Annaley Clarke and Michelle Royes
The purpose of this paper is to review the purpose of the Community Meeting and how it fits within the Sanctuary Model®, it will outline the tools theoretical underpinnings and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to review the purpose of the Community Meeting and how it fits within the Sanctuary Model®, it will outline the tools theoretical underpinnings and finally how the tool is used in other trauma models specifically Therapeutic Communities.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper draws the key literature together related to the Community Meeting within the Sanctuary Model®, making links to theoretical influences between the Community Meeting, Trauma Theory and Attachment Theory. Finally it provides a comparison of the Community Meeting within Therapeutic Communities and the Sanctuary Model®.
Findings
The paper detailed how the Community Meeting tool is underpinned by the norms and theories of the Sanctuary Model®. It detailed the direct link between healing from trauma and building attachments to the Community Meeting. It found the similarities of the Community Meeting within both Therapeutic Communities and the Sanctuary Model® in that they always included all participants and occurring regularly in circular groups. However, it noted the distinct differences including in Therapeutic Communities the Community Meeting forms a significant intervention, whereas within the Sanctuary Model®, the Community Meeting supports the broader intervention of the model for all members of the community including staff and clients.
Originality/value
The Sanctuary Model® is gaining international interest and as such, critical consideration of its theoretical influences, similarities and differences with existing models is critical to understanding the model.
Details
Keywords
Fatema Kawaf, Annaleis Montgomery and Marius Thuemmler
The paper addresses the privacy–personalisation paradox in the post-GDPR-2018 era. As the regulation came in a bid to regulate the collection and use of personal data, its…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper addresses the privacy–personalisation paradox in the post-GDPR-2018 era. As the regulation came in a bid to regulate the collection and use of personal data, its implications remain underexplored. The research question is: How do consumers perceive the matter of personal data collection for the use of highly targeted and personalised ads post-GDPR-2018? The invasion of privacy vs the benefits of highly personalised digital marketing.
Design/methodology/approach
To address the research question, this qualitative study conducts semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals, consisting of average users and digital experts.
Findings
This paper reports on increasing consumer vulnerability post-GDPR-2018 due to increased awareness of personal data collection yet incessant lack of control, particularly regarding the repercussions of the digital footprint. The privacy paradox remains an issue except among experts, and personalisation remains necessary, yet critical challenges arise (e.g. filter bubbles and intrusion).
Practical implications
Policy implications include education, regulating consent platforms and encouraging consensual sharing of personal data.
Originality/value
While the privacy–personalisation paradox has been widely studied, the impact of GDPR-2018 has rarely been addressed in the literature. GDPR-2018 has seemingly had little impact on instilling a sense of security for consumers; if anything, this paper highlights greater concerns for privacy as users sign away their rights on consent forms to access websites, thus contributing novel insights to this area of research.