Hi all,
John Launer writes: "I am very concerned about the potential for abuse of
professional power in getting people to connect with deep grief or anger
when we may not have the time or the skills to help them process it."
My interest in narrative is from a research, as opposed to a therapeutic,
perspective. But it is not always easy to separate the two, and occasionally
unexpected issues arise, even during the most structured interviews. Mental
health workers spend a good deal of time working with their own "stories",
and probably have a better handle on when their own issues and
interpretations have the potential to become coercive than do researchers.
Everyone involved in therapeutic encounters knows that there are times when
"getting people to connect with deep grief or anger" is not in the best
interest of the client. Do we, as researchers, have the same skill? Nobody
needs an amateur therapist, no matter how well meaning we are. And, even
when we have a clinician on our team, do we always recognize when a
"subject" needs help?
I don't believe that narrative approaches to research are entirely benign,
and I'm not sure that the good intentions of researchers are protection
enough. There are many very fragile people out there, and we can't always
recognize them in advance. My question is: how do we help one another become
more aware of the potential for abuse of power in this situation? What
ethical guidelines, beyond those imposed by granting councils and ethics
boards, ought to inform our work?
Evelyn L. Forget
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|