|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF EMERGENT IDENTITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS IN CLINICAL SUPERVISION By DAVID IGNACIO CAVALLERI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 David Ignacio Cavalleri
3 To Mom Dad and Jennifer
4 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like thank the following people for their support and their guidance through this project: Nancy Dana, Silvia Echevarria Doan, Mirka Koro Ljungberg, and Peter Sherrard. Each of you brought something important and special to this work. Nancy, you helped me think more clearly about my work and invited me to find better ways to express myself. Silvia, this is your second time sitting on my doctoral plus years. Thank you for continuing to take this journey with me. I am a better person for enough space to properly thank you for opening me up to new ways to make meaning out of the world. I knew from the moment I left your first day of class back in f all 2007 l. Doc, thank you for having faith in me. Thank you for believing that I could find the necessary strength to slay this dragon. Thank you for helping me find a sense of inner peace. I would be remiss if I d the privilege of working with and getting to know, both professionally and personally over the years: Andres Nazario Jr., Herb Steier, Gina Early, Gail Greenhut, Caroline Pace, Lynne Rigney Barolet, and, last but certainly not least, Mark Paris. I would be never have made the decision to return and complete my doctoral studies without the love and patience from my dear wife Jennifer, my two wonderful children Abigaile and Roman, my father Robert, and my mother Marichu, whom I miss dearly. Mom, this one is for you.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 INTRODUCTION AND AIMS OF LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ...... 18 Traditional Definitions of Clinical Supervision ................................ ......................... 19 Supervision Models ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Pr ocess and Outcome Research on Clinical Supervision ................................ ....... 20 The Counselor in Training in Clinical Supervision ................................ .................. 27 The Supervisor in Tra ining and Their Development in Clinical Supervision ........... 31 Literature on the Relationship Between the Counselor in Training and Supervisor in Training ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Rationale for Proposed Investigation ................................ ................................ ...... 37 3 THEORETICAL POSITION ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 Subjectivity Statement ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 48 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 51 Phase One of Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................. 52 Phase Two of Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................. 54 Phase Three of Data Collection ................................ ................................ .............. 54 Data Anal ysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 55 Validation in Qualitative Research ................................ ................................ .......... 63 Methodological Considerations ................................ ................................ ............... 67 4 FIRST GROUP INTERVIEW FINDINGS ................................ ................................ 71 The First Group Interview ................................ ................................ ....................... 71 Pre Understanding One ................................ ................................ ................... 72 Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way ........... 74 Establishing a Structure ................................ ................................ ............. 74 Moving Towards Understanding Via Identities and Relationships .................... 80 Exploring Personal and Professional Growth ................................ ............. 80 Instructio n ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 88 Language Negotiation ................................ ................................ ................ 91
6 New Understanding From the First Group Interview and Pre Understanding Two ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 93 5 ................................ ........... 96 Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way ................. 96 Clinical Confidence ................................ ................................ ........................... 96 Moving Towards Understanding Via Identities and Relationships ........................ 101 Clinical Comp etence ................................ ................................ ...................... 101 Preparedness to Engage Clients ................................ ................................ .... 104 Tending and Attending to Clients ................................ ................................ ... 106 Language Negotiation ................................ ................................ .................... 110 ................................ ................................ ........................... 112 Understanding Three ................................ ................................ ......................... 115 6 ....................... 118 Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way an d Not That Way ............... 118 Clinical Confidence ................................ ................................ ......................... 118 Moving Towards Understanding Through Identities and Relationships ................ 125 Supervisor as Knowledgeable/Instruction ................................ ....................... 125 ................................ ................................ ............................. 131 Emerging Compet ence ................................ ................................ ................... 137 Understanding Four ................................ ................................ ........................... 141 7 SECOND GROUP INTERVIEW FINDINGS ................................ ......................... 145 Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way ............... 145 Connecting to Each Other ................................ ................................ .............. 145 Moving Towards Understanding Via Identities and Relationships ........................ 148 Connecting to Each Other ................................ ................................ .............. 148 ................................ ................................ ............................. 150 Identity Fluidity ................................ ................................ ............................... 150 Final New Understanding ................................ ................................ ...................... 153 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................... 155 Synopsis of Interviews and Supervision Sessions ................................ ................ 155 Shared Discourses Among the Transcripts ................................ ........................... 159 Diverging Discourses Within the Transcripts ................................ ........................ 162 Talk in Counseling and Supervision Literature ................................ ...................... 164 9 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 168 APPENDIX
7 A INTERVIEW GUIDE 1 ................................ ................................ ........................... 176 B INTERVIEW GUIDE 2 ................................ ................................ ........................... 177 C PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT E MAIL ................................ .............................. 178 D TRANSCRIPT SAMPLE ................................ ................................ ....................... 179 E AUDIT/JOURNAL TRAIL SAMPLE ................................ ................................ ....... 200 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 215 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 221
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Data Collection Process ................................ ................................ ..................... 69 3 2 Data Analysis Process ................................ ................................ ........................ 70
9 Abstract o f Dissertation Presented t o t he Graduate School o f t he University o f Florida i n Partial Fulfillment o f t he Requirements f or t he Degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy Toward a n Understanding o f Emergent Identities a nd Relationships i n Clinical Supervision By David Ignacio Cavalleri December 2012 Chair: Peter S. Sherrard Major: Marriage and Family Counseling A clinical supervi sion team in a Counselor Education program consisting of one doctoral level supervisor, two master level counselors and doctoral level counselor participated in a qualitative study focusing on the use of language and its impact on their professional identi ties and relationships. The purpose of the investigation was to better understand how language affects their emergent professional identities and relationships, grounded through a hermeneutic theoretical foundation Actual supervisory session data was used broken out into four distinct sets of transcripts, with the supervisor. Discourse analysis was utilized to explore how language enacts and shapes identities and relatio nships, revealing multiple discourses formed, maintained, and altered, including identity fluidity, competence/confidence, language negotiation, navigating co counselor relationships, counselor style and pacing, the teacher and student relationship, becomi structure, and instruction. Several of these discourses were shared across the
10 transcripts, while others were unique. The findings indicate that both counselors and the supervisor alike use language to help foster their professional development, face challenges and obstacles to gaining a better sense of competence, and look to each other to be challenged and nurtured. The implications for research and practice discussed, noting how this particular analy tical method would best serve understanding how language shapes thoughts and actions in supervision as well as counseling. Findings can help inform training programs to consider using these approaches to help foster supervisory and clinical development, as well as offer guidance to emerging professionals once their formal training ceases and they seek employment post graduation.
