Search

For this research, eight Church of England Bishops’ Advisors for Pastoral Care and Counselling were interviewed to ascertain the limitations of Reflexive Groups (RGs). The data were analysed using a thematic analysis. One superordinate theme emerged:Hindrances, along with 10 subordinate themes. An online survey was then sent to RG participants (n = 64), to see if their experiences matched those limitations identified by the Bishops’ Advisors. The data reveal that RGs are perceived as limited by the inability of clergy to commit to the time; it was scary for participants to be vulnerable with others; sometimes the needs of some participants were too big and could sabotage the group; dual relationships could cause complexity and hinder sharing; prayer; being sent by a Bishop or Archdeacon; the open agenda and style of facilitation does not suit some people; and sometimes there are struggles with expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Little research has been conducted to assess the effectiveness of reflexive groups in supporting clergy. For this research, eight Church of England Bishops' Advisors for Pastoral Care and Counselling were interviewed to ascertain the value of reflexive groups. These data were analysed using a thematic analysis. Two superordinate themes emerged: Contextual issues and Benefits, along with 20 subordinate themes. An online survey, consisting of questions that came from the Bishops' Advisors data, was then sent to reflexive group participants (n = 64), to see if their experiences matched those benefits identified by the Bishops' Advisors. The data from 37 participants was statistically analysed. The data from both sets of participants reveal that reflexive groups are psychologically beneficial to clergy. The research concludes that the implementation of reflexive groups as a way of developing self-awareness and enculturating attitudes towards resilience and self-care is important to foster psychologically and spiritually healthy practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little consensus at policy or treatment level as to what defines ‘recovery’ in the alcohol addiction field. Aim: From interviewing a cohort of eight severely alcohol‐dependent people who fulfilled all categories of DSM‐IV and ICD 10 diagnostic criteria and had achieved long‐term recovery (LTR) of between 8 and 48 years, and who are long‐term AA members, a definition of recovery that is inclusive, and achievable, was sought from their lived experiences. Methodology: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used. Findings: This research uncovers the processes involved in long‐term recovery, and identifies them as: sober; maintaining sobriety; and recovery. It suggests a move away from the acute model of cure by brief, time‐limited therapy, towards a model of sustained, on‐going and life‐long recovery management, combined with pro‐social aid resources. Individuals need to observe, and hear, the success narratives of others, and the therapeutic conditions of empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence need to be strongly experienced by the individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]