Advertisement

The Ecological Engagement Method and Its Application on the Field of Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology

  • Fernanda Menna Barreto Krum
  • Denise Ruschel Bandeira
Chapter

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to focus on the use of the Ecological Engagement methodology—based on Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Human Development—as part of a qualitative research with a community affected by a tornado in Southern Brazil. This methodology necessitated conducting research within the context for a consistent period of time to comprehend the complexity of the issue. In addition to facilitating focus groups with individuals affected by the disaster, the study included several field visits, interviews with emergency response professionals and members of the community, and a field diary. The primary goal was to investigate the individuals’ coping strategies in the face of the event guided by the questions: “How did you experience the disaster?” and “What did you do to face it?” The data was treated through content analysis, systematically organized in units and categories connected with the main questions. The entire process demonstrated the effectiveness of the Ecological Engagement methodology through gradually increasing involvement, which became more complex as the researcher and participants engaged in proposed activities. The exchange of reflections and the construction of a collective discourse provided space for participants to address some of their traumas and for meaning to emerge from their experiences.

Keywords

Coping strategies Disaster psychology Focus group 

References

  1. Bandeira, D. R. (1999). Avaliação de um projeto social do ponto de vista do desenvolvimento psicológico de seus participantes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia do Desenvolvimento, Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.Google Scholar
  2. Banyard, V. L., & Miller, K. E. (1998). The powerful of qualitative research for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4), 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardin, L. (1979). Análise de conteúdo (L. A. Reto & A. Pinheiro, Trans.). São Paulo: Edições 70/Martins Fontes.Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). A ecologia do desenvolvimento humano: Experimentos naturais e planejados. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas. (Originalmente publicado em 1979).Google Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 993–1027). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus group: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in the qualitative research methods (pp. 224–241). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Cecconello, A. M., & Koller, S. H. (2003). Inserção ecológica na comunidade: Uma proposta metodológica para o estudo de famílias em situação de risco. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 16(3), 515–524.Google Scholar
  9. Conselho Federal de Psicologia. (2000). Resolução para pesquisa com seres humanos. Resolução no 016/2000. Brasília, DF.Google Scholar
  10. Conselho Federal de Psicologia. (2011). Psicologia de emergências e desastres na América Latina: Promoção de direitos e construção de estratégias de atuação. Brasília, DF.Google Scholar
  11. De Antoni, C., Martins, C., Ferronato, M. A., Simões, A., Maurente, V., Costa, F., et al. (2001). Grupo focal: Método qualitativo de pesquisa com adolescentes em situação de risco. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 53(2), 38–53.Google Scholar
  12. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ibañez, G. E., Buck, C. A., Khatchikian, N., & Norris, F. H. (2004). Qualitative analysis of coping strategies among Mexican disaster survivors. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laville, C., & Dionne, J. (1999). A construção do saber: Manual de metodologia da pesquisa em ciências humanas. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.Google Scholar
  15. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus group as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris, F. H., Weisshaar, D. L., Conrad, M. L. I., Diaz, E. M., Murphy, A. D., & Ibañez, G. E. (2001). A qualitative analysis of posttraumatic stress among Mexican victims of disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(4), 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raftery, J. (1997). Doing better than the media: Ethical issues in trauma research. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1(2), Retrieved from http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/1997-2/raftery1.htm.Google Scholar
  18. Víctora, C. G., Knauth, D. R., & Hassen, M. N. A. (2000). Pesquisa qualitativa em saúde: Uma introdução ao tema. Porto Alegre: Tomo Editorial.Google Scholar
  19. World Health Organization & United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2015). mhGAP Humanitarian Intervention Guide: Clinical management of mental, neurological and substance use conditions in humanitarian emergencies. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernanda Menna Barreto Krum
    • 1
  • Denise Ruschel Bandeira
    • 2
  1. 1.International Mental Health ConsultantMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations