Meaning-making following group anger management. Version 1
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
2 years, months, days
Research summary
This is a relevant area of interest for counselling psychology. Whilst many work in various other settings, counselling psychologists are increasingly employed by the NHS, working alongside clinical psychologists, psychological well-being practitioners and other professionals, where anger management difficulties are often seen as part of the complex picture of an individuals relational struggles. Many clients are referred on to anger management groups, or start with this intervention before receiving individual therapy for various difficulties (in which anger, and her/his relationship with it) has played a part in maintaining his/her struggles. Rather than employing an externally invalid RCT, analysis of the actual meaning-making referred to in participants narrative, following an intervention of group anger management in actual clinical practice, may give valuable information on how to improve the effectiveness of current 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 pluralistic, 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, 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
East of England - Essex Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/EE/0044
Date of REC Opinion
14 Mar 2016
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion