Season 7, Episode 1, Dr Karen Treisman Exploring When Trauma-Informed Becomes A Buzzword

Welcome to Episode 1 of a 5-part series on Resisting the Dilution of Trauma Informed Practice. Join Dr Lisa Cherry in conversation with Dr Karen Treisman as they explore how 'Trauma-informed' came to be on websites, job adverts, strategies and posters everywhere, but what happens when the terminology travels faster than the creation of the opportunity for transformation? 

Together they unpack how trauma informed care gets reduced to slogans, checklists and superficial signals, while day-to-day behaviours still communicate blame, shame and disconnection. Karen and Lisa explore why the mismatch between what a service promises and what it delivers can feel like betrayal, and how that can re-traumatise children, families and staff. They also get practical about what “modelling the model” looks like; noticing our own nervous systems, naming mistakes, apologising and doing relational repair, rather than hiding behind perfect-sounding language.

If you want to think about trauma-informed organisational change that is honest, grounded, and safe, then you'll enjoy this conversation. 

Transcript

Welcome And Series Purpose

SPEAKER_01 0:04

This is the Trauma Resonance Resilience Podcast. And this is for you if you are interested in compassion, connection, and relationships and how we can all work together creating services that do not add to harm but rather seek to support recovery from it. I'm your host, Lisa Cherry, and this is your time to sit back and listen in on conversations that make a difference. Well, welcome to another episode in this series. This series that is the resisting the dilution of trauma informed. And today I am very fortunate to have colleague and very good friend, Karen Treisman.

SPEAKER_02 0:50

Hello, I always love being with you.

SPEAKER_01 0:52

So, so so nice to be back. Oh, it's so lovely to have you here. It's terrible, isn't it? Because we could probably do with a really good chat because you've been away, haven't you? I have.

SPEAKER_02 1:03

I've been in America and there's so many things I'm desperate to share with you. So I'm gonna have to put it in the later basket and uh we'll have to have a proper catch-up another time.

When Trauma-Informed Gets Diluted

SPEAKER_01 1:11

Oh, that'd be brilliant. Well, listen, the whole purpose of this series was really a response to um the what has happened with a kind of assimilating trauma-informed practice into services and systems and settings, which is what we wanted and what we've been working for for years and years, um, but that actually there's an unintended consequence to that. Um and and maybe a resistance, a resistance to power, to shifting power as well, which we can kind of get into. So just thinking about the current landscape, you know, when you're looking at that, what what's going on for you that tells you that trauma-informed practice is being diluted or that it's just lost its kind of transformational components. And I'm not asking that question, saying that that's what's going on everywhere, but it's definitely something that we can see.

SPEAKER_02 2:10

Yeah, you know, it's one of my favorite topics. Um, and I think just firstly, I love how you started because I think um, you know, I've got a book coming out with Mandy Davis, and with a big part of it is focusing on this. And we started the chapter about dilution with like, wow, we've gained so much popularity, so much traction, so much sort of recognition, which is what we wanted and super, super exciting. But the other side of that is I think we are seeing trauma-informed being like everywhere, everything. Um, and therefore, you know, it starts to become diluted or watered down or unethically used, generally with well-meaning intentions. Um, so completely, I think we are seeing trauma-informed being used as a tagline, we're seeing it as a hashtag, we're seeing it as a marketing tool, we're seeing it as a way to get tenders, we're seeing it as a buzzword. And I think it's being put on everything. I mean, we're a you know, you're seeing it on we're a trauma-informed library, we're a trauma-informed news agent, we're a trauma-informed team because we have a fruit bowl in our reception area, or you know, we're a trauma. Don't forget the trauma-informed Crisps. Oh, the trauma-informed crisps, absolutely. We are, you know, we're trauma-informed because we, you know, include lunch. We're, you know, and it really is, I'm trauma-informed because I've listened to a Bruce Perry podcast for an hour. Um, so it absolutely has become this sort of word that is just being thrown around as a fad or as a craze. And I think that as we know, there's so many hazards which we'll get into that. Um, but it is compromising, I think, the evolvement of the movement. I think that we're going to be at danger of actually putting people off or making people kind of cringe or it's eroding people's trust, I think, in the meaning of what it is, but also it can lead to people actually being further harmed or feeling further betrayed by services who call themselves trauma-informed, but that's not being modelled. And to me, that's kind of the equivalent of saying a product is animal cruelty-free or vegan friendly, and then you use it on your body or eat it and realize it's not animal cruelty-free or it's not vegan friendly, and how you would feel mistrusting or tricked or betrayed in some way, um, which is obviously the antithesis of trauma-informed, which is about being transparent and having integrity and dignity and all of those things.

