Intervention in a Shared Traumatic Reality: A new Challenge for Social Worker - Essay Example

? Intervention in a Shared Traumatic Reality: A new Challenge for Social Worker Introduction: Shared traumatic reality is practiced by a social worker who has undergone the same traumatic event as his clients. It examines the challenges of a social worker’s mental health as to work in traumatizing situations, which they had been through previously (Dekel & Baum, 2010). The shared traumatic reality shows the emotional responsibility of a social worker towards their client. Basically the traumas are divided into two levels: “personal” (road accidents) and the “collective” level (war etc). (Bombay, Matheson, & Anisman, 2009). Here, the social worker and the client share the same stress and tragedy. For instance, war and terrorist attacks are mainly considered as a traumatic reality. In such a situation, the social worker needs to control his or her feelings and emotions in a profeesional manner as to provide a better service to the clients.. Epistemology investigates the “unitary realism” of knowledge. The epistemological origin is related with the reality of a research topic (Trainor & Graue, 2013). It examines the feasibility, boundaries, and the structure of the research subject. The epistemological origin of the research implicates on how well the research topic is analyzes and studied by the researcher. This involves checking the source of research knowledge and its methods. In shared traumatic reality, the epistemological concept enquires the reality of the shared traumatic social condition. It defines the limits of the social work, practice and truthfulness of the subject. Previous research on shared traumatic reality contains both qualitative and quantitative approaches for research. In this particular branch of practice, traumatic reality is considered as quantitative and objective. The practice of shared traumatic reality applies more in the qualitative approach, as the social worker also goes through the same trauma, which makes it seem subjective. In the shared traumatic approach, both parties experience the same trauma, which enables to develop trust and intimacy between the two. Ontology investigates the “existence” and the nature of research. It searches for the various processes of study and performance (Mc Namee , 2005). It explores various facts, which the researcher has found out for example regarding traumatic reality from an ontological viewpoint. It examines the interactions between the client and the social worker as well as their performance as a whole. In this branch of philosophy, the concept of epistemology consists of “knowledge” and how the researcher “acquired” it (Mc Namee , 2005). Here it shows that there is an impact of the shared traumatic reality with the social worker because the therapist has encountered the same event as the client. The qualitative approach helps the social worker in understanding the emotions of their clients more effectively and it increases the “empathetic” attitude (Dekel & Baum, 2009). The shared traumatic reality consists of three approaches. Kretsch et al (1997) explains it thoroughly: the first approach of ‘shared reality’ with the illustration of the gulf war on a therapist and survivor. During the war, they shared the same experience, that is, how they faced the “scud missile attacks” (Dekel & Baum, 2009). The second approach is called ‘shared tragedy’. According to Seeley (2003), the therapist and the client share the tragic experience of something bad that has happened to their family members or damages to their personal property. The terrorist attack in USA on 11 September, 2001 provides more “recognition” to this concept, where so many lost their family members to the massive attacks (Dekel & Baum, 2009). The third approach of shared traumatic reality is called ‘sharing the same stress,’ that is, it relates with the stress among the client and therapist who have witnessed a terrorist attack from a close range and that person could be their friend, neighbor or a family member. Research plays an important role in generalist social work in various ways. Thus, the research at hand focuses both on qualitative techniques as well as quantitative approaches. The topic at hand deems the involvement of both approaches due to its wide-ranging aspects and factors influencing the same. In terms of qualitative approach, inductive reasoning is used to “extend existing” reality. In shared traumatic reality, the social worker with the same experience tries to focus on particular emotions of the clients, rather than the general details of the trauma (Induction, 2008, p.430). Whereas, the quantitative approach is based on concise, narrow and deductive reasoning to explore the cause and effect relationships, maximizing objectivity and generality of the findings. These findings include the goal, data and statistical analysis. The statistical analysis aims to describe findings that possess statistical significance and that can be generalized to the total population. Where the qualitative approach makes use of inductive technique and builds theories, quantitative approach employs deductive technique and tests those theories using premises. However, it is true that these approaches do not necessarily indicate what theories to specifically use as it is a different case with different people. Therefore, it is recommended that further research and studies be conducted to analyze and understand the issues fully and to present the best solution possible in the different cases. The various articles and books that have conducted surveys and other statistical analysis do not present complete solution to the present problems, thus in order to fill this gap of knowledge it is highly suggested that more studies be conducted in order to get accurate results. There also arises a controversy as to which method is more applicable considering both shared traumatic reality experiences and different traumatic reality experiences. Both the approaches have their own pitfalls and merits. In the case of shared traumatic reality, the positive aspect is that the same experience helps the therapist to conceive their clients’ problem better, and it solves the emotional problems of both parties at the same time. For example, findings resulting from studies conducted by Lev-Wiesel et al. (2008) state that during the Second Lebanon War, the social workers and nurses who had worked in a hospital showed a “post Traumatic Growth” (Dekel & Baum, 2009, p.1932). It shows that shared experience gives rise to flexibility, which helps a social worker to accept the client’s mental status, thus raising the regular role of professionals. According to the data analysis stage of shared traumatic reality, the “effective transference interpretation” paves way to strengthen the therapy, as the involvement of the social worker with quality subjective relation helps them to explore the problems of their clients to its core as well as arrive at better solutions. Therefore, the unique analysis of every single therapy will further help to recognize and interpret the clients’ problems (Gabbard & Horowits, 2009, p.518). In this light it appears that shared experience is a better option to counter traumatic experiences suffered by the victims. However, the demerit in shared traumatic reality arises from its subjective nature, which results in a negative impact on the social worker as through therapy sessions, the client may suffer from the same stress again when the former talks about the issue. The similarity of the distress causes increased involvement between the two parties. Another negative aspect is that, this increased participation and revelation on part of the social worker decreases his or her professional competence. In the same way different traumatic approach, that is, where the social worker has not undergone the traumatic experience as the client also evokes demerits and merits of its own. Firstly, the advantage here is that under this technique, the quantitative approaches deal with the traumatic realities more objectively. It maintains distance from the client’s boundaries. It listens and observes the facts that are shared by a client but it focuses on the objectivity of the topic, which helps the social workers to maintain their professional standards and also go in accord with the laid down ethics of their profession. However, not having undergone the traumatic experience as their client, the social worker finds it hard to understand what their client tells. They may find it hard to be empathetic with the victims of the various traumatic experiences. When they fail to understand the situation of the clients, they are not in a position to help them or alleviate their stress. Chances are that they will lead to higher stress for the clients by not understanding them and questioning them in a light that makes them uncomfortable. Therefore, both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages, but according to my opinion shared traumatic reality experience is a better option as it is really helpful for the social worker to understand what exactly their client has experiences and what they are going through now. However, further studies should be conducted and researches should be made in order to confirm which approach is better suited for the victims of various traumatic events. It is a fact that different people have different reactions to shared traumatic realities. Some people are relieved to know that the social worker they are confiding in, has gone through the same trauma and can help them to a great extent. As opposed to this, other people believe that the social worker who has gone through the same experience tries to stimulate their thoughts according to what the former thinks of the situation. Some people may react to the traumatic event by shedding tears and becoming sad, others might turn angry and aggressive to the surrounding people. Some people may try to help those in distress whereas others become quiet and succumb to their sadness and pain. Same way several people return to their normal life with the help and support from their family members, whereas yet another group of people need professional assistance. Thus the former group will be open to shared traumatic realities, whereas the latter group will try to stay away from such therapy sessions. Therefore, it can be seen that different people have different reactions to shared traumatic realities. The characteristics of the social worker play an important role to a large extent in case of shared traumatic realities. Whereas the outcomes of therapy sessions remain largely based on the performance of social workers, it is not always in their control as to how effective they can be. Different ethics require social workers to possess different characteristics and they mainly include empathy, sympathy, understanding, courteousness and so on. However, despite possessing these qualities and characteristics the social worker cannot completely influence and immediately make their clients feel instant relief. Some ethics may require social workers to be very discrete and professional about their sessions, whereas others may encourage a more frank and open discussion with their clients. Again, it is yet to be confirmed as to which ethics or characteristics the social worker must mainly possess and follow, thus, further research is to be conducted based on this aspect to overcome such situations in the future with better coping and understanding of traumatic stress and reality experiences. Conclusion: In shared traumatic reality, the experience of the client is understood by the social worker easily because they have undergone the same traumatic situation. The recent studies on these subjects reveal the man-made traumatic tragedies like war and terrorist attacks. The therapy is not too involved with natural disasters. The personal experience and involvement of a social worker makes the theory more subjective and qualitative. The shared reality is blurring the limits of the personal and professional front of the social worker, whereas on the other hand, the equalizing experiences increase the intimacy and trust between them. Generally, it is believed that “one-third” of the social workers go through mental distress at least “one time” during their professional life (Heugten, 2011). The painful traumatic experiences as well as the shared experiences force some social workers into a life full of stresses. Family support, assistance of a team or pair of social work professionals, and also proper guidance from the NGO or the other organizations may help to alleviate the social worker from such distress. In the quantitative approach, social workers suppress their experience within themselves and maintain strict boundaries between their clients. Here the social worker focuses on narrow approach and he considers the reality to be very objective. The clients find difficulty in narrating their painful experience and it becomes more suspicious with the direct involvement of the social worker. The traumatic shared reality requires eliminating boundaries between the client and social worker. This branch of social work does not determine the approach that would provide better results. Each decreased limit with the client and the objectivity of the approach towards the therapy ruins the essence of the shared traumatic reality and it challenges the practice of social work. Reference List Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of Social Research. (8thed.). Belmont,CA.Woodsworth Pub.Co. Bombay, A., Matheson,K., & Anisman, H. (2009). Intergenerational Trauma: Convergence Multiple Processes Among First Nations Peoples in Canada. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 5, 1-42. Coetzee, H., Mari du Toit,I., & Herselman,M. (2012). Living Labs in South Africa: An Analysis Based on Five Case Studies. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 14 ,1-29. Curtis, L., Moriarty, J. & Netten, A. (2012). The Costs of Qualifying Social Worker. British Journal of Social Work, 429(4). 706 – 724. Dekel, R. & Baum, N. (2010). Intervention in a shared Traumatic Reality: A New Challenge for Social Work. British Journal of Social Work ,40 ,1927-1944. Gabbard, G. O. & Horowitz, M. J. (2009). Treatment in Psychiatry. Retrieved April 9, 2013, from Heugten, K. (2011). Social Work Under Pressure: How to Overcome Stress, Fatigue and Burnout in the Work Place. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Mc Namee, M. J. (2005).Philosophy and the Science of Exercise, Health and Sport : Critical Perspectives on Research Methods. London : Routledge. Rapport, F. (2004). New Qualitative Methodologies in Health and Social Care Research. New York : Routledge. Rosen, A., Proctor, E. K. (2003). Developing practice guidelines for Social Intervention. Columbia University Press. Tewksbury, R. (2009). Quantitative Versus Qualitative Methods: Understanding Why Qualitative Methods are Superior for Criminology and Criminal Justice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 1-21. Trainor, A. A. & Graue, E. (2013). Reviewing Qualitative Research. Routledge. Read More