Collective case formulation in situations of violent radicalization: A critical perspective in training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case formulation is used in clinical training to weave together theoretical perspectives and support a shared plan of action. Although a cornerstone of clinical practice, critical social theorists have highlighted the risks of depoliticizing political struggles and of reifying and fixing subjects when using psychopathology and case formulation to address situations of injustice. In the field of violent radicalization, this risk is increased by the extreme affects evoked by terror in practitioners and in societies. This article explores the challenges of training clinicians in the field of violent radicalization. It does so by analyzing a Community of Practice (CoP) that was developed to support practitioners involved in this domain of practice in Quebec, Canada. Four focus groups with CoP participants and participant observation of nine CoP meetings were conducted. Thematic and narrative analyses were used to explore the training potential of the CoP and to identify the discursive processes and group dynamics associated with this modality. Results indicate that the diversity of professional perspectives and social positionalities in the group plays a central role in helping participants become aware of their biases and in developing more complex understandings of cases and of their social embedding. Results also suggest that the collective holding of risk is key to preserve practitioners' investment in patients involved with violent radicalization. The sensitive issue of partnership between health and social services and security agencies is also addressed. Results suggest that CoPs with strong leadership allow for experiential training to enhance clinical and critical thinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".