SPEAKER_01 4:58

And I think that last point that you make is my biggest fear, where people say they are, and then those using services, um, including, you know, thinking about children in education as well, um, you know, quickly discover that that's not what's going on. And part of this series actually is really about to coin Dan Siegel's phrase, naming it to tame it. You know, if we actually talk about it, we get it out there on the table, we get really open and honest about it, then maybe we've got some hope of turning things around and some hope of perhaps, okay, let's get back around the table and let's have a real think about what does it actually mean? What is it that we're trying to do? What does it not look like? And what does it look like when it's people think they're doing it, but they're not?

SPEAKER_02 5:49

Completely. And I think you used the example of school there. If we go to sort of the mislabeling, if I'm a teacher and I go for a job that's advertised as we are a trauma-informed or we're moving to be more trauma-informed, I'm choosing to work at that school, kind of being promised or sold that I'm going to have a particular experience. If I'm choosing to send my child to a particular school that's labelled as such, you have to be what's on the tin is in the tin. We need to be able to have a match. And if there is a mismatch, I think it almost feels worse. It's like if you say I'm going to a specialist service and then the service isn't specialist, or I'm going to a therapeutic children's home and it's not therapeutic. It's almost even more because you've been sold an expectation and then you expect that. And if you don't experience it, that mismatch or incongruence can feel even more wounding, which by the way, is what happens in trauma. Is that actually? Yes, it's betrayal, exactly. And and you know, the person who promised to keep you safe didn't keep you safe, or what people see behind closed doors is not what they experience in the closed door, you know. So it's that whole sense of having once again feeling like there's something that I've been, there's been false promises or missold, or there's been this discrepancy between what I thought I was getting and what I actually got.

SPEAKER_01 7:21

So, what sort of misconceptions do you see the most when organised say that they're doing trauma-informed work or they're being a trauma-informed organization? What kind of things have you seen? Oh dear. Um where shall we start? It's almost like I know the answer to that question, Karen.

SPEAKER_02 7:47

Well, the fact that we basically are in common communication most days, is you hear you hear uh all of the different anecdotes. Um, well, talking generalized, I guess. Some of the things um is talking about trauma-informed, but yet still being in practice, so blaming, shaming, punitive, whether that's with kids or adults using really pathologizing language, um, the staff feeling that there's not psychological safety, um, that there, you know, is a very lack of a sense of like shared identity or collective care or community care. Um, I think seeing things like talking about trauma-informed and then um going through an assessment that is like the most dehumanizing, disconnected assessment, or us, me and you, being asked to come and train on trauma and then come into a room that we're lost and isn't set up and we're not welcomed, and lunch isn't included, and um how it, you know, all of those things that it's just what is being sold, or going somewhere that's supposed to be trauma informed, and when you walk into the space, it feels, you know, so unwelcoming, cold, disconnected, um, you know, not starting on time, just oh, so many things.

Embodiment Matters More Than Slogans

SPEAKER_01 9:16

Can I just comment there about the about our experience? Because I think both me and you are very capable at using our experiences as material in the training space. And that's one of the beautiful things about when things go wrong, isn't it? If you are in a really good place yourself and you're not feeling too vulnerable, you can use that then as material. But there's also what can happen is when you go into those places and spaces and they they don't know you're coming, or they didn't know your name, or they don't have Wi-Fi, or they didn't get a screen, or the chairs haven't been set up right, or the myriad of things that can happen. Um, I mean, I I I you know, I was got so many examples of this. Anyway, I'm I don't really want to, it's not really about sort of highlighting individual scenarios, but I guess in reflection to what you're talking about, what I'm interested in is thinking about how how do we think about how we deal with that. Because if you're not feeling your best, or you're not standing upon the platform that we stand upon, where we do have some agency and we do have control, and we do have, you know, a lot more in place than some people will have in their employee status, then challenging it's quite a thing, isn't it, to have to do? And how do you say to somebody, you know, maybe we can actually just model that for people? Because I know for me, there have been many times where I've been able to say, um, not just about things that weren't going well, but things that were brilliant, and actually raise those and say, when I arrived, this happened, and that helped me feel really safe and really welcome. And it demonstrated to me that you have an understanding. Um, that's obviously much nicer for the person to hear than when I arrived, I felt really unsafe quite quickly, and I had no idea how to even convey this to you because I felt a little bit dysregulated, actually. You know, yeah, huge.

SPEAKER_02 11:19

And I think you've touched upon so many things there around the sort of overclaiming or dilution is it's that whole James Baldwin quote, I don't believe what you say because I see what you do. And so some of that bit is around staff's own anchoring, regulation, centering, and also, you know, if we do kind of get something wrong, which we will because we're flawed imperfect people, how we're able to name or learn from it or say sorry, or do the relational repair. And I think that's another big misconception about trauma-informed, is it's for those people over there, as opposed to actually it's about how do I show up? What's my energy? What's my presence? You know, and you know, I talk about organizational stuff. People will talk about trauma-informed language, about how they talk to the kids. But it's like, well, how do we talk in our team meetings? How do we talk in the handovers? What's the how is the email that gets sent to us? You know, do we get that email on a Friday afternoon from a manager being like, I need to talk to you on Monday morning urgently? You know, it's all of those bits that doesn't quite um embody. So we're saying the words of trauma informed, but the values aren't lived or breathed or embodied or felt. Um, we're kind of not modeling the model. And I think that's um we could look at that around behavior as communication. That's become another tagline everywhere. But then if you actually go in, are people curious? Are we thinking about what might be driving that behavior or if it could talk or what's the underlying need? We can have these taglines, but it's how are they actually moving into the feelings and how we are?

SPEAKER_01 13:14

Yeah. And I think you've just made me think about you know, our humanness really, and you know, I'm I'm as capable of dysregulating as the next human. And um, it's what what happens after that. And I think it's not just what happens after that, but it's what happens after that that can be viewed. I'm thinking about um again, not naming people, but there's some very high profile people in this space who at events that I've seen where they've been speaking, they've dysregulated. I I'm I'm absolutely fine with that. I think that's great, but then name it and then own it. Uh, I've seen that done once or twice, I have, uh, with those high-profile speakers. Um, but um not not not always. And I think it's a real missed opportunity to model. Listen, I'm a human too, and I kind of wasn't able to manage my system in this situation. And I'm sorry about how that affected you, you know.

Boundaries Without Losing Compassion

SPEAKER_02 14:15

Beyond. And I think we could do a whole we probably have done a whole podcast on regulation, isn't it? Of how are we listening and attuned to our nervous systems? And if our bodies could talk, what would they say? But as you said, that ability to be able to attune in or name it or express it to to try and sort of absolutely be our humanness and our authentic self. And that takes vulnerability and can be quite scary. But such a big part is it's not us and them, isn't it? Like we all come in with our visible or invisible suitcase. We we don't or backpack, we don't have those emotional x-rays. And so how we're able to be like we all come in with our own maps and lens and template, and how is that impacting in the moment or beyond? Um, and that's that's absolutely a big part, as we know, of kind of trauma-infused or trauma-informed on on lots of those levels.

SPEAKER_01 15:13

Yeah, and I think it's also important to say that just because we might view humans, all of us, with a with a trauma lens, we still have to be boundried. You know, I had quite a recent scenario myself where I had to remove myself from a person. Um, and that doesn't mean that I can't look at them through a trauma lens and I can't be um curious about why they might behave in that way, but that doesn't mean that I need to be around it. And I guess that's where work environments can get really difficult, really toxic. Yeah, huge.

SPEAKER_02 15:47

And I think, you know, we've got another book chapter about this in Mandy or my book is trauma-informed as not just being sweet, nice, and kind. And I think what you're touching upon is sometimes people either think it's making an excuse because someone's experienced trauma, but absolutely there is still, as they say in DDP, connection before correction. You can still say what you mean without being mean saying it. And that involves having clear boundaries and limit setting and parameters around that, in terms of we know it's not about making excuses. You can have an explanation and be curious, but we can hold multiple truths of how can I hold that and have things to sort of keep me as protected and safe as possible, you know.

