Seminarian strengths and weaknesses and the connection to formation

Danielsen Institute Researcher, Rev. Kristen R. Hydinger, led this qualitative study as part of our Peale project. The study examines first year seminary students’ perspectives on their formation strengths and vulnerabilities. It was encouraging that most students could name personal formation strengths and vulnerabilities early in their training, including a variety of psychosocial and systemic factors that are not well represented in prior literatures on spiritual formation of emerging leaders. The citation and abstract are below.

Hydinger, K.R., Stein, L.B., Wu, X., Sandage, S.J., & Crabtree, S.A. (2025). Seminary student perspectives on their formation strengths and vulnerabilities: A mixed method qualitative study. Pastoral Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-025-01242-2

Abstract

Religious and spiritual (RS) leaders spend formative years in seminaries, where they learn practical skills, reformulate conceptions of and relationships with God (or the Divine, the universe, what is ultimate, etc.), gain historical and theological knowledge, and potentially cultivate capacities and virtues that bolster their ability to engage resilience and promote flourishing within themselves and their communities. Often during their seminary programs, future RS leaders begin developing their vocational identity and discover factors that contribute to their professional burnout and well-being. This sequential QUAL (survey) – qual (focus groups) mixed method study, conducted in a progressive Christian seminary in the Northeastern United States, investigates how first-year seminary students perceive what personal strengths might help them avoid burnout and experience well-being as well as what vulnerabilities might increase burnout risks or undermine their flourishing capabilities during their graduate program. Results from two qualitative data collection points are presented, in which an initial qualitative survey’s findings (N = 44) informed the design of a focus group protocol (n = 13). Contextualizing findings within a dual-factor approach, in which positive and negative factors were explored simultaneously, we identified factors that students considered relevant for (1) contributing to burnout, (2) preventing burnout, and (3) promoting flourishing. Implications for both future research and seminary formation are discussed.