In response to:
Bourassa, J. (2009). Psychosocial interventions and mass populations. International Social Work, 52(6), pp. 743-755.
It seems to me that Bourassa comes from a more clinical framework and has seen it as a part of her practice to work toward the reframing of social work methodology. While her critiques of a more medical approach (i.e PTSD) are valid, I feel that the leadership perspective of social work has already moved beyond this place. I wonder though if this conversation would hold more relevancy (and potentially challenge?) with a clinical group of students? Or if the focus of University of Calgary's program has moved away from this over the last few years?
This article raises further questions for me about the role of the individual/family/community in social change. Where is the best place for support? When is it best to support each various grouping? In the context of a disaster, how do we prioritize 'needs' (physical, psychological) without overlooking something based on our 'outsider' lens?
In my understanding at this point, creating, facilitating and maintaining a space for community members (collectively and individually) to maintain dignity through having purpose (and coming to their own understanding of meaning) through rebuilding is essential. Instead of 'facilitating', those working within the context of a disaster situation should focus on opening and holding space for community members to emerge and engage as leaders. What does this mean in the context of emergency provisions? How to hold a balance between service provision (shock treatment) and practice that empowers? How can we break down divisions so that all options include and are based upon principles of empowerment and capacity? So many questions here....
Sometimes I feel that as academics we can lose our way in rhetoric. Clinical, leadership, community development, each practice is triumphed above the others. I strive in for a practice of wholism - and while labels can be helpful in understanding and defining this I continue to ask myself what does wholism mean to me? Right now it means seeing the whole (PIE - Person in Environment -, maintaining a perspective of 'spirit', and opening to 'not knowing' and instead to 'listening'). It is a balance to both 'listen' and 'act', and one that I learn new lessons from each day.
Bourassa, J. (2009). Psychosocial interventions and mass populations. International Social Work, 52(6), pp. 743-755.
It seems to me that Bourassa comes from a more clinical framework and has seen it as a part of her practice to work toward the reframing of social work methodology. While her critiques of a more medical approach (i.e PTSD) are valid, I feel that the leadership perspective of social work has already moved beyond this place. I wonder though if this conversation would hold more relevancy (and potentially challenge?) with a clinical group of students? Or if the focus of University of Calgary's program has moved away from this over the last few years?
This article raises further questions for me about the role of the individual/family/community in social change. Where is the best place for support? When is it best to support each various grouping? In the context of a disaster, how do we prioritize 'needs' (physical, psychological) without overlooking something based on our 'outsider' lens?
In my understanding at this point, creating, facilitating and maintaining a space for community members (collectively and individually) to maintain dignity through having purpose (and coming to their own understanding of meaning) through rebuilding is essential. Instead of 'facilitating', those working within the context of a disaster situation should focus on opening and holding space for community members to emerge and engage as leaders. What does this mean in the context of emergency provisions? How to hold a balance between service provision (shock treatment) and practice that empowers? How can we break down divisions so that all options include and are based upon principles of empowerment and capacity? So many questions here....
Sometimes I feel that as academics we can lose our way in rhetoric. Clinical, leadership, community development, each practice is triumphed above the others. I strive in for a practice of wholism - and while labels can be helpful in understanding and defining this I continue to ask myself what does wholism mean to me? Right now it means seeing the whole (PIE - Person in Environment -, maintaining a perspective of 'spirit', and opening to 'not knowing' and instead to 'listening'). It is a balance to both 'listen' and 'act', and one that I learn new lessons from each day.
RSS Feed