Silencing or silent transmission? An exploratory study on trauma communication in Kurdish refugee families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trauma communication in refugee families is increasingly recognized as an important relational dynamic influencing psychosocial well-being, yet studies exploring interactional dynamics and meaning making at play in intra-family trauma communication remain scarce. This article reports on a qualitative study with Kurdish refugee families including parents (N = 10) and children (N = 17) resettled in Belgium, aiming to explore practices on trauma communication within refugee family relationships. In a multiple-phased qualitative design, semi-structured family interviews and participant observation administered in the homes of the participant families are followed by parental interviews involving a tape-assisted recall procedure to investigate observed intergenerational trauma communication and parent-child interactions. Data analysis shows parents and children seldom explicitly talked about the families' lived experiences of trauma. This silence was especially related to parental wishes to avoid their children's future involvement in violence. However, findings also indicate how the intra-family transmission of memories of collective violence occurs in many subtle ways. Four modes of indirect trauma communication could be distinguished: (1) focusing on the repetition of violence in the present; (2) transmission of the collective trauma history; (3) family storytelling; and (4) interaction with meaningful objects of the past. These findings shed light onto the interwoven nature of personal-familial and collective trauma and loss and illuminate the meanings of silence and disclosure in the context of the Kurdish diaspora. In the final section, we discuss our findings and outline its clinical implications for family therapeutic practices in refugee trauma care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".