{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
A constructivist grounded theory of counselling psychologists’ in-the-moment decision-making process about touching their clients
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.