MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7006650843

Understanding Clergy Resilience: A Mixed Methods Research Study

2021· dissertation· en· W7006650843 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueResilience and Mental Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological resiliencePerspective (graphical)BurnoutPerceptionAdaptation (eye)Quality (philosophy)Face (sociological concept)Christian ministry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

There is limited literature on the current nature of clergy resilience, the specific variables that enable clergy to positively adapt to adversity, and the aspects of pre-service training and professional development that best foster clergy resilience. Clergy face adversity similar to other human service providers as well as other adversity that is unique to the profession. Burnout is a significant concern for the clergy profession, those they serve, and their families. It decreases ministry effectiveness, lowers the sense of personal accomplishment in their role, and negatively impacts the quality of family life and family relationships. Since clergy are at risk of experiencing the negative impacts of role-related stress and adversity, especially burnout, knowledge of the nature and state of clergy resilience may provide valuable intelligence to mitigate these impacts. The positive psychology perspective of resilience research seeks to understand positive adaptation to adversity rather than its negative outcomes. \nThis study approached resilience from a holistic, systemic perspective using the strength-focused philosophy of positive psychology. This study used an operational definition of resilience as a developmental process that arises from a combination of individual, relational, and contextual variables, including cognitive appraisal, and results in positive adaptation to adversity and stress (Fletcher & Sarka, 2011; Gu & Day, 2007; Masten, 2001; Windle, 2011). The purpose of this study was to explore Christian clergy perceptions of variables that impact the development of professional resilience in their roles. This study involved a holistic investigation of variables that clergy perceive as impacting their professional resilience, including adversity, individual, relational, contextual, and organizational variables. This study also considered how pre-service training and professional development could support clergy resilience. \nThis study used a mix-methods convergent exploratory design, began with an online survey that collected data from 519 clerics across Canada. The survey consisted of closed-ended scale questions analyzed through SPSS, and open-ended questions, which were analyzed through thematic coding, using NVivo 12. Simultaneously, as the survey, 13 one-on-one interviews were conducted with clerics using a semi-structured interview guide with questions related to adversity, variables that support clergy resilience, and helpful and desired initiatives. Interview data were analyzed through thematic coding, using NVivo 12. Following the initial analysis of the survey and interview data, findings were presented to interpretation panels to add interpretative data. Interpretational panel data was also analyzed through thematic coding, using NVivo.\nThis study's findings provided valuable insights into the development of clergy resilience for individual clerics, educational institutions, denominations, and congregations. Through the survey scales, the current nature of resilience and well-being appeared to be good. Several areas showed some strength, including high resiliency trait, a good level of grit, and participant satisfaction with their health and wellness. Congregational flourishing, age, distance from personal supports, and mentors all had statistical connection to scale responses. \nClergy participants reported adversity variables that are challenging in their role or to their resilience, categorized in the themes of workload, expectations, isolation, and personal challenges. Clergy also reported variables that support their resilience, categorized in the themes of spiritual life, relational supports, personal aspects, and organizational practices. Spiritual dimensions were very prominent for clergy, especially the centrality of calling to ministry, theological meaning-making, and relationship with God. \nParticipants reported helpful aspects of pre-service training and professional development. Aspects of pre-service training included rigorous discernment and screening of calling and the inclusion of required practices, such as spiritual direction or mentorship. Aspects of professional development included a variety of skill development opportunities, lifelong learning, and conferences and networking with peers. Participants also reported desired initiatives which included more wellness opportunities and increased organizational prioritization of clergy wellness.\nThe Clergy Resilience Model was developed from these findings as a tool that may help clergy resilience both on an individual and systemic level by creating awareness of critical factors. This study is unique in its focus on Canadian Christian clergy, and while some of the findings may have value to clergy in other contexts, the findings should be generalized with caution.

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.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,210
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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 Opus0,096
Tête enseignante GPT0,385
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · 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