Case Studies for Dealing with Trauma's Aftermath

I think many of us would agree that learning by doing is immensely effective; it links theory and practice. How we do hands-on, reality based learning differs naturally, depending on the age group, the topic, the materials available, the particular instructor. In other words, as important as blue dragons are for our imagination (see above globe), they are not the optimal pathway to solving problems grounded in reality (at least not usually athough children's books may be a notable exception).

Harvard's famous Case Study method has been replicated elsewhere and its benefits are known. Law Schools are now using pre-packaged case studies as well, replete with real legal documents and court decisions and depositions. Even bar exams have case studies as part of them these days. Short case studies are often presented in continuing education, asking learners how they would address a particular situation and then deconstructing the answers.

In most case studies of which I am aware, there are facts presented and then a problem to be solved and the "student/professional" then processes the given information and comes up with a set of possible solutions. These can range from the traditional to the innovative. https://www.bu.edu/ctl/teaching-resources/using-case-studies-to-teach/

I would like to suggest something of a different method of using case studies that can be used to help individuals within and outside academia handle a trauma.

TRIGGER WARNING HERE: This case study is based on actual facts and documents and a situation that was NOT well handled in my view. If you knew the head of student mental health services at a major East Coast university who committed suicide or are a student/employee at this university (you will recognize this without names here), this case study may be disturbing. In the case study, the names and identifiers are not redacted; actual documents are used. Perhaps in some contexts where this case study is used, changing names and locations might be wise.

Traumas on campuses are, sadly, not rare. This is true for businesses too. People become ill; people have accidents; people die, whether from suicide or natural causes or other events. Campuses handle all these situations differently, depending on their culture, their personnel, their context, their experience level at navigating trauma's treacherous waters.

I have developed a case study related to how an actual campus handled the death of its head of mental health services. I have included the email that went to undergraduates; I have included articles from the university newspaper and another local paper. In the context of this set of actual materials (where readers must develop the time line and then process what they are reading (which is difficult), I ask three questions.

These three questions are different from those usually asked in the context of case studies. As just noted, case studies commonly present a wide range of materials and ask what the case study users would do with the information they are given. How would they analyze and resolve or interpret a set of information/facts? Notice, in many case studies, one of the questions raised is what information is missing that would be important to your analysis. That isn't the situation here because the actual documents (save one which is unavailable but referenced) are presented; yes, private and perhaps relevant conversations are not included either. Many (not all) case studies ask for input and then progress forward with new information added, some of which may change an analysis. They could be considered evolutionary case studies.

This suicide case study is different.

Here's are my three questions for users of the case study: (1) Address the many ways in which the university failed to address the suicide of its head of mental health services in a way that was trauma sensitive and trauma responsive; (2) Address how you (assuming you were in a position of power) would have handled all aspects of this tragic and traumatic situation differently, including but not limited to student communications; and (3) Identify at least three or four themes or steps or cautions that universities should always consider when faced with a high profile suicide.

Start with this observation. I think few, if anyone with perspective looking at and probing this case study, would think the university in question did a stellar job. I say that both as a former college president and as an expert in trauma and the accompanying needed steps to communicate and process the aftermath of bad events. The hard part, of course, is that this is not a hypothetical. This is akin to medical conferences held after a patient dies in circumstances where the medical staff want to consider whether the right steps were (or were not) taken. They are known colloquially as M&M's (morbidity and mortality conferences).

None of these post-mortems are easy and they require courage. The information and treatment of the patient is all disclosed and then the questions are whether the right steps were taken. This is not an evolving case study; this is an after-the-fact case study.

I will be using this particular suicide case study in a continuing education course on trauma at a graduate school of social work. It will help social workers think about how the institutions where they work (schools, social service agencies, hospitals, private practices) handle suicides. I look forward to teach it and learning with and from the practicing social workers enrolled.

In the process of handling this case study (in groups first), we can process what it means to be trauma sensitive and trauma responsive; we can reflect on the many affected constituencies when a trauma occurs; we can reflect on the use of language and the timing of communications; we can address how institutions can manage their own grief as they help those within the organization.

But, I am thinking that this case study and its deconstruction can benefit many -- not just reading it but processing it and addressing the three questions posed above. That is because we learn from mistakes and there is nothing like a real life example to force us to think harshly, broadly and honestly about what was and wasn't done.

We rarely get mulligans in how we handle mistakes or situations. But, we can most assuredly learn from them. So, I am thinking of other venues where this case study and its deconstruction (and reconstruction) may have value. Suicides aren't rare these days. Consider its use by universities, private and public high schools, places of employment, military bases and military settings, social service agencies, hospitals and mental health facilities, prisons and the list goes on

I'd welcome your thinking -- about this approach to the case study (inverted in a sense), the questions asked, the utility of this M&M approach and any other related thoughts. The proverbial ball is now in your court.