Research Studies Reflection from a pastoral perspective (theology ) paper

Research Studies Reflection Silva Redigonda Reflection Paper Three Research is such an important aspect of psychology in Canada that at present, there is no psychology degree program that paves a way, without an extensive incorporating program of both statistics and research methods. I have no interest in conducting research because my focus is counselling. However, I acknowledge the importance of research in all my work and am hesitant when statistics and research information is not provided in my learning formation. I think that counsellors and psychotherapists need to have an extensive knowledge of data that has been tested to determine what is best for each client. This paper is one of reflection, and not analytical, I will compare two researches journals, one written by Gubi and the other by Carlson and Erikson and reflect on the importance of objectivity. When reading Carlson’s and Erikson’s paper, I paused wondering if it was a philosophical paper. Key words that I read were repeated throughout the paper, “we believe.., we feel…, we wish…, we have heard…we hold…what we are calling for…we do not believe…” What I heard was subjectivity. Yet, the paper’s format included an abstract and provided a format equivalent to a research journal. Perhaps, I am restricting myself, by being so critical. As this is a reflection paper, I am permitted to ponder but as a student, I also need to evaluate what may be a hindrance, in how my profession as a pastoral counsellor is perceived by professionals, of other disciplines. Reading Gubi’s paper, I immediately feel more comfortable with the objectivity and professionalism of the writing. Gubi provides research sources for his study, while evaluating the benefits and problems that can and have occurred, as it pertains to praying. In contrast, Carlson and Erickson (1999) offer united, extensive, personal beliefs enforced, by the inclusive term of “we”. This stream of personal beliefs overshadows any objectivity. Carlson and Erickson are encouraging personal exploration, in presently deficient training programs (p 58). There seems to be an assumption that the reader is aware of what the training program is. There are so many questions and possibilities to explore. Gubi however, is methodical and systematical in his approach. His purpose is clear, precise and contained, “The purpose of the research was to discover if counsellors who use prayer were aware of, or encountered, ethical problems with their use of prayer” (p 116). As I read each paper, I wonder if Carlson’s and Erikson’s paper published in 1999 is perhaps too dated (p 57) compared to Gubi’s more recent paper, presented in 2009. Does this indicate a progression of sophistication or am I missing something very important? Is it possible, that Carlson and Erikson are presenting a paper that is quite acceptable and I am unfamiliar with? After all, there may be an assumption that I am failing to understand. References are indicated to support statements. But even the references that Carlson and Erikson provide, seem outdated and too lengthy for a paper. Is it necessary to provide 14 references, for one statement especially when it dates from 1978 (p 59)? Is it not more practical to limit references, and to provide the latest information, unless it has a bearing to what the author, wants the reader to know? Carlson and Erikson have something very important to say. An example is that “a therapist will choose a theory that is compatible with his or her own values and world view” (p 59). Again, three references are provided. Rather than look up the references, I would prefer to read how this conclusion was determined. Was this statement based on research or is it also the opinions of the authors referenced? There is ambiguity, when there need not be. This takes away from the purpose of the paper. Gubi is clear in what he wants to project to the reader. He provides easily understood results from the format he uses, such as a table to provide a code for the type of psychological approach used, as well as the gender and qualification of the counsellor. Titles provide a guide for referral, such as “prayer results that can change the way the counsellor is regarded” (p 116). Carlson and Erickson also provide a table, listing the five stances therapists commonly take (p 71). It provided me with the same sense of objectivity as that of Gubi. But it was listed towards the end of the paper and I felt it came a little too late. It is obvious that I have a preference and respect for Gubi’s research article. Unfortunately, I do not feel the same for Carlson’s and Erikson’s paper. Perhaps, it is because I do not understand what kind of paper it is. Perhaps I am assuming that it is not well written, when it may be. Perhaps, I need to be more open to what I read and less critical. Carlson and Erikson are calling for “an integration of personal and theoretical beliefs, for the development of personal ethics” (p 63). This is exactly what I am doing. Carlson and Erikson probably did not presume to have their own paper so critically scrutinized, to support this claim. The points that Carlson and Erikson make are important, “We believe that a therapist should personally believe in the principles and values of the theory that is guiding their work” (p 63). What Carlson and Erikson has failed to do and where Gubi is successful, is convincing the reader by providing substance. Am I being subjective? I don’t think I am entirely. I think that if we are to be taken seriously in our profession, we need to meet a standard that is recognized by the medical field. It is in this reflection, that I realize what is important to me, as I provide a service to others. Science and theology need to be complementary of each other and not separate. Jesus lived among the people of their time. We need a balance of science and theology to be taken seriously. We need to work with professional structures already in place, as well as our hearts.