4.1 Article

Seeing 'the dark passenger' - Reflections on the emotional trauma of conducting post-disaster research

期刊

EMOTION SPACE AND SOCIETY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 55-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.emospa.2015.06.008

关键词

Disasters; Researcher; Emotions; Vicarious trauma; Impacts; Responsibility; Vicarious resilience

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0877572, DP130100877, DP130102658, LP110200134]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0877572, LP110200134] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper acknowledges 'the [my] dark passenger' of emotional vicarious trauma associated with conducting post-disaster research. Post-disaster research is tightly bounded by ethics and professional codes of conduct requiring us to be vigilant about the impact of our work on our participants. However, as a disaster researcher, I have been affected by vicarious trauma. 'Direct personal' vicarious trauma is where I experienced trauma associated with witnessing devastation making a professional separation from my objective subjects impossible. 'Indirect professional' vicarious trauma occurred when PhD students and others under my supervision that I sent to disaster affected places, experienced significant negative emotional responses and trauma as they interviewed their participants. In these situations, I became traumatised by my lack of training and reflected on how the emphasis on the participants came at the expense of the researcher in my care. Limited literature exists that focuses on the vicarious trauma experienced by researchers, and their supervisors working in post-disaster places and this paper is a contribution to that body of scholarship. In acknowledging and exploring the emotions and vicarious trauma of researchers embedded in landscapes of disaster, it becomes possible for future researchers to pre-empt this phenomenon and to consider ways that they might manage this. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据