11 C HAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Clinical supervision is a relationship between two people over a period of time. The role of clinical su pervision in the helping professions is historically situated into many functions: consultation, instruction, training, and evaluation (Ancis & Ladany, 2001; Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Bradley & Ladany, 2001; Campbell, 2006; Falender & Shafranske, 2008; Goo dyear & Guzzardo, 2000; Milne, 2009; Moorhouse & Carr, 2001; Scaife, Inskipp, Proctor, Scaife, & Walsh, 2008). Clinical supervision has been defined traditionally as a set of procedures by which a person who is more knowledgeable provides services to a per son who is less knowledgeable in the process of delivering mental health services to a client. It occupies a critical role in maintaining the standards rely on this activ ity as a means of developing clinical competence and addressing personal and professional concerns. Literature within the realm of clinical supervision often examines the supervisee in terms of their development, highlighting the importance of protecting both their professional maturation as well as protecting their clients (Bubenzer & West, 1991; Cormier & Bernard, 1982). Some scholarship also concentrates on the journey a supervisor in training takes to become a supervisor (Majcher & Daniluk, 2009; Nels on, Oliver, & Capps, 2006). Both experience their fair share of trials and tribulations, as both find themselves in the early stages of their professional careers, prone to mistakes and uncertainties about their evolving identities, careful to tend to thei r relationships with their peers and their clients so as to convey a sense of developing competence, whether they fully believe it or not. Appropriating the proper language, vital in a
12 profession reliant on the words we use to communicate with peers and cl ients, is vital to their understandings of what it means to be a counselor or supervisor. They both experience their fair share of trial and error. In many counseling programs a supervisor in training and counselor in training are paired during their respe ctive training program. The supervisor in training is required to oversee the work of a fellow trainee to assist the Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educ ational Programs (CACREP) and strongly suggested for others (Nelson, Oliver, & Capps, 2006). Due to the size of some training programs, it is impossible for faculty to oversee the clinical work of all of its students, which is where counselor s in training find themselves paired with supervisor s in training. This particular arrangement has received little scholarly attention. Scant research exists on the nature of the relationship between the supervisor in training and counselor in training and the influen ce language has on both their identities and how they engage each other. Historically speaking, the supervisory dyad or team di fferentiates along the lines of the expert and novice, whereby the supervisor has accumulated knowledge that the supervisee or su pervisees seek. In this particular configuration both would be considered novices in their prescribed roles. Language, whether verbal and/or non verbal in nature, is the primary mode through which knowledge is constructed and disseminated in supervision an d counseling. Reflection identities, enacted via language, also known as discour se, are formed and re formed
13 throughout the time spent together as supervisory participants. The supervisor in training finds herself facing a new identity, reflecting and defining herself and being defined in part through formal training in research, supe rvision, and counseling. The counselor in training most likely has accumulated few clinical experiences, and is thusly trying on a new identity himself as an emerging clinician, also informed through coursework. Little research exists on the reflective act ivities instantiated through discourse and its understanding of identity and relationships among the supervisor s in training and counselor s in training. The present investigation will reveal new knowledge about this interplay and consequently explore ident ities. For the purposes of this investigation the research question is as follows: How does language in action in clinical supervision increase understanding of identities and the relationships between counselor s in training and supervisor s in training? De spite the multitude of literature produced regarding clinical supervision, scant empirical data exists which details the reflective aspects of how discourse informs the relationship and the respective identities of c ounselor s in training and supervisor s in training. Texts and articles offer little in the way of supporting evidence in the form of textual data and interpretations of what is actually said during supervision. The bulk of literature currently available at best speculates on the use of en vivo la nguage with respect to the nature of the clinical relationship. Even further, even less space is dedicated to supervisor s in training and counselor s in training. It is taken for granted that supervisors in training and counselors in training act in the sam e ways as licensed individuals due to the paucity of literature on this proposed topic. Credentialed supervisors occupy the majority of scholarship, and the relationship, not specifically the
14 language used in the relationship and the reflective aspects of the language takes center stage. The majority of theoretical energy expended in clinical supervision is used to shape a beginning supervisor focuses on internal cognitive an d dialogic considerations. The relationship the supervisor has with his or her supervisee is discussed as an ancillary finding (Majcher & Daniluk, 2009; Nelson, Oliver, & Capps, 2006). The tendency is to adopt a reductionistic sense of what supervision mea ns without attending to an entire body of experience. The supervisor in training serves as the concentrative point ( Baker, Exum, & Tyler, 2002; Campbell, 2000; Geron, & Malkinson, 2000; Nelson, Oliver, & Capps, 2006). The counselor in training primarily serves as a cog in the supervisor in primary gap within these models is the lack of examination of language as a constitutive force to and its role in how supervision is conceptualized and implemented. Little empirical data is available as to how their exchanges imbue meaning and form and re form identity. There is little emphasis on the relational aspects of supervision. I see little in the way of the pair of the supervisory relationship as the object of interest in theory or research. The emphasis lies squarely with either the supervisee or supervisor in terms of identity development. My goal with this research is to understand how en vivo language scaffolds, affirms, and/or re shapes identities and the supervisory relationship between counselors in training and supervisor s in training. The s tudy of clinical supervision has shifted over the years to flatten the hierarchy between the supervisor and supervisee (Anderson & Swim, 1995; Edwards &
15 Keller, 1995), yet materials and texts regarding clinical supervision still look at it through the lens of the supervisor. In this sense, there is no scholarship on at least certain aspects of a discourse pertaining to the counselor and the supervisor. Scholarship in clinical supervision tends to focus on a supervisor and supervisee, not two individuals cur rently in training. Currently no studies exist that examines language and the meaning of that language in the context of the relationship between a counselor in training and supervisor in training as well as their identities. A plethora of inquiries have f ocused on the counselor in training, and a fair amount on supervisors in training, but nothing to understand what occurs in supervision when both participants are still receiving formal training. The majority focuses on various models of supervision within the helping professions. The proposed study would begin to fill in such a gap by describing meaning making within supervision as it pertained to the counselors in training and supervisor in I use the term counselor s in training because in many graduate counseling programs, team supervisory approaches are common, especially in Counselor Education (Champe & Kleist, 2003; Denton, Nakonezny, & Burwell, 2011; Nelson, Oliver, & Capps, 2006). In addition, they implement a specific type of supervision known co therapists while they work with their clients. This approach is further described in Chapter 3 It is surprising that a profession that seeks to attend to the use of language fails to explicitly investigate it in clinical supervision Scholars have not devoted much time recording actual supervisory conversations and gathering data to enhance our
16 understanding of the ways supervisor s a nd supervisee s interact. This inattentiveness is prevalent throughout scholarly literature in clinical supervision (Geron & Malkinson, 2000; Milne et al., 2008). Supervisory models make half hearted attempts to look at how language scaffolds meaning with r espect to the identities of both the counselor in training and the supervisor in training. I seek to understand how supervisor s use language and reflect on it within their working relationship by using examining conversational data from supervisory session s. I believe the best way to better understand emergent professional identities and the relationships that foster and scaffold them to use Professional identity evolves with experience and reflection that occurs outsi de of the scope of a linear model of identity development. The professional activities of counseling and clinical supervision rest on the foundation of language the primary means through which the profession is constituted. Talking makes things happen. Ve rbal performance shapes identity. Meanings are open to multiple interpretations when viewed over time and context, based in part on distance, experiences, and reflection. Counselors talk to clients to offer insights, opinions, support, and challenge (Corey 2008). In clinical supervision, the counselor in training and supervisor in training try on their respective emerging professional identities and subsequently test them on each other and their clients. Language acts as the primary driving force through which they negotiate the discussion of cases, and personal and professional questions and concerns (Wark, 1995). The language used acts as a gateway to the reflection of the processes and the meaning imbued through them. The purpose of the proposed inquir y is to generate knowledge about how language shapes meaning and identity in clinical
17 supervision among counselor s in training and supervisor s in training. Learning more about how language plays a constitutive role in their identity development and supervi sory relationship can inform clinicians and researchers how our words shape and re shape us in this context. I will offer specific data points that will illuminate thi s transformative work. We have compiled little in the form of actual supervisory session data in how language shapes apparent language use during clinical supervision has not been the focus of m uch investigational curiosity. Nor has how the impact of language on the relationship between the counselor in training and supervisor in training.
18 C HAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION AND AIMS OF LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review is separated into five sections. The primary aim of this review is to outline to the reader theory and practice with respect to clinical supervision, specific to counselors in training and supervisors in training. The first section outlines the lens through which I will critiq ue the scholarship. I will review how clinical supervision has been discussed and researched. Hermeneutics and discourse are integral to understanding supervisory literature, especially with respect to supervisor s in training and counselor s in training. Th e proposed research is grounded in hermeneutics, and more importantly, is epistemologically centered on identity and how it is revealed through performance and reflection. I will discuss this in detail in C hapter 3 The second section outlines supervisory development which currently govern clinical supervision. I intend to convey to you the dominant discourses that govern clinical supervision. This includes definitions of traditionally understood and disseminated practices regarding clinical supervision. Th e third section reviews research on clinical supervision, focusing primarily on the relationship between the supervisee and supervisor. This includes outcome and process research. The fourth section discusses additional research that examines supervision w ith supervisors in training and counselors in training. The section divides into three subsections. The first subsection focuses on counselors in training, the second on supervisors in training, and the third on counselors in training and supervisors in tr aining in clinical supervision. Finally, I end with a rationale for the proposed study. The knowledge generated from this study will offer empirical data regarding the relationship between counselor s in training and supervisor s in training in addition to i dentity
19 Traditional Definitions of Clinical Supervision Clinical supervision is traditionally construed as a set of activities whereby one individual who is deemed knowledgeable as a clinician is tasked with the development of a counselor in training (An cis & Ladany, 2001; Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Bradley & Ladany, 2001; Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000). It can be both a personally and professionally rewarding endeavor for both parties The supervisor traditionally tasked with ensuring the counselor demonstrat es the necessary competence to serve as an emerging professional in the helping professions. Beyond the functions of consultation, instruction, training, and evaluation is the process through which ideas, meanings, and identities are formed and re formed t hroughout the supervisory experience. Academic and institutional training models are two of the methods through which clinical supervision is implemented (Storm & Heath, 1985). In addition, there are two modalities of clinical supervision : on whereby the supervisor observes the supervisee as she is engaged in therapy with a client system (Denton, Nakonezny, & Burwell, 2010; Locke & McCollum, 2001; Montalvo & Storm, 1997 ), and e x post facto methods in which the supervisee and supervisor revi ew audiotape or videotape materials that recorded Supervision Models Multiple models of clinical supervision exist (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Bradley & Ladany, 2001; Campbell, 2000). They include behavioral, family therapy, psychodynamic, cognitive behavioral, family systems, existential, and brief, among others. Additional models of supervision operate independently of a theoretical orientation. These include interpersonal process recall, integrated development,
20 isomorphic, and interactional. They attempt to provide general guidance to the emerging supervisory professional. These models of supervision are taught in academic and institutional settings (Campbell, 2000; Geron & Malkinson, 2000; Heath & Storm, 1985). A supervisor typically selects a model of supervision that at least partially aligns with her or his preferred method of therapy or philosophy (Campbell, 2000). A cognitive therapist is more likel y to select a model of supervision that emphasizes thought processes ove r one that privileges behavior. Some concerns drive picking one model over another includes an s regarding change, preference for insight or action a s vital to change, orientation to time, and preference for a developmental vision versus the medical model. Implicit in these factors are overt or covert decisions regarding assumptions about power, politics, and the use of language. Process and Outcome Research on Clinical Supervision Recent scholarship has cast doubt on the quality of past research that examine d supervision and supervisory models (Geron & Malkinson, 2000; Milne et al., 2008). Several efforts attempt to fill in this gap. Milne et al. (2008) and his colleagues have craft ed a n integrative working model es regarding process and outcome on supervision. Milne et al. argue that while many models of supervision exist, they are hampered by a lack of empirical validation, are conceptually simplistic, and exhibit a poor understanding of what actually happens in supervision. They summarized findings from two dozen research articles based on multiple criteria, including a focus on clinical supervision, recent publication in a scientific peer reviewed journal, use of some form of observable manipulation, and a focus on supervisee actions, among others.
21 (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) to develop their own model of supervision. This synthesis employs a constructivist methodology to analyze the stud ies. Three variables were employed during this analysis: ( 1 ) Contextual variables, ( 2 ) Supervision interventions, and ( 3 ) Outcomes. These components served as the scaffolding for their model of supervision. The contextual variables consisted of a generally appropriate learning context. The supervision interventions included feedback, observation of supervisees, goal setting, and nearly two dozen other methods. Finally, the outcomes incorporated experiencing, reflecting, conceptualizing, experimenting, and f ive other methods. As robust as Milne et al. efforts are in devising a model based on prior research, several drawbacks emerge. The model itself is top heavy, concentrating power with the supervisor. T he quality of the studies they quote in their analyses may be questioned based on the studies available A third is the lack of specific criteria to understand the nature of exchanges between su p ervisee and supervisor : l anguage and its use in supervision were never explicitly described to delineate how they s caffold and offer opportunities for identity formation and re formation in supervision. Again, this is likely due to the lack of already established research in this area. Milne et al. sought to address this gap, especially for trainees. Although the major ity of articles selected were situated in residential settings and the learning disabilities field, its findings nonetheless assist me in considering context. It is a worthwhile effort on understanding what transpires in supervision and craft a model based on these occurrences. Whereas outcome/process is one of three components in this investigation, it takes center stage in the next article.
22 Martin, Goodyear, and Newton (1987) invested their energies in a supervisory dyad over the course of one semester b etween a counseling psychologist and a counseling psychology doctoral student. The purposes of the study were to link process to outcome, understand what happens in supervision, and show supervisee change. Multiple quantitative and qualitative methodologie s were implemented to examine certain aspects of their working relationship. Both process and descriptive measures were used. The process measures used were the Penman Observational Coding System (POCS; Penman, 1980), Session Evaluation Questionnaire, Form 3 (SEQ; Stiles & Snow, 1984), the Supervisory Styles Indicator (SSI; Friedlander & Ward, 1984), Impact Message Inventory (IMI; Kiesler, 1985), Critical Incidents Questionnaire (CIQ; Heppner & Roehlke, 1984), word count between the supervisee and superviso r, and individually completed weekly logs. The sole descriptive measure used was the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers Briggs; 1962). Prior to and after data was collected via the aforementioned measures, the supervisee worked with a coached client to o btain samples for use in assessing pre and post outcome results. In addition, both supervisee and supervisor were asked to identify which supervisory session was best and which one was worst. This information was shared at the end of the semester. In ter ms of multiple data collection strategies, the quantitative measures underwent rigorous analysis, while the transcripts were left untouched. Data from the CIQ, logs, and conversations are not manipulated to generate in depth themes or domains to adequately answer their research questions regarding what happens in clinical supervision, as least from a process perspective. Nothing is done with the
23 transcripts to understand how language is used to shape and re shape identities and social behavior. The goods ex changed over the course of the semester matter less to the researchers than do the quantitative measures. The qualitative findings from the study examined which session was best and worst. Both supervisee and supervisor identified the second session as th e best session. The supervisee indicated session ten as being the worst, while the supervisor selected session seven as being the worst. The discrepancy was due in part to the supervisor failing to remember anything noteworthy from the session, thus relega ting it as the worst. The qualitative findings reduce the experience of clinical supervision down to rank ordering which session they believed was best, simultaneously undercutting qualitative inquiry and promoting a positivist spin. The quantitative findi ngs from study indicated limited changes in the relationship and the supervisee over the course of the semester. One of the more interesting findings emerged from the IMI, which indicated the supervisee was becoming less submissive to the supervisor over t impression that he held the same stance toward her throughout the study, not noticing did not change at all throughout the study. Another key finding was activity levels between the supervisee and supervisor. The data supported the notion that the more active the supervisee was in supervision, the better the session. Additional findings speech acts (p.233). The authors used manifest meaning units to determine what types of acts occurred after a certain one was enacted in session. The antecedent units explicitly identified in the findings were exchange,
24 advise, agree, concede, and support. The consequent units identified in the findings were exchange, advise, agree, concede, support, and avoid. The authors use these findings to note the utility of the POCS in describing supervisory transaction patterns. Several interesting and useful piece s of information emerge from this investigation. One of the goals of this inquiry looked at supervisee change, but neglected to look at supervisor change. The results missed an opportunity to explicitly ty impacted how the supervisor conducted himself in session. By focusing their findings implicitly on the assumption that only the supervisee is shaped by behavior in clinical supervision, it provides an opportunity in future research to examine reciprocit y in the supervisory context. Language use is critical in how this perception and way of being is shaped and re shaped in session. Power and control reverberated throughout some of the key findings from the study. Holloway, Freund, Gardner, Nelson, and Wa lker (1989) also concentrate on power and involvement as it related to theoretical orientation in clinical supervision. The authors used data from five interviews to identify both manifest and latent communication in clinical supervision. The five intervie ws were individual supervision sessions conducted by each of five major theorists (Kagan, Ellis, Rogers, Polster, and Epstein) with the same supervisee. Holloway et al. transcribed the interviews and implemented content analysis to tie linguistic patterns between the supervisor and supervisee as it related to consistency in supervision to theoretical leanings. The Penman Observational Coding System
25 speech categories in the form of a three by three grid, listed as follows: aggress, disagree, avoid, advise, exchange, request, support, agree, and concede. The latent reject, counter, evade remove, control, resist, abstain, relinquish, initiate, offer, seek, submit, share, collaborate, cling, and oblige (p.90). Thumbnail criteria were described to determine the appropriateness of message units into specific categories. The sessions were tra nscribed and then coded according to the categories. Discrepancy of power and involvement between the supervisee and supervisor was measured by the amount of overlay between the manifest and latent categories. If there was greater overlay of the manifest c ategories over the latent categories in the center of each respective grid, there was a higher level of agreement between the supervisor and supervisee. The with power and involvement overlapping most equally. Holloway et al. identified more discrepancies among the other four theorists. That the authors relied on an analytic approach that utilizes terminology out of Freudian thought is provoking. The terms latent and m anifest are familiar ones in understanding dreams and make sense on a surface level as it relates to language in supervision. People may not always say what they mean in conversation. They may omit certain terms, or fail to directly respond to another pers on, which in its own way communicates certain ideas while neglecting or omitting others. In this regard I find the terms to be helpful in orienting me to the study. However, latent and manifest also pose problems as organizing terms in supervision inquiri es. They are embedded within a psychoanalytic lore that delineate
26 clear distinctions as to the structure of supervision and who is in charge and sometimes subverts supervision for therapy of the supervisee (Campbell, 2000). The roles of expert and learner are explicit, which is unfortunate since of the five interviews transcribed, only one (Rudolph Ekstein) was identified as psychoanalytic. The article is still useful despite of the terminology it uses in that it explicitly identifies power and its role in how supervision is conceptualized and carried out in conversation. If the supervisor occupies the majority of supervisory space, he or she will determine what is valued and shared between himself or herself and the supervisee. The findings support the not ion that power and involvement influence perceived equality in supervision. Holloway et al. (1989) findings are useful in that they begin to offer a framework for underscoring the importance that language has in how the supervisory space is apportioned. Power in the context of discourse can begin to be explicitly and fully discussed. It facilitates and/or hampers the exchange of institutional goods, professional goods, identity. Language positions and re positions people in relationships and ways of bein g in those relationships. The findings scratch the surface of discourse in clinical supervision, albeit for a supervisor and counselor, not supervisor in training and counselor in training. Lawless, Gale, & Bacigalupe (2000) examined several different asp ects as it pertains to discourse in supervisory relationships, identifying race, ethnicity, and culture via conversation analysis over eight sessions between a male American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy approved supervisor and two female clin icians. Lawless et al. rationale emerges from several identified flaws in supervisory discourses pertaining to race, ethnicity, and culture. He highlighted complexity, lack of literature,
27 structural components, and lack of diversity in training programs as the primary culprits. The purpose of the study was to examine certain contextual factors as they played out in clinical supervision. Results from the study revealed four domains of talk pertinent to race, ethnicity, and culture in clinical supervision. T hey were bypassed opportunities, cross cultural differences in therapy, self of the therapist issues, and cultural issues affecting supervision (p. 47). Although conversation analysis examines naturalistic conversation as a means to understand discourse, a major flaw is revealed early in the inquiry. The study design suffers from a basic flaw in that the supervisor selected to participate happened to have an extensive background working with issues of race, ethnicity, and culture. It reduces the impact of t he findings because although the conversations that are collected, transcribed and analyzed are naturally occurring, the researchers know how the supervisor is going to orient and approach his supervisory work. Any discourses on race, ethnicity, and cultur e could not have naturally emerged due to prior knowledge regarding the participants. In summation, several investigators have examined aspects of talk in counseling and supervision. However, the focus has primarily situated itself on faculty and licensed individuals, not on trainees occupying both the role of supervisor and supervisee. Nonetheless, their scholarship assist s me in thinking of issues like power, space, and the use of textual data. The Counselor in Training in Clinical Supervision Little ha s been investigated regarding the counselor in clinical supervision. Most scholarship in clinical supervision has been historically