Power Privilege And Missing Roots

SPEAKER_01 16:35

Yeah, I mean, I imagine everyone listening is just so excited about the book that you've got coming out. I've I really want to kind of get into that a little bit, but I've got a couple more things I'm just curious about that I'd like us to explore. Um, but don't let me leave without talking about the book. Um, because I think it's the book that everyone's waiting for, really. So the next kind of stage and the next kind of place we're at. Um, so thinking about I'm quite interested in thinking about power and privilege and structural inequality. How is that showing up for you when you're thinking about core-informed work, practice, um dilution?

SPEAKER_02 17:20

So so so many different elements, and I'm very aware that I'm saying my brain might be a bit foggy or spaghetti head. But um firstly, I think a huge bit is it's really I find this fascinating. This could be a whole other podcast week, Delise, but in terms of what parts of an approach or model sticks and what bits get diluted or go like a Sith. And what's interesting is with former informed, it came from you know, the the roots and the genesis of former informed came from thinking about power, privilege, social justice, human rights, cultural humility, anti-racism. Yeah, yeah, like that would that was literally the birth of it from drug and alcohol services, adult mental health, uh, from feminist movement, that so much in the roots, somehow it's become disconnected. So people take the bits of trauma and form that they that might fit or resonate, but some of the bits around power or privilege or cultural humility or social justice seems to sort of be left out of the picture or or put as something over there. Um so I think that's a a huge interesting aspect.

SPEAKER_01 18:39

Well, look at Scotland. I mean, look at Scotland, they removed one of the principles, the principle around gender and historical, gender and cultural issues.

SPEAKER_02 18:47

Yes. No, there's there's so much, and and actually I think, you know, again, we I keep bringing it back to the book, I'm like a bloody broken record, but I um I also think that's like the absolute epicentre and pinnacle. It shouldn't even be like put as a it should be like trauma and cultural humility. Like you can't have one without the other. So I think that, and even when you look at trauma, so many people are focused on individual trauma. But are we looking at cultural trauma, racial trauma, gender trauma, you know, identity, intergenerational, or even the word trauma political trauma? Climate change, global trauma. You know, there's so much, isn't there, around those bits? And then around power and privilege, you know, how we look at the injustices that are occurring, the discriminations, the triple, multiple levels of oppression that are so important, how that feeds into you know poverty. Uh, there's so much about trauma-informed that's about those bits, and then also from power and privilege, like what's going on with our governments, what's going on with political leaders, what's going on with leadership? Because so often, again, trauma-informed is like, oh, you do it over there, but not also thinking about, and how can we as services be contributing to harm? And that's a huge part of trauma informed that sometimes people conveniently miss. It's not just about being helpful, it's how are we not adding layers of harm? How are we not re-traumatizing or contributing to people being voiceless or powerless? So, but I'm gonna be quiet, but no, don't be quiet, Karen.

SPEAKER_01 20:30

It's a podcast. Um God, where do I even go with that? There's just so much there. And I think you know, the re-traumatizing is the really important bit because the system harm, the you know, the systems that are supposed to help people, support people, nurture people are often the systems that are traumatizing. Um, and in this series, you know, I spoke with um Lucy Johnston, and we talked a lot about that from her perspective um around um diagnoses, and uh anyone who's familiar with her work will know she's um amazing and do take.

SPEAKER_02 21:10

She's she's incredible. I mean, I absolutely adore Lucy and the power threat meaning framework. So I'm excited to listen to that podcast.

SPEAKER_01 21:17

Yeah, no, you'll love it. Um, so yeah, thinking about that, so how does diluted practice risk re-traumatising the people it supports?

SPEAKER_02 21:27

I mean, there there is so so many ways and levels, and I think it's really hard because it comes from well-meaning intentions, and I just want to hold that really true. But I think, you know, if we take a kid in a children's home as an example, if that child feels that I'm going to be in a space where I feel seen and heard and matter, where I'm not going to be shamed or blamed or punished or further harmed. Where we're going to be looking at my nervous system responses, where I'm going to be supported. And then they were in a context that feels scary, chaotic, unsafe, that there's people that aren't holding that child in mind. That's, as we said, not the intention, that I'm being asked intrusive, invasive questions, you know, that I'm being labeled or pathologized. You know, what we often do are adding layers of harm. If you think about court systems, I'm not saying every court system at all, but many people who have been raped, as an example, will say, I felt re-raped by the court system. I felt shamed and blamed and, you know, not seen and not heard. And I was put in procedures and systems. The benefit system can further add layers of humiliation, of feeling not dignity. You know, staff, again, how many staff will say the thing that is the hardest of their job is feeling absolutely in services where they feel uncared for in a system that should be or unsafe. You know, so I think it's those misclaiming. But the other big thing about misclaiming, which I don't think we're talking about a lot, is it actually will make people more cynical and breed more mistrust. Because next time they hear the word trauma informed as a staff member, they're going to be like, oh, that's a bunch of rubbish, or I'm not going to do that. Or it actually can feed into all of the things that we're trying to not do. Anyway, I hope I'm making myself clear.

SPEAKER_01 23:42

But you are. And actually, what you just described, maybe it's a chapter in your book, but what you've just described is how trauma-informed practice is everywhere and nowhere.

SPEAKER_02 23:50

Yeah, completely. Well, we've we've got we've got a quote that says if trauma-informed is becoming elastic, it means anything, everything, and nothing.

SPEAKER_01 23:59

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and that's what's really, I think, coming through in this conversation is just how, you know, we've got this very overused, diluted term, but what we've also got, we've got systems that it's an oxymoron. You can't have a trauma-informed prison. I don't care what anyone says. It's you unless you started the the whole criminal justice system from scratch. Um, you know, that's just it's just not possible. You can make it things slightly better, you can educate around the impact of trauma, you can perhaps shift the lens about how people might view people in contact with the criminal justice system. Once you're in a prison, that is not going to be a trauma-informed space. It's just not possible. So we've got this scenario where we've got lots and lots of people who think they're working within that way and they're not. We've probably got some really fantastically good core practice going on around the country as well. Uh, we've seen some amazing, I've seen some amazing work around the country. And then we've got like the rest of the country that is a isn't even partaking in in thinking about um uh creating a different system. That that's quite a challenge, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 25:14

It's such a challenge. And I think it's interesting like how many people call themselves, and we talk about this all the time, trauma informed. And then if you go in and ask, well, what are the values, which is really the core part, what are the R's? And people are like, Oh, what do you mean the Rs or the values? So people are using the word without having a sense of what does that mean? What's the knowledge base and the lens? And then, of course, once we know how it means, how am I infusing it into practice? But there's also the bits of people using it because it's become so popular, which is amazing. But you know, I've gone on things where people are like, this is trauma-informed marketing course. This is a trauma-informed, and I go there and there's nothing about trauma-informed, but it's what's been used to get people to sign up to that event or a book. I read a book the other day called Trauma Informed Something. There wasn't one thing that was aligned or anything to do. They either they marked it because they thought that would sell more books, or they truly thought they were doing trauma-informed, but hadn't had the, and I think those are the bits that are just uneasy and worrying that we need to just be really have integrity because there's phenomenal stuff going on, and we need to honor and respect that. But also, I often say to people, better to not label yourself as something if it's not that. So if you're just doing amazing relational support to some families, that's incredible. Do amazing relational support. We don't need to label it as trauma-informed if that's not what it is, or we're not committed to that, or that's not aligned, because we want to be transparent. That's one of the values of trauma-informed. We don't want to trick or miss sell stuff. And I know for most people it's with the best meaning intentions, um, because that does add to a huge sense of kind of false advertising in it. And and it takes away from the people who really are meaningfully doing it. It's the equivalent of going on an aeroplane and being like, Well, I could now be the pilot of the plane.

Commodification And Checklist Culture

SPEAKER_01 27:31

Yeah, and I guess you know, it's a challenge, isn't it? When we're operating in a capitalist society, and of course, therefore, the commodification and extraction and um sale of everything is, and we seem to be, I don't know, I don't I feel like capitalism's kind of coming to a bit of a head when you've got somebody who's managed to extract and accumulate um uh trillions of dollars, um uh then we we're we're sort of uh entering into a whole new territory with that particular monetary system. Um, not that that's my area of expertise at all, but I'm quite fascinated by how that works and also what the implications are of that um system when we're trying to actually work in ways that are about reducing harm for people and that it's not, you know, a kind of opportunity to market a new brand of crisps. Um, you know, so yeah, it's tricky, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02 28:30

It's really and also that trauma informed isn't a noun. So I think when when you're doing that mod of kind of capitalizing on it, it's almost like it's a thing or a product as opposed to it's an a lens, it's a way of being, it's a way of doing, it's an attitude, it's a stance. Yes, there are components and ingredients, but it's not just let's checklist that off. And I think that's the other bit, isn't it? And same as it's not a final destination. When people are we are trauma informed, it's that sense as it's like saying, Well, we've parented, you know, it's it's not a final destination, it's a constant commitment to learning and evolving and new things coming up and um continuing to sort of keep looking at those different bits rather than a full stop, it's a comma, you know.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

Yeah, yeah. So let's say we could redesign the whole approach to implementation. I suppose, I suppose the question is if we could go back to the beginning, would we do anything differently?

