Transcending differences to study the transcendent: an exploratory study of researchers' and chaplains' reflections on interdisciplinary spiritual care research collaboration.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

BACKGROUND: Despite recognition of the centrality of professional board-certified chaplains (BCC) in palliative care, the discipline has little research to guide its practices. To help address this limitation, HealthCare Chaplaincy Network funded six proposals in which BCCs worked collaboratively with established researchers. Recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in the development of a new field, this paper reports on an exploratory study of project members' reflections over time on the benefits and challenges of conducting inter-disciplinary spiritual care research. METHODS: Data collection occurred in two stages. Stage 1 entailed two independent, self-reflective focus groups, organized by professional discipline, mid-way through the site projects. Stage 2 entailed end-of-project site reports and a conference questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighteen professionals participated in the group discussions. Stage 1: researchers perceived chaplains as eager workers passionately committed to their patients and to research, and identified challenges faced by chaplains in learning to conduct research. Chaplains perceived researchers as passionate about their work, were concerned research might uncover negative findings for their profession, and sensed they used a dissimilar paradigm from their research colleagues regarding the 'ways of relating' to knowledge and understanding. Stage 2: researchers and chaplains noted important changes they ascribed to the interdisciplinary collaboration that were classified into six domains of cultural and philosophical understanding: respect; learning; discovery; creativity; fruitful partnerships; and learning needs. CONCLUSIONS: Chaplains and researchers initially expressed divergent perspectives on the research collaborations. During the projects' lifespans, these differences were acknowledged and addressed. Mutual appreciation for each discipline's strengths and contributions to inter-professional dialogue emerged.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Powell, RA; Emanuel, L; Handzo, G; Lantos, J; Dunn, LB; Idler, EL; Wilkie, DJ; Massey, K; Summerfelt, WT; Barnes, MJD; Quest, TE; Kestenbaum, A; Steinhauser, K; Fitchett, G; Zollfrank, A; Olsen, AK; Balboni, TA; Sommer, D

Published Date

  • April 18, 2015

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 14 /

Start / End Page

  • 12 -

PubMed ID

  • 25927207

Pubmed Central ID

  • PMC4403931

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1472-684X

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1186/s12904-015-0004-4


  • eng

Conference Location

  • England