28 focused on the supervisor. However, several studies from the counselor in perspective ar e helpful in informing this inquiry. Coe Smith (2007) interviewed four counselors in training two times each to understand their experience in supervision with their supervisors. Her dissertation incorporated constructivism, social constructionism and herm eneutics to develop a their ways of being in a relationship with a supervisor. The interviews and extensive member checks yielded four relationship entities. This included structuring, connecting, struggling, and trusting as four major themes. Coe Smith took an active role in the creation of data as a participant researcher. experiences certain aspects of supervision. It provides an opening to future research in that although the researcher was an active participant in the research, it did not fold the supervisor into the interviews, leaving an incomplete examination of the supervisory dyad. The methodology was useful and informative, but was slightly confusing given the structuring of the interviews and analysis. The constructive portion interfered with the co constructed aspect of the investigation since it was co constructed by both the participant and th e author. The four themes may prove useful in how I sensitize myself next study of note adopted a quantitative perspective towards understanding the counselor in tra Ladany & Friedlander (1995) collected surveys from 123 counselors in training to examine role conflict and role ambiguity among supervisees and supervisors. A multiple
29 regression an alysis that focused on goals, tasks, bonds, role ambiguity, and role conflict showed supervisees felt more comfortable working with the supervisor when roles were clearly defined. The supervisee was less comfortable with the working alliance when they expe rienced more ambiguity and conflict in clinical supervision. These results conveyed the importance upon mutually agreed upon tasks and goals, underlined with a strong emotional bond between the two as key in maintaining a productive working alliance. The authors see the lack of ambiguity and conflict as the result of negotiation between the supervisee and supervisor, which strengthen ed the working relationship. They rightly note the necessity to attend to the working alliance as often as the clinical wor k the supervisee is bringing to supervision. The results begin a path of inquiry that would benefit from further study. For example, a dditional inquiry that included surveying and interviewing more specific data regarding the ways in which negotiation takes place and space is shared. The findings begin to shed light on language as an institutive force regarding relationships and identities for counselors and supervisors. But their results do not show how re sponsibilities are shared in c o constructing the relationship nor how t he structuring of the relationship impacts its productivity. The authors proposes a uni directional flow of ideas and actions. Goals of the supervisory working alliance were articulated was a key finding from this study, the relationship takes center stage in the next inquiry, underscoring its importance in a productive relationship. escribes several key components integral to becoming a successful supervisor. One of the chapters emphasizes the importance of a healthy
30 working relationship between supervisee and supervisor. Role conflict and role ambiguity are raised as two potential ba rriers to good supervisory work. These problems arise in part from the hierarchical nature of the working relationship (pp. 90 91). simultaneously in multiple roles that conflic 91) as confusion that some supervisees experience as they are encouraged to explore their personal character and discuss thei r limitations while simultaneously being evaluated by supervisors for their competencies and suitability for the profession. When supervisees experience role conflict, and not the supervisor, it is critical for the supervisor to help decipher the issue wi th the supervisee. Conflict is described through the lens of the supervisee, but not the supervisor, which could also block dialogue. This position implicitly encourages clearly defined distances between the supervisee and supervisor, preventing true and m eaningful engagement. The supervisee is tasked with understanding their experience in supervision. Literature regarding the counselor in training and talk in counseling and supervision addresses the relationship to a meager extent. Nevertheless, it does address some aspects of their experiences, mixing in both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, which do inform my thinking.
31 The Supervisor in Training and Their Development in Clinical Supervision Most of the scholarly focus on clinical supervision has been directed towards the supervisor or supervisor in training. What follows are several recent efforts into understanding this relationship from the perspective of the supervisor in training. Campbell (2000) describes several key components integral to becoming a successful supervisor. It introduces readers to the nature of supervision, how to select a supervisory model, the relationship, ethical issues, and methods and techniques in supervision, among others. However, little is explicitly discussed regarding the text does not attend enough to help the supervisor in training understand and appreciate the behavioral, cognitive, and linguistic complexities of supervision. I nstead, one takes from the text that supervision is analogous to a cookbook with little forethought. It spends more time trying to help the supervisor craft a working relationship with the supervisee from a top down orientation. Supervisory complexity is a ddressed to an extent in the subsequent investigation. Baker, Exum, and Tyler (2002) assessed nineteen doctoral students over one semester to understand general supervisory development. Twelve of the students were enrolled in a supervision practicum, whil e the other seven were not. The Supervisor Complexity Model (SCM), and the scale designed in part from that model, the Psychotherapy Supervisor Development Scale (PSDS), oriented their work in this study. The SCM describes four stages a supervisor navigate s through role shock, role recovery and transition, role consolidation, and role mastery as they develop supervisory competencies. The authors were interested in whether a supervision practicum for supervisors in training would yield higher scores on the P SDS.
32 The authors conducted interviews throughout the study and analyzed them in tandem with the quantitative data. The results complemented the SCM. Interview questions were patterned after the five dimensions of the SCM. They were conducted at the mid p oint of the semester and again one month after the semester ended. The 12 students enrolled in the practicum were interviewed. The interview data was analyzed and slotted into the four stages of development outlined in the SCM. Results from the study con firmed the supervision practicum improved scores on the PSDS. The stages of the SCM. Several points of concern emerge from this inquiry. Some of the questions focused on no reciprocal questioning was asked of the supervisees themselves. The authors might have had a better understanding of supervisory development had they queried the people whom they were supervising. It evidences a solitary and unilateral attempt to understanding development, and moreover, th e supervisory relationship in general. the superviso ry relationship on the whole, leaving the reader to assume that the and supervisory development. Nelson, Oliver and Capps (2006) delve further into the supervisor in tra experience and relationship by examining power and politics via connections they make to their development and their supervisees professional organizations, supervisors, peers, and instructors. Thirteen doctoral students were intervie wed over
33 three semesters to generate a theory about their experiences as they became supervisors. The rationale for this study emerged from a lack of inquiry into understanding the process for students as they transitioned from students to supervisors. The research was positioned via grounded theory, and member checking was implemented to help triangulate the data. Six themes were identified from the interview data. They were ( 1 ) learning, ( 2 ) supervisee growth, ( 3 ) individual uniqueness, ( 4 ) reflection, ( 5 ) connections, and ( 6 ) putting it all together. Two findings from this study are worth noting, particularly for my work. One includes the supervisor in supervision, a shift from earlier modes of thinking. Additional space is devoted to the importance of their relationship with the supervisee, even mentioning the instructive role the supervisee has on the supervisor in training. As fruitful as some of the findings are, concerns pers ist. The six th emes were not synthesized into a theory about becoming a supervisor, nor were pertinent aspects about becoming one identified In addition, little is mentioned about how relationships with supervisors, professors, and professional organizations are negotia ted, and nothing is noted regarding a reciprocal response from any of these other identity forming and re forming entities. (2006) investigation guided some initial thinking about the experience of a supervisor in training. The participants identify professors, supervisors, instructional texts, and professional organizations as playing roles in how the y attune themselves to their identities as supervisors in training, thereby weavi ng historical context into their
34 conversation. This study makes no indication of how organizational and academic discourses shap e the supervisor in training, but their mention nonetheless is noteworthy. This study is the first I have reviewed that discusse s the supervisor in training as occupying a role other than that of the expert, as noted by comments made by some of the participants regarding the instructive role the supervisee had in supervision. Although not made directly, this finding infers the poss ibility of a discourse within clinical supervision between supervisor in training and counselor in training that permits the exchange of social goods to be bi directional. The final study furthers the discussion about the supervisory relationship, incorpor ated into a curriculum. The Supervision Institute offers a six session training program to educate social workers seeking to become supervisors (Kaiser and Barretta Herman, 1999). The rationale behind its development laid in an assumption that many clinica l training programs offered insufficient instruction. The Supervision Institute offers services to both beginning and seasoned clinicians, and engages in research to gauge their programs. Their model focuses on the supervisory relationship, power and autho rity, addressing transference and countertransference issues, ethics, cross cultural supervision, and evaluation. The authors briefly describe each session, and continue to provide some illustrations of how they approached the sessions in supervision. In summary, the relationship again becomes a focal point, this time with the supervisor in training. The next section examines the scholarship addressing the counselor in training and supervisor in training together instead of separate units.
35 Literature on t he Relationship Between the Counselor in Training and Supervisor in Training The majority of scholarship on clinical supervision focuses on either the supervisee or supervisor, with the advantage pointing to the supervisor/supervisor in training. Most supe rvisory models and research make mention of but do not emphasize supervisory development with both the supervisee and supervisor in tandem. Each is treated as unique and separate entities without so much as a conversation with both at the same time, or an analysis of their exchanges while working together. The counselor in training and supervisor in training are rarely treated as a unified entity in theory or research. A recent inquiry exemplifies the reductionistic nature of counselor in training and super visor in training research, where findings are split between the two, instead of unifying them. Five Marriage and Family Therapist supervisors and ten Marriage and Family Therapist supervisees were interviewed six times to understand their experiences duri lack of clinical supervision research that examined both supervisor and supervisee simultaneously, as well as little in the way of scholarship regarding live supervision. The interviews were semi structured, and focused on what the supervisors did that was aspects of grounded theory were used in stages to analyze the data, constant co mparative method and analytic induction. However, it is never clearly stated what their epistemological position is regarding their research and analysis. The supervisor data was analyzed separately from the supervisee data; this is befuddling, as I cannot determine if the supervisor and supervisee were interviewed together. Three domains
36 emerged from the data: ( 1 ) Teaching/directing, ( 2 ) Supporting, and ( 3 ) Collaboration. Eight supervisor categories supported the three domains, while six supervisee categor ies supported two of the domains. Data from the supervis or and supervisee were not analyzed on a group level to craft a theory of supervision. Instead, the reader is left with a theory of live supervision as seen by the supervisee and a theory of live sup ervision as seen by the supervisor. Perhaps interviewing both supervisor and supervisee at the same time was not the most helpful way to understand live supervision experiences, or the method through which they analyzed the data was not the most appropria te. If the supervisor and supervisee were interviewed together, it was inconsistent with the epistemological stance taken in the research, whereby the data was analyzed separately. This shortcoming informs the following two inquiries. Recent scholarship ca sts into doubt the effectiveness of research that examines supervision and supervisory models (Geron & Malkinson, 2000; Milne et al., 2008). A plethora of conceptualizations are available to educators and clinicians, yet basic research that understands bot h the process and outcome aspects of supervision, especially with respect to trainees, are few and far between. As noted earlier in this chapter, Milne at al. crafted a model of supervision. This synthesis employs a constructivist methodology to analyze t he studies. Th e th ree variables utilized were ( 1 ) Contextual variables, ( 2 ) Supervision interventions, and ( 3 ) Outcomes. These pieces formed the foundation for their proposed model of clinical supervision.
37 One area of concern with the model is its focus o n the supervisor. In terms of data used for their synthesis, it is possible that the quality of the studies used may pose problems with respect to the strength of the model Another is how language was not explicitly defined regarding power and space. In s pite of these questions it still offers new knowledge to understand what happens in supervision and the development of a model Finally, Lawless, Gale, & Bacigalupe (2001) examined race, ethnicity, and culture via conversation analysis over eight sessio ns between a male American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy approved supervisor and two female clinicians. As discourses regarding race, ethnicity, and culture. T he findings from the study pointed to bypassed opportunities, cross cultural differences in therapy, self of the therapist issues, and cultural issues affecting supervision (p.47). While the relationship among the client and clinician has received ampl e a ttention in the counseling literature, the preceding studies reveal a lack of attention towards the supervisor and supervisee, especially if both are still engaged in formal training themselves. The proposed study would continue to address their dynamics a nd the impact of language in use on each other. Rationale for Proposed Investigation Literature on the topic of clinical supervision has focused primarily on developing models of good supervision and some scholarship has examined specific variables deeme d critical to a productive working relationship. I will devote some space now to reiterate some of the observed flaws in supervisory theory and research.
38 The majority of theoretical energy expended in clinical supervision has been overwhelmingly spent und used to shape a beginning supervisor focuses on internal cognitive and dialogic considerations. This is not to say that the relationship the supervisor has with his or her supervisee is not discusse d at length. The problem with these models, though, is how language shapes beliefs about how supervision is conceptualized and implemented. The study of clinical supervision has shifted over the years to flatten the hierarchy between the supervisor and sup ervisee, yet materials and texts regarding clinical supervision still look at the relationship through the lens of the supervisor. In this sense, there is no discourse on being a supervisee. The proposed study w ill begin to fill in the gap by describing th eir shared discourse within supervision. Scholarship in clinical supervision tends to focus on a supervisor and supervisee, not two individuals currently in training. At this juncture, no studies exist which examines the relationship between a counselor in training and supervisor in training. A plethora of inquiries have focused on the counselor in training, and a fair amount on supervisors in training, but nothing to understand what occurs in supervision when both participants are still receiving formal tr aining. I want to better understand how language shapes interaction in this context. The primary problem with prior models is that they are individualistic in nature. The concentration is on the supervisor as the focal point, whereas the supervisee is a imbue meaning and form and re form professional identit ies There is little emphasis on the relational aspects of supervision. I see little in terest in the supervisor y pair as the
39 object of study in theory or research. The emphasis has been squarely with either the supervisee or supervisor in terms of identity development. My goal with this research is to understand how language is used in supervision between the couns elor in training and supervisor in training, and how reflection and meaning making emerge to scaffold, affirm, and/or re shape professional identities. How language scaffolds and shapes emergent identities in the relationship between the CIT and SIT is ta ken for granted. The proposed study seeks to fill empirical gaps governed by texts.
40 C HAPTER 3 THEORETICAL POSITION I adopt the theoretical perspective of hermeneutics for this inquiry. The essence of knowledge and its accumulation is achievable and expres sed through the interpretation of texts and social acts ( Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Heidegger, 1977; Heidegger & Brock, 1949; Heidegger, Macquarrie, & Robinson, 2008) People move from a place of not understanding an experience or phenomenon towards a pla ce of understanding through interaction and reflection. Hermeneutics is historically rooted in the interpretation of holy scriptures (Crotty, 2006; Grondin, 1994), but spans across disciplines due to its focus on the reflection, interpretation, and meaning making of experiences. The specific form of hermeneutics to be implemented here is alethic hermeneutics. Heidegger (19 77 ) adopts a subform known as existential hermeneutics. Alethic hermeneutics proposes that understanding the world is basic to human exi stence (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). We know what we know through understanding, coming originally from a place of pre understanding. The most basic ve as the starting point through which something is revealed. This can also include social acts, which can be later captured as texts. In order to develop an understanding of an experience, to bring something to the surface that was not so previously, the researcher must oscillate between their own worldview and that of the text so as to not find themselves entrenched in one perspective or the other. The researcher must engage in a dialogue with the text, asking it questions. The questions to be asked of th e texts in this inquiry will be selected discourse tools outlined by Gee (2011). The questions are asked not only to specific passages in the text, but to the
41 entire corpus. The whole and the part must be simultaneously kept in mind while attempting to und erstand and bring to light that which is not plainly obvious in the text. Meanings unfold like layers through interpretation. The act of understanding the world and our place within it is an open ended process. This sense of understanding is reliant on con text, which differentiates itself from phenomenology. The world around us grounds researchers as they peer into the hidden meanings of texts. With respect to the notion of identity, which I posit is ever evolving, so too are texts. Identity is never fixed, unstable in the sense that it is always in a state of flux. This is not to imply that identity wholly transforms each time a person engages another person or reflects on an experience, but perspectives and interpretations change, even if they appear to be minute in nature. In the case of this inquiry, interview and clinical supervision texts will be interpreted implementing discourse analytic methods to look for meaning in the use of language as it pertains to their respective identities. Life experience, especially within the domain of the research topic, is essential in understanding how particular sets of knowledge are generated. In the context of this inquiry, it is essential that I as the researcher have some basis of previous knowledge about clinical supervision. Otherwise, it would be impossible. Stolze (2002) outlines three components when attempting to understand a text. The first is that texts contain an individuality unique to them. Secondly, the meaning of the text is best understood as a whole. Thirdly, texts are incapable of being one dimensional. Each person who reads a text will have a different reading making sense of it in their own way, so too were someone were to pick up the texts from this research.
42 I engage d the texts from the interview s in a dialogue to better understand how their respective identities emerge within the supervisory relationship. I am unable to pretend I have no understanding of clinical supervision, but am clearly at the point of pre understanding identity and how it un folds between the counselor in training and supervisor in training. However, I can address this potential hindrance by adopting an active approach with the entire text, acknowledging my own situatedness to this study, and alternating back and forth between the entire text and specific passages (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). Only through reflection and an appreciation for the potent instability of these reflections, based on time and space, will I come to something resembling an understanding of the questions at hand. Subjectivity Statement The purpose of this statement is to share previous personal experience s I had and parallel it to identities and relationships within clinical supervision. In this example I worked from a pre understanding of art instruction in talking to my then three year old daughter Abbie. I falsely believed that since I was an adult who had more experiences drawing and painting (even though I would not be confused with Dali or Picasso), I could teach her without needing to take her own e xperiences and thoughts into account. Even though I a m no expert, I did take college coursework in art and architecture and thought I could teach her. I failed to account for her own experiences with color and paints to contribute in her own meaningful way to the experience. I discounted what she told me she wanted to do, and by doing so, I failed to learn what she could have offered me while drawing and painting. I had purchased several canvases, acrylic paints, pain tbrushes, and thought Abbie and I
43 either of us and I figured Abbie would want to do something fun with daddy. I selected a small canvas for her, measuring around five inches by eight inches, and the canvas I used measured 16 inches by 20 inches. I cut out a portion of an empty egg carton and squirted one color of paint into four holes. I thought red, yellow, green, and blue would make Abbie happy, and also give me a basic pal ette with which to work. She asked for a red paintbrush from the packet I bought, and I decided to take a yellow one. The primary goal of this activity was to spend time with her, as I believe I should. But my secondary goal was to offer some instruction on how to paint, so that perhaps one day she would take as an active interest in the arts as I have. My first major in college was architecture, and I took some courses in two dimensional and three dimensional design. I was no expert, but I felt I could o ffer Abbie some guidance and wisdom based on my own experiences passing on to the next generation some of the things I found and still find fascinating. I did not explicitly articulate these to her, believing she may not fully comprehend or appreciate my efforts. I instead began to demonstrate to Abbie how she ought to paint thinking it might be more useful than assuming she would simply follow my lead. I instructed Abbie to paint only on the canvas, and not the table, informing her that her mother would b e unhappy if we stained the faux wood chocolate colored table. Part of this instruction was intended to scaffold her experience. I wanted to ensure as We began to paint, and Abbie immediately mixed th e colors, all the while telling me how much fun she was having. I, on the other hand, was not having much of a good
44 was mixing all of the paints simultaneously. She wa and as a result, she ended up basically making what I thought was a mess on her canvas. She told me how much fun she was having painting, telling me she was painting a picture for me. These comments alternated with me telling her how to colors indistinguishable on the canvas. Meanwhile, I was not pleased with my own work. It looked like something a five year old might produce, if I even knew what a five year old was capable of doing. I saw what a three year old could do. change out the paints I was using. I was becoming annoyed at the money and time spent on this activity. I cut out a few additional pieces of the egg carton, and poured only red and yellow paints. I thought maybe I could start over again with showing her how to paint. I did this in part because Abbie told me she wanted to help me finish my painting. direct her painting. I relented, let her do her thing with my canvas, and of course ended up improving it with her use of red and yellow. In a slight tou ch of irony, my portion of the canvas suddenly looked like a mess, while hers had some energy and effort behind it. I thought I could guide her into painting the right way, but in the end, I learned from her to just let it rip (and keep it simple).
45 My int ention was to help show her, since I had majored in architecture for a short Michelangelo, I figured I had some knowledge that I could impart to her. It turned out that her si mplistic approach taught me more about taking it easy and not letting me get in the way of art. I took for granted that I was more adept than Abbie. That moment of n what she might actually want out of the experience instead of presuming that whatever I had to offer would suffice. We wrapped up, cleaned our hands, and watched a cartoon together. Clinical supervision, while not painting, is tantamount to art. Supervis ion texts, like art texts, deliver detail after detail about what each endeavor looks like. Models are offered and instructions are laid out for sculpting a piece of clay or effective clinical supervision, with little focus on the process of each activity. The texts take for granted how people experience the task of supervision, and most notably, its impact on identities and relationships. How does language shape emerging supervisory and counselor identities? What can the words used in clinical supervisio n offer us in understanding the experience between the counselor in training and the supervisor in professionals, the counselor in training and supervisor in training. To reiterate the research question : How does language in action in clinical supervision increase understanding of identities and the relationships between the counselor in training and the supervisor in training?
46 The meanings of those identities reveal thems elves throughout their respective experiences together. Both counseling and supervision rely on the spoken word in action. Neither profession prospers without the use of language as a tool to direct behavior. Unlike my efforts with Abbie as someone who may have known more than her in terms of color and art, it was clear she had her own contributions to make. She resisted every attempt I made to influence her own creative process in part because I tried to suffocate her creativity. Neither of us was doing a very good job of listening to the other person. In turn, I am curious to generate knowledge regarding the use of language between the counselor in training and supervisor in training. L anguage has certainly played a role in how I remember some of my own ex periences in supervision. I have found myself in some enriching and incredibly frustrating supervisory wanting to sit in a room with a supervisor, to others where I wa s transformed both personally and professionally. Two experiences stand out for me. The first experience was while I was enrolled as a counseling psychology doctoral internsh ip at the Counseling Center. We initially seemed to be on good terms, but noticed over time that I felt like I was being picked apart, and had little say in how supervision was to be conducted. I asked him toward the end of the semester if I had done anyth ing right, to which he was speechless. His manner of questioning of my clinical practices and unwillingness to work with me left me in a corner. I recall many after time It was not a pleasant experience. There was never any doubt as to who was
47 in charge, even though we were probably at most two or three years apart in age, liked the same kind of movies and food, and were of similar ethnic backgrounds. The other instance was nothing short of a miracle. It occurred on the heels of the although he was not a supervisor in training as Carlos was, my time with him was night and day different. I in stantly felt respected, had a voice, and had some control as to consumption. He never once situated the conversations in ways to leave me out in the cold. It was duri ng my time with him, and later as a student in his supervision course, that my research interest in supervision blossomed. Both experiences were helpful in understanding language in clinical supervision. In the earlier example, I learned quickly that it wa s better to get along to go along. It was better for me at the time to keep my mouth shut and simply do whatever he requested of me. In this way, the type of language he used silenced my counselor identity. If an identity existed, it would be best characte rized as a subservient one. The other experience offered opportunity after opportunity to engage with my supervisor in a back worry about saying something that would kee p me from satisfactorily completing my clinical coursework. Language a nd governance were instrumental in how I was identified and situated. They, along with my own experiences as a supervisor in training in this department, pique my curiosity as to how eme rging professionals, the counselor in training and supervisor in training, use language in crafting and guiding their
48 with the right words to use to make the best use of m yself without getting in their way. Participants In this study, I interacted with a clinical supervisory team composed of four people. It consisted of three females and one male. Additional description of each person follows. They were selected due to th e team being comprised of at least one supervisor in training and at least one counselor in training. In this instance there was one supervisor in training and three counselors in training. The clinical supervisory team was enrolled in a class with a clin ic component which utilized a form of supervision investigation. Many Counseling programs, particularly those with an emphasis on Marriage and Family Counseling, implement a team approach to supervision, utilizing a doctoral level supervisor and some combination of Masters level and doctoral level counselors (Denton, Nakonezny, & Burwell, 2010; Locke & McCollum, 2001; Montalvo & Storm, 1997). The purpo supervision modalities exist, including the use of a one way mirror so the team can observe the supervisor entering t he room to assist the counselor(s) with therapy, a telephone in the counseling room so the supervisor can call in with suggestions or instant instruction or suggestion s, and the counselor(s) taking a consulting break in the supervision is considered to be beneficial for beginning counselors in that it provides
49 them with needed support to devel supervision comprised of one doctoral level supervisor, two masters level counselors as particular team incorpo rated an earpiece for the counselor(s) as well as a mid session consultation break. The participants were enrolled at a southeastern university in the United States of America. Doctoral students at this institution are required to supervise master level st udents, and in some instances doctoral level students enrolled in certain courses. They often supervise one or two students per semester. This process is The participants w ere selected via a purposive sampling method known as snowball sampling (Patton, 1990). Purposive sampling is one which study participants are identified according to some criteria. In this case, they were either a supervisor in training or a counselor in training. I sought people who may be able to meaningfully contribute to my investigation, and then referred or recommended another person or persons to the study who were able to offer something useful in the context of this study. The Counselor Education listserv was e mailed with the transcript found in Appendix C, with the intent of obtaining interest from either a counselor in training or a supervisor in training. A supervisory team enrolled in a Marriage and Family Counseling course agreed to participa te in this project. The supervisor in training showed initial interest, then spoke to the team about participating. Once they all agreed to participate we scheduled a time to meet, review the consent forms, and conduct the first group interview.
50 The four p articipants consisted of three females and one male. Their names were changed in the effort to maintain confidentiality. In this particular team, the male and one of the female counselors were paired together as co counselors whereas the other female couns elor worked by herself with her clients. It is typical for some counselors in deliberations prior to the course starting. The name of the supervisor for this effort was June, the co therapists names were Brian and Esther, and the solo female counselor was Heather. June is in her third year as a doctoral student in the Marriage and Family Counseling track. She identified as having a postmodern ist theoretical orientation, leaning on narrative therapy as her clinical and supervisory foundation, incorporating experiential aspects of her work. She stated that she was in the process of preparing for qualifying exams to become a doctoral candidate. the Master of Education program in the Mental Health Counseling track. She identified as an existential and experiential clinician. She indicated during the first group intervi ew that she was seeking work once her final semester ended, and asked the supervisory team if they knew of any organizations looking to hire newly graduated clinicians. At the time of the second group interview she found a job in another state doing at hom e protective services division.
51 in the Master of Education program in the Mental Health Cou nseling track. She stated during the first group interview that identified as a client centered therapist, folding in aspects of both solution focused therapy as well as reality therapy. Esther, along with Heather, were both completing internships required by their respective programs during their final semester. She too was seeking advice on employment opportunities during the first group interview. By the time of the second group interview she had secured a job in the same suburban area where she graduate d working with individuals as well as the occasional couple and family. the Marriage and Family Counseling track. He is a semi retired medical professional and decided to pursue a different career. He identified as a solution focused therapist. Of the four members of the supervisory team, he has children. He was currently enrolled in several beginning level doctoral courses on research and theory. Data Collection The stud y was conducted at a major southeastern university located in the United States of America. The university houses a College of Education, which in turns has a Counselor Education program located within a school that encompasses multiple education related d isciplines The program offers both masters and doctoral level programs in Mental Health Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, and School Counseling. It is accredited through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The program is nationally recognized and is highly ranked among Counselor Education programs in the United States. The college is nestled within an ethnically and racially diverse small metropolitan suburban area
52 surrounded by various rural towns Multiple mental health clinics exist in and around the youth mental health and psychiatric services to people of various abilities, backgrounds, sometimes regardl ess of ability to pay. The data collection process itself was broken down into three phases. The data collection process was completed within a course in which students see clients on campus for up to twelve or thirteen weeks, depending on the duration of the semester itself. The course itself operates from an isomorphic approach towards clinical supervision where the therapeutic relationship is played out in clinical supervision (White & Russell, 1997). Both relationships must be negotiated and understood in order to become competent clinicians. Table 3 1 outlines the data collection by stage, which can be found on page 69 of this manuscript. It breaks down the process by phase, the tools used, and a brief justification for using each tool. It includes the discourse analysis tools discussed by Gee (2011). Phase One of Data Collection A semi structured interview format was utilized for the first phase of this project. Semi structured interviews consist of a set of open ended questions designed to provide i nitial structure to explore a topic of interest. They are used in qualitative research to provide a basic outline to a inquiry, but have the freedom to veer off into new territory should the need arise. It presupposes that the interviewer has some basic kn owledge, or may have some lived experience regarding the topic at hand, but not so much that new horizons and vistas can emerge.
53 In terms of knowing the study participants themselves, I personally knew very little about the supervisory team. I had met Ju ne several times in the hallways of the taken any classes, at least none that I can recall, with any of the supervisory team members. I was comfortable meeting with the tea m during the first group interview, and it appeared they were comfortable and accommodating to me. Although I did not know them, I did not experience any anxiety while conversing with them, and none were knowingly directed back towards me. The individual s participating in the interview, through this format, may diverge to explore the topic in additional detail. Eight formal questions were developed and selected for use. Two of questions are ( 1 ) What are some of the things you talk about in supervision ? an d (2) What role do you think the words you use in supervision play in your relationship ? Qualitative researchers recommend limiting formal questions when conducting semi structured interviews so as to not narrow the scope of interest and turn the research encounter into a structured interview (Hatch, 2002). A script precede d the interview questions, read before each interview commence d The interview guide is attached as Appendix A. Probing questions were asked when deemed appropriate to obtain further deta ils from a response. The interview was conducted in person with the supervisory team. The interview was conducted towards the beginning of their semester, and lasted approximately one hour. The interviews were audio taped and later transcribed in verbatim after uploading them from the taping device into the computer.
54 Phase Two of Data Collection semester ended. This portion of the data collection process consisted of audiotaping th e videotaped supervision sessions. The sessions were recorded with the permission of both the supervisory team members as well as the clients. Although none of the counseling session portions of the videotapes were audiotaped or analyzed for this investiga tion, their mere presence on the source tapes from which the supervision sessions were audiotaped warranted that their permission was necessary prior to recording any material that included them. A total of nine hours of supervision was audiotaped for an alytical purposes. Twenty one supervision sessions were captured. The sessions were uploaded from the recording device, uploaded into a computer, and then transcribed verbatim over a three month period. By recording these sessions and not sitting in on the m, I did not alter what was naturally occurring in a supervision session. It was possible that by being present to audiotape the supervisory my presence might have somehow altered how the counselor in training and supervisor in training engaged each other. Audiotaping after their semester ended presented zero intrusion into their conversations. However, not being present and not attending prevent ed me from being able to observe body language, a limitation to the findings later on. In light of that concern, my actual presence could have potentially influenced their behavior. This data, along with the semi structured interview, w as transcribed for analysis. Phase Three of Data Collection A second semi structured interview format was utilized for the third ph ase of data collection. The second group interview was conducted several months after supervision
55 ended, after their supervisory sessions were audiotaped and transcribed. The supervision transcripts were sent to the team members to review to check for accu racy as well as prepare them for the second interview, which focused more so on language and its impact on their identities and relationships with each other. It offered them an opportunity to reflect on their collective experiences and particularly on how they spoke to each other and what role those words may have had on their relationships and their identities. The second group interview was conducted over the telephone as one of the supervisory team members had moved away after graduating from school. Se ven formal questions were developed and selected for use. Two of the questions are ( 1 ) What role do you think the words you used in supervision influenced your relationship? and ( 2 ) When looking at some of the transcripts, reflect on the types of words yo u used and their impact during supervision. A script preceded the interview questions and was read before each interview commenced. The list of interview questions can be found in Appendix C. The second group interview lasted 50 minutes. The interview was audiotaped and uploaded from the recording device into a computer. The interview was transcribed and analyzed. Data Analysis I implemented a modified form of discourse analysis for this investigation. Discourse analysis is often used as a way to critique thoughts and behaviors (Gee, 2011). It used less frequently as a way to understand how language shapes behaviors and thoughts without including a critical component. Since my study is theoretically grounded in hermeneutics, one that presupposes that pre understanding of an experience to an understanding of an experience sans a critical
56 element ( Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Heidegger & Brock, 1949; Heidegger, Macquarrie, & Robinson, 2008), deciding not to modify my methodological approach unnecessarily instead superimposed my own personal experiences onto their texts. It w ould have suffocated their experience, and instead would have privileged my own, which was not my intent. It would have closed off open inquiry. The present research will be analyzed through a modified form of discourse analysis proposed by Gee (2005 2011 ). This technique works on the basic premise that language is a means of enacting, shaping, and re shaping social behavior. Gee (2005) describes discourse of situations. We exchange ideas statuses, knowledge, shape identities, share or hold back information and/or power. Discourse does more than interpret situations and conversations. Language becomes a tool to convey what is worthy of reflection, therefore having value. Politics plays a key role in discourse and discourse analysis. Politics refers in this sense to the exchange of social goods between individuals. By social goods, I refer to: Anything that a group of people believes to be a source of power, status, or worth (whether this b through a very long list) (Gee, p. 2). The exchange between th e counselor in training and supervisor in training impact identit ies and relationships, played out by the words used during their sessions. The majority of scholarship in clinical supervision focuses on models, outcome research, the supervisor in training process research, and little on the counselor in