SPEAKER_00 29:44

I know that's such a big question when you've got jet lags.

SPEAKER_02 29:50

Yeah, I mean, of course, there would always be things differently. And it's interesting, the reason I was sort of my mind was going in so many places apart from the jet lag is that was basically what my Winston Churchill fellowship was on. You know, I literally went and interviewed the sort of who I knew as the most kind of evolved trauma-informed organization, people, including Sandy Bloom and people who started it in the 60s and the 70s, and asked them what you would do differently and and what would you know? So it's a really interesting sort of pondering. I mean, I th I it's such a hard one. Yes, I think there would be lots of things would be the same and lots of things would be different. I think that there would be much more clarity on what different people can do in different roles and spaces, on the hazards and the dangers of overclaiming, of how you might try to just infuse some of the values. I mean, I think we did this, but you know, things sometimes go at different paces or speeds. Um, I think there was a lot of people who increased the knowledge of trauma without the the what does that mean and what can we actually do? Um, I don't think we anticipated how much it would gain popularity as quickly as it did. Um, so I think that's a powerful thing when things stick. Um there's lots of things I also don't like about trauma-informed, by the way. And I I say that being someone who, you know, has dedicated huge parts of my life, there's things I think it's missing, there's things that I think could be shifted and changed. So I think we constantly need to evolve. But lots of the misconceptions, which is kind of why we've written the book, have gone away. Like trauma-informed is just being sweet, nice, and kind, or oh, it's all just about the relationships, or I think there's if you could have anticipated how people might weaponize it, well, you're not trauma-informed, um, to really help people at the beginning understand the helpfulness and the hazards. Anyway, I'm rambling. You take over.

SPEAKER_01 31:58

Well, it's just, you know, I'm just thinking really and thinking about how, you know, it's a great question, you know, what would I have done differently? But I, you know, part of that journey is the fact you have to go on a journey. And yes, I think I think I wish that I had started with organizations, but actually the way in at the time was to start with the individual. It just was. Um, and you know, it's great because I think we have for for the people who are on this journey, which fortunately is lots of people who are really passionate about this work, you know, those people are very much involved in thinking about organizational and system change. Um, but it's a shame that we kind of had to start with the individual. I mean, I think you came in much more from an organized organizational perspective from the outset, uh, because you did the Churchill. So because you had those conversations with Sandra Bloom and all the rest of it, and asked them the same question. I think that meant that when you sort of hit the ground running, you were at that point already. Um, and I think that was so helpful, actually, because we're going back what, 10, 12 years now. Um, so helpful to sort of be able to come in from that place. Um, would that be a fair assessment, would you say?

SPEAKER_02 33:22

Yeah, no, and I really appreciate you saying that as well. Yeah, and I love that answer because I think you're I think there are a lot of people who yeah, came in from the individual or haven't had the the if you think how many trainings there are on introduction to trauma and how little there are about systems change, organizational stress, organizational trauma, thinking of it from a system level, um, the individual would be oodles and oodles, and the organization would be a tiny flavour. So yeah, I hope that I help to plant some of those seeds from that lens. And I think there is a huge level of that and widening the lens of trauma. You know, I think thinking about, as you said, political trauma and um cultural trauma and looking at the collective and the systems. Um, I wish also with the organization that, and again, I've tried to do this a huge amount myself, but we can always do a huge amount more around yeah, bringing in for that cultural lens, but also the kind of sensory and uh playfulness and creative uh lens as well. Um, so yeah, so I if you ask me on a different day, I'll probably have a more sophisticated answer, but it's a great question. And it's one to we um we yeah, I was that would just be a fab thing. I was just thinking, how amazing would it be to do a survey and get people to sort of add all of those things and then turn that into some visual let's do it, let's not talk about it. I think we should, yeah. That's that you know me, you know my brain. I'm like, sure, we can we can absolutely because I think it's and I also think, and and me and you talk about this a lot evolving and not being stagnant is so such a core part of me and you that we're constantly, oh, I would change this, or I cocked up this, or I wish I knew that. And I think that's such a big part of trauma involving learning.

