MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7006650843

Understanding Clergy Resilience: A Mixed Methods Research Study

2021· dissertation· en· W7006650843 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,039
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,039
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,208

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0390,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0040,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations2
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Même sujetResilience and Mental HealthTravaux en français237 207