An exploration of the relationship between clinical psychologists' religious beliefs and their clinical practice with older adults

• Main Author: West, Matilda
• Published: University of East London 2004
• Subjects: 150
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.532563

This study explores the relationship between the Clinical Psychologists' religious beliefs and their clinical work with Older Adult clients. Literature Review: The literature review draws attention to the importance of the religiosity of Clinical Psychologists who work with Older Adult clients. This is in contrast to previous research, which has tended to focus on the religious beliefs of clients. Likewise, previous research has focussed on adults, neglecting Older Adults as a clinical group. The need for research addressing the influence of the clinician's religiosity is identified. Method: The approach is Grounded Theory methodology (social constructionist revision). A method in-between the 'abbreviated* and 'full' versions is used, with negative case sampling built into the design through the recruitment of four respondents who described themselves as religious and four as non-religious. The approach is justified using epistemological and empirical arguments. Analysis: Textual descriptions and embedded quotations are used to present four super-ordinate, and eight sub-ordinate, categories describing the relationship between respondents' religious beliefs and their clinical practice with Older Adults. Findings are summarised by the titles of super-ordinate categories, as follows: "The issue of the compatibility or incompatibility of religion and Clinical Psychology", "Disclosure to colleagues: anticipated embarrassment", "The relationship between the Older Adult client's religious views and the Clinical Psychologist's religious views" and "The relationship between the Clinical Psychologist's own religious views and their clinical practice with Older Adults". Diagrams are constructed to demonstrate the relationships between categories, as identified by respondents. A resultant main diagram is derived and shown. Discussion: A simplified version of the main diagram is presented, distilling categories generated by analysis into 'distal' and 'proximal' factors. Implications for clinical practice and for future research are discussed in the context of this tentative model. Credibility checks and limitations are reviewed and conclusions drawn.