at its worst (Ragsdale, 2009). At its best, it is transformative and enriching. While there has been movement toward trauma-informed approaches, there is much more that can be done to ensure student safety in these educational programs. There is little current research about this component of CPE, and this study adds to the understanding of the supervisor experience. From the data, three key things were learned. The first is that supervisors learned theory of IPR from their own experiences as a student, from what was handed to them in their supervisory training, and from intentional pursuit of new ways of thinking that were more resonant with trauma-informed practice. Secondly, it was found that participants described their experiences of IPR as either unsafe or safe enough, with no middle ground. They believed it was the responsibility of the supervisor to create a “brave space” in which student learning was optimized. Finally, participants shared their experience of vulnerability in teaching CPE/facilitating IPR as students circumvented laid out processes of conflict resolution and moved quickly to grievances. They also reported the lack of felt support from their managers, colleagues, and the institutions they worked for. The author recommends considering restructuring IPR to incorporate elements within verbatim and theological reflection work, and/or to require 10 hours of personal psychotherapy per unit of CPE in order to contribute to the goal of SEUS.
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 | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».