A constructivist grounded theory of counselling psychologists’ in-the-moment decision-making process about touching their clients

Helen Damon
{"title":"A constructivist grounded theory of counselling psychologists’ in-the-moment decision-making process about touching their clients","authors":"Helen Damon","doi":"10.53841/bpscpr.2022.37.2.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinician-client touch is controversial, and seemingly widespread. However, talking therapists report little-to-no training on it and major accrediting bodies offer no explicit guidance. Consequently, some clinicians feel a lack confidence and competence around touch and fear accusations of bad practice. There is no research on counselling psychologists’ (CoPs’) ‘in-the-moment’ (in-session) decision-making process about touching their clients. Hence, this study aimed to develop a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) of this process to facilitate best practice by identifying issues and evaluating and recommending changes to existing models, guidelines, and training.Following a CGT methodology, cycles of semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine CoPs, one clinical psychologist and two body psychotherapists about their process. The interview transcripts were analysed following Charmaz’s (2014) three-stage CGT coding process.A dual process model of touch-decision-making was produced, with the core category ‘weighing the predicted balance of appropriateness’: participants use an embodied sense of ‘felt appropriateness’ and a cognitive process of ‘considering the appropriateness’ to assess whether a ‘touch-related action’ is likely to be experienced as minimising harm and maximising therapeutic benefit to the client.The findings indicate a need for a CoP ‘professional stance’ towards touch-decision-making and talking about and upholding touch-boundaries in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":36758,"journal":{"name":"Counselling Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Counselling Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscpr.2022.37.2.37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Clinician-client touch is controversial, and seemingly widespread. However, talking therapists report little-to-no training on it and major accrediting bodies offer no explicit guidance. Consequently, some clinicians feel a lack confidence and competence around touch and fear accusations of bad practice. There is no research on counselling psychologists’ (CoPs’) ‘in-the-moment’ (in-session) decision-making process about touching their clients. Hence, this study aimed to develop a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) of this process to facilitate best practice by identifying issues and evaluating and recommending changes to existing models, guidelines, and training.Following a CGT methodology, cycles of semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine CoPs, one clinical psychologist and two body psychotherapists about their process. The interview transcripts were analysed following Charmaz’s (2014) three-stage CGT coding process.A dual process model of touch-decision-making was produced, with the core category ‘weighing the predicted balance of appropriateness’: participants use an embodied sense of ‘felt appropriateness’ and a cognitive process of ‘considering the appropriateness’ to assess whether a ‘touch-related action’ is likely to be experienced as minimising harm and maximising therapeutic benefit to the client.The findings indicate a need for a CoP ‘professional stance’ towards touch-decision-making and talking about and upholding touch-boundaries in clinical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于建构主义理论的心理咨询心理学家在接触客户时的即时决策过程
医患接触是有争议的,而且似乎很普遍。然而,谈话治疗师几乎没有接受过这方面的培训,主要的认证机构也没有提供明确的指导。因此,一些临床医生对触摸缺乏信心和能力,害怕被指责为不良做法。目前还没有关于咨询心理学家(cop)在接触客户时“即时”(在会议中)决策过程的研究。因此,本研究旨在发展这一过程的建构主义基础理论(CGT),通过识别问题、评估和建议对现有模型、指导方针和培训进行修改,从而促进最佳实践。遵循CGT方法,对9名cop, 1名临床心理学家和2名身体心理治疗师进行了半结构化的访谈,以了解他们的过程。访谈记录按照Charmaz(2014)的三阶段CGT编码过程进行分析。产生了一个触摸决策的双过程模型,其核心类别是“权衡适当性的预测平衡”:参与者使用“感觉适当性”的具体感觉和“考虑适当性”的认知过程来评估“与触摸相关的行动”是否可能对客户产生最小化伤害和最大化治疗益处的体验。研究结果表明,在临床实践中,需要CoP对触摸决策、谈论和维护触摸边界采取“专业立场”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Counselling Psychology Review
Counselling Psychology Review Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mental health difficulties in paramedics: A review of the literature Structural Existential Analysis (SEA) – A step-by-step guide for application to research Supervising trainee counselling psychologists of colour in doctoral research: A theoretical review and practice implications ‘You can’t live like I did and grow up normal’: An IPA study of how men diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experienced their early childhood The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on self-efficacy in Assistant Psychologists in the UK
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1