Meaning-making following group anger management.
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Meaning-making in life story following group anger management: A narrative analysis.
IRAS ID
191350
Contact name
Ann Taverner
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of East London
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
In NHS mental health services, many clients are referred to anger management groups, or start with this intervention before receiving individual therapy for various difficulties (in which anger and her/his relationship with this emotion has played a part in maintaining his/her struggles). Rather than employing an externally invalid randomised controlled trial(RCT), with researcher-biased quantitative measures, qualitative narrative analysis of the actual construction of sense-making or meaning-making referred to in participants narrative in semi-structured interviews, following group anger management in actual NHS clinical practice, may give valuable information to promote understanding of change and inform services.
The theoretical framework of social-constructionism, which accepts that there are plurality of viewpoints, that reality and knowledge are socially-constructed and that this knowledge cannot be comprehended without understanding the meaning people attribute to that knowledge (Illingworth, 2006), aligns itself alongside the ethos of counselling psychology i.e.. a humanistic, holistic approach, respecting difference, equality and social justice. Furthermore, social-constructionism aligns with the methodology of narrative analysis as a means for assessing and analysing how people make sense of (meaning-making) self, others and the world around them following group anger management.
It is hoped that this research can make a novel contribution to a more humanistic, meaningful, development of the evidence base, sitting alongside and perhaps balancing out, the predominantly positivist (information from sensory experience, interpreted through reason/logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge), quantitative studies upon which many psychological theories are based. This could influence the current proclivity of government ministers and health commissioners in funding research and clinical practice based solely on RCTs and quantitative measures; to accept the need for a greater understanding of differences, with a view to promoting effective change.
REC name
London - Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/1274
Date of REC Opinion
29 Jul 2016
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion