Search results

Organisations and systems of care working within both specific and non-specific trauma-informed approaches must adapt a multicultural lens, in design, delivery and evaluation of services and interventions. Cultural and social factors can directly influence the exposure of individuals to traumatic events (Roberts, Austin, Corliss, Vandermorris, & Koenen, 2010). At the same time, social and cultural identities influence the development and experience of trauma and symptoms, including treatment outcomes (Marsella, 2010; Wilson, 2007). In this chapter, Ravind Jeawon and I provide some of the essential factors that trauma-responsive systems may wish to consider. The first part of this chapter deals with the idea of multicultural identities and practices and highlights some of the outcomes associated with accessing behavioural healthcare. The impact of intersectionality and microaggression on those from diverse backgrounds is also considered. Finally, a guiding framework is provided that examines what needs to be implemented across organisations in order to provide the system with a multicultural lens in which to view and deliver appropriate services. Crucially, multicultural responsiveness will not come from tick box training regimes, it is something that needs to be kept on the agenda and is a lifelong trajectory.

People centrally located within networks enjoy a variety of benefits. Why some people achieve such advantage while others do not is not well understood. Using a novel dataset that maps the workflow network among software engineers at a Fortune 500 technology company, I trace the evolution of the position of 804 new entrants to the firm over a period of three years. Findings paint a consistent picture as to the determinants of position in this network: one’s team and one’s job at time of entry, rather than intellectual or social endowment, play the strongest roles in determining one’s subsequent centrality and autonomy.

In this chapter, an overview of the trauma-informed approach is described. The background and context to trauma, its impact on the person, and organisational responses are considered. More specifically, I distinguish between trauma specific and non-specific organisations by defining the characteristic of each. This chapter sets the tone for the remainder of the book by introducing a conceptual model for both specific and non-specific trauma organisations. In order to do this, I outline the differential components that are deemed necessary for organisations to be trauma-responsive; in doing so, I introduce the Trauma Ecology Model to the literature, outlining its various components.

Until the 2008 Crash, the prevailing economic orthodoxy, accepted across the broad political spectrum, was that inequality was a necessary condition for economic health. The evidence of the last four decades is that this trade-off theory – that you can have more equal or more efficient economies but not both – is incorrect. Not only do excessive concentrations of income and wealth bring social dislocation and breed public discontent with democratic institutions, but a number of studies have shown that inequality on today’s scale brings slower growth and greater economic turbulence. Although there is now a broad acceptance amongst global leaders that inequality poses significant risks for social cohesion and economic stability, there has been little or no action to match the high level verbal war against inequality. As a result, inequality has carried on rising within nations since 2008. In the United Kingdom, the gap between the top and bottom has continued to widen, in part because post-2010 governments have weakened the pro-equality role of the state. Tackling inequality is now one of the most pressing issues of the day – an economic as well as a social imperative – while reversing this four decade long trend will require a major restructuring of the pro-market economic models in place across most of the rich world.