Propuesta del Manual de Identidad Corporativa

One of the key strengths of IPA is the centrality of the researcher and the transparent recognition of their role throughout the research process from design, to conducting interviews and analysis, and write-up. Double hermeneutics is the mechanism of interpretation in which the researcher’s life experiences, personal values, assumptions, and expectations are used to allow meaning to emerge from the data. In light of this, it is necessary to discuss my own positionality as the researcher with attention given to self-reflection as both the participants and I navigated the research process.

114

My interest in the area of trauma-informed relational care has evolved over a period of ten years and was driven by both personal and professional experiences. I have an intuitively- and experientially-driven interest in the areas of attachment theory and trauma-informed care. I completed the two day trauma-informed relational care training in June 2017 along with the participants in this study. The training left an indelible mark on me. It spoke to my experience as a mother in no doubt concerning the pre- eminence of relationships in understanding human development and my experience as a trainee psychologist who in the previous six months had met eleven clients, nine of whom had experienced trauma. I began to wonder about the experiences of other clinicians within the training and what the impact on them might be.

At some level, my initial preconceptions assumed that clinicians from other disciplines than psychology would not fully appreciate the significance of this model. I assumed that they would be so entrenched in their own biomedical model of the client that the sheer simplicity of a relationship might not be enough to impress them. On reflection, I realise I was actually “othering” my colleagues and positioning psychology as the only discipline which intrinsically valued the client-therapist relationship. I am now more than happy to admit that I had underestimated the value which other disciplines such as nursing and psychiatry place on the therapeutic relationship.

Indeed, as I engaged in the very first interview it became immediately apparent that the client was held in high regard and that each participant was motivated to understand and support the client.

As I began the recruitment process for the interviews by attending multi-disciplinary team meetings, I encountered some hesitancy to volunteer for participation in the research among staff. I was unsure why this might be and considered that perhaps people were too busy, not attracted to the idea of an interview, or felt it was too much of a draw on their time. The possibilities were endless and trying to understand the recruitment problem did little to solve it. Having previously worked in the CHO area, I therefore decided to tackle participant reluctance head-on within the recruitment session. It transpired the main reason for not volunteering was that people thought they would be asked direct questions about the content of the training, and given it had taken place 12 months previously, they were anxious about the need to study. I reassured them it was not an assessment of knowledge but rather an exploration of how they

115

experienced the training and the impact it had on them. This allayed fears and I received four voluntary participants on that day.

As I reflected on this experience, two important things were brought to mind. Firstly, I had assumed that the clinicians understood the language of research, such as ‘qualitative methodology’, ‘semi-structured interview’, ‘interpretative phenomenological interpretation’, and ‘analysis’. I was so immersed in the world of research that I did not stop to think what I was asking of the clinicians. Secondly, in asking them to trust me, I had couched the whole participation process in inaccessible, and arguably hierarchical, language. I was struck by the parallel between this and what clinicians ask of clients every day; to participate and trust in a process that is unclear. For me, the main learning is that research and clinical work both require safety and trust to build in every moment of contact with clear and accurate communication. The data analysis phase was also challenging as I struggled to hear the idiographic voice of participants. I feared that I was drawn to those parts of the transcripts which confirmed my own world view of the training. I brought this concern to supervision as it was impacting on the analysis. During supervision I was challenged to think about the impact of differing outcomes of the findings. Would it impact on how I viewed the model? Was I too invested in the model? Following this session, I began to journal my experiences of analysing each transcript.

This created a space to debrief and reflect on concerns I had about analysis. Then, I encountered Gabe’s transcript. Gabe provided a narrative of cautiousness and questioning about the model in his experience of clinical practice. Having witnessed Gabe’s cautiousness and holding true to my interpretation of his meaning making, I returned to the previous transcripts. I embraced the phenomenological attitude and let go of the fear of doing it wrongly. The voice of each participant flowed, thereby enabling me to capture the divergent and convergent experiences of each participant, leading to what I trust is the very essence of the phenomenon.