SPEAKER_01 35:28

I mean, there's people still delivering training materials from well over a decade ago. There's people still doing the keto that they were doing well over a decade ago. It's just like, you know, we are not the same country as we were a decade ago. We are not in 2016 anymore, but globally, nationally, culturally, the way we have changed is phenomenal. It's at a scale that's actually really quite difficult to sit in. We're all grappling with how we kind of live in this space. So if you're not creating new materials, new ideas, doing new pieces of research, learning from new disciplines and pulling all of that together, then probably go sit down because that is not what is being called for right now. Absolutely.

Integrity In Training And Expertise

SPEAKER_02 36:23

It's such a changing time, and we constantly, a bit like parenting as a metaphor, again, it's a constant evolve, changing, trialing things, and an act of engagement with the material, and that involves everyone, not just going on Chat GBT and writing a presentation. And I think that's we uh I suppose that's something that just to add with the the misunderstanding or the dilution of trauma informed. I'm a qualified clinical psychologist. I had a doctorate level in thinking about mental health. And if someone emailed me as I get constantly asking me to do a presentation on psychosis, for example, my first thing is thank you so much for thinking me. That is not my area of knowledge. I am not the best place person to do that. Absolutely, and I think that is something around integrity that we have to really, of course, we want to expand, we want to open people can shift and learn different things. But I think particularly when people are asking us to deliver a service or to do training, we really need to be thinking carefully about that responsibility. And I think that's an important thing that maybe is being lost uh in the sort of TikTok generation that we're on, or with the expansion and explosion of AI, um, or you know, someone who's come on one of your trainings for a day who then goes and trains on belonging uh to everyone, or someone who comes to mind about trauma and then positions themselves. There is about sharing information. I don't want to be precious, I share so much, but there also is something about really thinking about integrity. How can I kind of not overstate what I know or where I'm coming from? Because we know in training, people might be activated in the room or space, it can stir things up, people might ask different questions. You need to have had the experience of how can I go in depth or how can I explain that, or what does that look like in practice? It's not just from reading a book.

New Book And What It Tackles

SPEAKER_01 38:38

Yeah. Brilliant. So could you just tell me then before we end? I want to know the title of the book and I want to know when the book's out.

SPEAKER_02 38:48

Well, both of those things I'm going to give you a very silly answer because I keep forgetting the title. So that's not very helpful. But it's something like it's something like navigating trauma-informed organizational change, 40 real-world questions, dilemmas, and strategies. Something like that. It's by myself, Karen Traceman, and Mandy Davis. What we've done, which is super exciting, is we've basically got 40 questions that are the most common questions that we get asked in consultations or training or the other naughty bits in trauma-informed. So things like how can you do trauma-informed when we have no funding? Um, there's a member of staff who I need to fire, but I know they've experienced loads of trauma. What does that mean from a trauma-informed perspective? Is trauma-informed just excusing behaviors? Is it just being sweet, nice, and kind? Um, trauma-informed so overwhelming organizationally. Where do we start? So we've taken those 40 questions and Mandy, who is the director of Trauma Informed Oregon, and myself have just relationally come up with some reflective thoughts um around that. So we're super excited about it. Um, again, I don't have a clear publication date, but I believe it's going to be in the next six months. So we've just done our final edits, we've just seen the manuscript, we've chosen the front cover. So it is will be going to the print very, very, very soon.

SPEAKER_01 40:23

Karen, everybody's super excited about that. So thank you so much for today. We will await the book and you know, just carry on being amazing.

SPEAKER_02 40:35

Well, thank you for everything you are, everything you do. You know, I love you and adore you, and thank you for putting on this series. Um I'm super excited to listen to the other ones. So thank you. And I hope that everyone leaves with some ideas or nuggets, but also it's coming from a place of love, of wanting to preserve this movement.

Final Takeaways And Closing

SPEAKER_01 40:53

You know? Big love, Karen. You've been listening to the Trauma Resonance Resilience podcast with me, your host, Lisa Cherry, brought to you straight from the heart of the knowledge that high quality relationships are the cornerstone of learning, healing, and growing. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider sharing or reviewing. Until next time.