Trauma, Resilience & Decolonial Psychology

Reframing Trauma Recovery: Introducing the Integrated Trauma Spiritual Resilience (ITSR) Framework through a Decolonial Lens Corey Rydell Jenkins The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Abstract This paper introduces the Integrated Trauma Spiritual Resilience (ITSR) Framework, guided by the Trauma‑Informed Decolonial and Resilience (TIDR) lens, as a participatory model for trauma recovery. Conventional clinical tools frequently overlook the spiritual, cultural, and relational dimensions of healing, particularly among marginalised populations. ITSR addresses this gap by centring survivor voice, co‑designed recovery metrics, and ethically grounded practice. Employing a mixed‑methods participatory design, the study explores how trauma survivors define and measure healing in ways that challenge dominant diagnostic paradigms. The framework foregrounds spiritual resilience, ancestral wisdom, and community orientation as essential components of recovery. TIDR provides the ethical scaffolding, ensuring that the model resists colonial bias and affirms cultural specificity. The implications extend beyond individual care, informing the development of Eden Recovery Village, a trauma‑informed clinical ecosystem rooted in long‑term support, spiritual depth, and systemic reform. This Perspective Piece invites dialogue on how psychology might evolve towards relational, restorative, and globally responsive models of care. Keywords: trauma recovery, resilience, decolonial psychology, participatory research, spirituality Introduction The discipline of psychology stands at a critical juncture. While trauma‑informed care has advanced the field, prevailing models remain tethered to diagnostic codes and revenue‑driven structures that often obscure the lived realities of survivors. Such frameworks risk reducing recovery to symptom management, neglecting the spiritual, cultural, and relational dimensions that shape human resilience. This paper introduces the Integrated Trauma Spiritual Resilience (ITSR) Framework, guided by the Trauma‑Informed Decolonial and Resilience (TIDR) lens, as a perspective that seeks to reorient psychology towards relational, restorative, and ethically grounded practice. Theoretical Foundations Trauma‑Informed Care Trauma‑informed care has become a widely adopted framework across psychology, counselling, and allied health disciplines. Its emphasis on safety, trust, collaboration, and empowerment has shifted practice away from purely symptom‑based interventions. However, despite its strengths, trauma‑informed care often remains tethered to clinical settings that prioritise diagnostic categories and measurable outcomes. This orientation can inadvertently reduce recovery to a checklist of symptom reduction, overlooking the deeper spiritual, cultural, and relational dimensions of healing. Decolonial Theory Decolonial perspectives highlight how dominant Western frameworks in psychology have historically marginalised non‑Western ways of knowing. Healing practices rooted in community, spirituality, and ancestral wisdom are frequently dismissed as peripheral or unscientific. A decolonial approach challenges this hierarchy by recognising that trauma is not only individual but also systemic, shaped by histories of oppression, displacement, and cultural erasure. Within this lens, recovery requires more than clinical intervention; it demands the restoration of dignity, cultural continuity, and relational belonging. Resilience Studies Research on resilience has expanded the field’s understanding of how individuals and communities adapt to adversity. Yet, resilience is often conceptualised narrowly as personal grit or coping strategies, detached from the social and spiritual contexts that sustain it. ITSR reframes resilience as a collective and relational process, grounded in spiritual practices, ancestral traditions, and community orientation. Positioning ITSR Taken together, these foundations illustrate the need for a framework that integrates trauma‑informed principles, decolonial ethics, and a holistic understanding of resilience. ITSR does not reject clinical rigour; rather, it expands the scope of psychology to include dimensions of healing that are often excluded from mainstream practice. The ITSR Framework The Integrated Trauma Spiritual Resilience (ITSR) Framework was developed to address the limitations of conventional trauma recovery models by centring survivor voice and co‑designed pathways of healing. Rather than positioning survivors as passive recipients of care, ITSR recognises them as active collaborators in defining what recovery means and how it should be measured. Core Components 1. Survivor Co‑Design – Recovery metrics are developed in partnership with survivors, ensuring that measures of progress reflect lived experience rather than solely clinical benchmarks. 2. Spiritual Resilience – Healing is understood as encompassing spiritual depth, whether expressed through faith traditions, ancestral practices, or personal meaning‑making. 3. Ancestral Wisdom – ITSR acknowledges the intergenerational transmission of both trauma and resilience. By drawing upon cultural traditions, narratives, and ancestral practices, the framework situates recovery within a broader historical and communal context. 4. Community Orientation – Recovery is framed as a relational process. Support networks, cultural belonging, and collective practices are recognised as essential to sustaining long‑term well‑being. Ethical Lens: TIDR The Trauma‑Informed Decolonial and Resilience (TIDR) lens provides the ethical scaffolding for ITSR. TIDR ensures that the framework resists colonial bias by affirming cultural specificity, challenging deficit‑based narratives, and foregrounding equity. Illustrative Application In practice, ITSR might be applied through participatory workshops where survivors co‑create recovery indicators, or through clinical settings where spiritual practices are integrated alongside evidence‑based interventions. For example, a survivor’s progress may be measured not only by symptom reduction but also by restored connection to community, renewed spiritual practices, or strengthened cultural identity. Implications for Psychology The introduction of ITSR, guided by TIDR, carries significant implications for the discipline of psychology. First, it challenges the prevailing reliance on symptom‑focused and revenue‑driven models of care. While such models provide measurable outcomes, they risk narrowing the scope of recovery to what can be quantified within diagnostic systems. ITSR expands this scope by recognising that healing is also expressed through restored relationships, spiritual renewal, and cultural belonging. Second, ITSR underscores the necessity of participatory and relational approaches. By positioning survivors as co‑designers of recovery pathways, the framework shifts psychology away from hierarchical models of expertise and towards collaborative practice. Third, the framework highlights the importance of integrating spiritual and cultural dimensions into psychological care. For many survivors, spirituality and cultural identity are not optional add‑ons but central to resilience. Finally, ITSR offers a model for systemic reform. Its principles can inform the design of institutions, such as Eden Recovery Village, that embody long‑term, holistic, and community‑oriented care. Conclusion Psychology must evolve beyond narrow diagnostic paradigms to embrace relational, restorative, and globally responsive models of care. The ITSR Framework, guided by the TIDR lens, offers a pathway that honours survivor voice, cultural wisdom, and spiritual resilience. By embedding decolonial ethics and participatory practice, ITSR reframes recovery as a multidimensional process that is both clinically rigorous and culturally responsive. This Perspective Piece does not present ITSR as a finalised model but as an invitation to dialogue. The future of psychology depends on our willingness to listen to survivors, honour diverse cultural wisdoms, and reimagine care beyond the limits of conventional paradigms. References Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.564 Bulhan, H. A. (2015). Stages of colonialism in Africa: From occupation of land to occupation of being. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.143 Fallot, R. D., & Harris, M. (2009). Creating cultures of trauma-informed care (CCTIC): A selfassessment and planning protocol. Community Connections. Pargament, K. I. (2011). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. Guilford Press. Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25338. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s-Concept-of-Trauma-andGuidance-for-a-Trauma-Informed-Approach/SMA14-4884 Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x