Even though posttraumatic stress theory has been extensively developed in the
psychological and medical literature, development of secondary traumatic stress theory is
still in its infancy. The traumatology literature reveals a focus on traumatized victims and,
with few exceptions, excludes those who are secondarily traumatized (Figley, 1995).
Secondary, or vicarious, trauma has become more topical over the past 7 years. Claims
have recently been made that counselors working in the field of trauma are vulnerable and
at risk for developing trauma symptoms similar to those experienced by their traumatized
clients. Descriptors such as “compassion fatigue” (Figley, 1995), “traumatic
countertransference” (Herman, 1992), and “contact victimization” (Courtois, 1988) are
used in the trauma literature to capture the essence of this phenomenon, which is thought
to be a natural consequence of knowing about a traumatizing event experienced by a
significant other. For a trauma counselor, this significant other is the client with whom a
caring and often long-term relationship has been established.
The American Psychiatric Association’s (1994) fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) refers to a secondary traumatic stress
reaction, but omits discussion of the implications. Empirical research on secondary
traumatic stress is minimal: Most focuses on survey data that report incidence levels and
correlate demographic variables and symptoms. Qualitative research into the lived
experience of counselors working in the field of trauma is absent from the literature.
This research study is an investigation into the meanings of experiences of struggling with secondary traumatic stress. The researcher sought to answer the question, “What
meanings do trauma counselors make of their struggles with secondary traumatic stress?”
Four counselors working in the field of trauma co-constructed narratives on their
struggles with secondary traumatic stress. Three conversations were held with each
participant. A reflexive narrative method was designed for data collection and narrative
analyses were conducted at three levels of interpretation; (a) textual interpretation of the research conversations, (b) interpretation of the research interactions, and (c) four
collaborative interpretive readings of the narrative accounts. Narrative analyses generated
the following salient aspects of the participants’ struggles with secondary traumatic
stress: (a) struggling with changing beliefs, (b) intrapsychic struggles, (c) struggling with
the therapeutic relationship, (d) work-related struggles, (e) struggling with social support,
(f) struggling with power issues, and (g) struggling with physical illness. Implications for
professional practice, research, and education were addressed. / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uvic.ca/oai:dspace.library.uvic.ca:1828/8245 |
| Date | 07 June 2017 |
| Creators | Arvay, Marla Jean |
| Contributors | Peavy, Vance, Harvey, Brian |
| Source Sets | University of Victoria |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | Available to the World Wide Web |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds