Search

This paper is an account of the rationale behind the authors' efforts to create a Masters in Counselling programme, centred on a poststructuralist approach known as narrative therapy, that might be deserving of the designation "bicultural". In developing the new degree, the goal was to bring the knowledge, language and values of the indigenous Māori people of Aotearoa New Zealand alongside and into a dialogue with international, Eurocentric, non‐Māori counselling theories and practices. Our hypothesis was that this dialogue might result in an innovative and transformational learning experience that could prepare counselling practitioners to work for more equitable outcomes with diverse client groups. We share this account of our narrative and the reflections stemming from our programme development work believing they offer a contribution to thinking about how counsellor education can engage well with cultural diversity. Beyond the question of how counselling practitioners are to engage with culturally diverse clients, which risks falling into essentialising models of diversity, we argue that the engagement with biculturalism, as suggested by the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), provides a powerful lens for thinking about creating a socially just and inclusive counselling practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In crisis situations, the authority of the nurse is legitimised by legal powers and professional knowledge. Crisis stakeholders include those who directly use services and their families, and a wide range of health, social service and justice agencies. Alternative strategies such as therapeutic risk taking from the perspective of socially inclusive recovery policy coexist in a sometimes uneasy relationship with mental health legislation. A critical discourse analysis was undertaken to examine mental health policies and guidelines, and we interviewed service users, families, nurses and the police about experiences of accessing services. For those who attempt to access services early in crisis, as is suggested to lead to a better outcome, provision of services and rights appear to be reversed by an attempt to exclude them through practices that screen them out, rather than prioritising a choice in access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]