57 training. What follows is a review of a sampling of supervisory related literature with an attention towards language in action. In this research, I adopt the position that identity is recursive in nature whereby performance, reflection, and meaning making are integral to understanding who we are. Instead of taking the position that identity is a relatively linear concept, ala Erik Erikson or Alfred Adler (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964; Cote & Levine, 2002) I take the stance that identity is an ever changing and complex process. In order to better understand the as to better understand their experiences and simultaneously i ncrease my own understanding about identities and relationships through a hermeneutic lens ( Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Heidegger, 1977; Heidegger & Brock, 1949; Heidegger, Macquarrie, & Robinson, 2008). This was accomplished without adopting a critical st ance. Through this approach, there are possibilities for each encounter among two or more people to alter each counselor in training and supervisor in training identities are scaff olded in part through their interactions with one another. It is not feasible at this point of the research process to engage in a genealogical examination of clinical supervision, although this inquiry offers a first step into understanding the histories of identity and meaning making within this domain. Choosing to investigate counselor in training and supervisor in training brings the specter of points of emergence within the formative experiences of clinicians and supervisors in the helping professions In order to synthesize the hermeneutic underpinnings whereby the researcher engages texts in the hopes of reaching an understanding of the phenomeno n in
58 question, I utilized three tools outlined in his text on conducting discourse analysis (Gee, 2011) w ith an understanding that identity is potentially unstable, imbued with the potential for various meanings, and complex. The three tools chosen for analysis are (1) Why This Way and Not That Way, (2) Identities Building, and (3) Relationships Building. In order to properly utilize the three tools, the transcripts were read in their entirety several times over and oscillated between passages in the texts and the body of the text in it s totality. Table 3 2, which outlines the data analysis process, can be fou nd on page 70 of this manuscript. It provides a brief summary of the phases of data analysis, the tools used for each phase, and a justification for the usage of each tool. The Why This Way and Not That Way tool is meant to assist a researcher with under standing why a person, when speaking, uses words in certain ways and not in other ways (Gee, 2011). When using this tool the investigator asks questions to the stanzas might ha ve been when articulating their thoughts the way they did. In counseling and supervision a therapist or supervisor may pose questions in a particular manner or share their thoughts about a clinical process or event in order to attempt to convince them to t hink or act in a certain way based on what was posed to them. Any speaker has a range of options available to them and ultimately decides how to proceed based in part on the audience and what they may gain from the interaction. For example, a counselor may counseling, instead of saying that she is clueless or helpless because she does not want to give the supervisor the impression that she cannot address the client in a competent m anner. The speaker may choose to address whatever he or she has in
59 mind directly and/or indirectly, leaving it up to the listener to decide how it is that the speaker wanted their thoughts interpreted and acted upon. The Identities Building tool asks the researcher what identity the speaker is attempting to enact through their language (Gee, 2011). The speaker seeks to convince the listener to recognize a certain identity, one familiar to both the speaker and listener. The investigator asks the texts how encourage the listener to adopt a certain identity while they are speaking, whether in the case of a supervisor speaking to a counselor, it might be him or her inviting the therapist to ask more feelings based questions in the hope of her or him adopting a more feelings focused identity as a clinician. This tool also asks the researchers to ask questions of the data about whether ag utterances used by everyday people in ever yday situations. It can also be described as non technical language, or perhaps common language. A counselor may use the term Family Of Origin issues to discuss concerns expressed by a client about their childhood, or instead choose to say that the client has some complaints about things that happened to him when he was a kid. Using either of these two possible ways to talk about early life experience issues through this particular tool seeks to impress upon the listener a certain identity that the speaker wishes to enact or have validated. Such enactment is integral to the Relationships Building tool. Words are used to maintain and alter relationships. The speaker does so in part to alter how they are
60 perceived by the listener and how they wish themselves to be perceived, which weds itself to the Identities Building tool. As Gee states (2011), the Identities Building tool and Relationships Building tool are not one in the same. I, as an adjunct faculty at a local college, can convey the identity of an inst ructor, yet have multiple types of relationships with my students. Each of them will still know that I am a teacher, but to some we may have more of a distant relationship whereas with others I may seem warm and friendly. The same can apply to counselors a nd supervisors when working with each other. When analyzing the transcripts, I will alternate between the Identities Building tool and the Relationship Building tool since they tend to work synchronously. Prior to implementing the three discourse tools to analyze the first group interview, I developed a statement of pre understanding regarding identities and relationships in clinical supervision. As the study was grounded in hermeneutics underpinned by the belief that the end goal was to develop a bette r understanding of the topics at hand, it was necessary to articulate what I had understood up the point of beginning my analysis. The next step in analyzing the data set was reading and re read ing the first group interview. This provided me with a sense as to how the counselor in training and supervisor in training responded to the interview questions. After reading and re reading the data I identified stanzas relevant to my research questions. A stanza, according to bout one important event, happening, or state of affairs identity, relationships, or saying things in certain ways, it was highlighted and then considered later on for further re view and potential analysis. Portions of the transcripts
61 that included the instructor of the Marriage and Family Counseling course were not considered for analysis since the focus of this investigation centered on the counselors in training and supervisor in training, and not her direct involvement in supervision. Future investigation on language and identities and relationships would logically extend to including the course instructor, as she served as the meta visor for the supervisors in training for thi s class. Portions that focused primarily on counseling content was also excluded as the purpose of this study, again, was not on client related issues. After stanzas were identified, I utilized each of the three discourse tools to ask the stanzas questions and take notes based o n those questions. After stanzas from the first group interview were identified, they were analyzed utilizing the three discourse tools and produced in the form of a narrative, as though the transcripts were telling a story. Hermene utics was founded on the analysis of Biblical texts, in the form of scriptural passages, which required that I mirror a similar process when writing my findings. At the end of the findings from the first group interview, I wrote a new understanding of iden tities and relationships in clinical supervision based on what I had finished analyzing. It simultaneously served as a pre understanding of the next section was analyzed, I wrote a new understandings section based on what I had learned from her transcripts. That served as the pre understanding prior to analyzing I wrote a new understandin g based on the new knowledge I had gained, and used it to serve as the final pre understanding. It was used for the second group interview. After the second group interview was analyzed, I crafted a final new understanding based on
62 what I had learned from that interview. Each of the four sets of transcripts were divided into Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 to make reading easier for the reader. A total of 2 16 pages of single spaced transcripts were produced. The transcripts were read and re read several times whil e simultaneously listening to the audio, looking for passages to identify instances where the counselors in training and supervisor in training were using language to enact identities as well as relationships amongst themselves. The majority of textual con the clients was precluded for analysis, as those exchanges focused counselor client interactions and strategizing, which falls outside the scope of the research questions presented in this project. In add ition, there were several instances where a faculty sat in on the supervisory sessions. Those portions of the texts were not included in this analysis, as this inquiry focuses on the interactions between counselors in training and the supervisor in trainin g, not on faculty and trainees. Future inquiry should consider including the faculty member, known as a meta visor in such a course, to understand how their use of language may impact identities and relationships. Chapter 8 was written to accomplish severa l tasks. It was written firstly to summarize the findings from Chapter s 4, 5, 6, and 7 It was also written to identify similar discourses across the four transcripts along with highlighting several discourses that varied between the texts. I also looked t o counseling literature to tie in findings from Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the role talking in action has with respect to relationships and identities in clinical supervision, with an attempt to emphasize counselors in training and supervisors in training.
63 Validation in Qualitative Research The question of what is worthwhile or trustworthy in qualitative research relies on an understanding of the dynamic nature of such inquiry. The process of qualitative research matters. Whereas positivist and post positiv ist research is predicated on stagnant ways of determining the veracity of its findings, qualitative research effort resides on a multi faceted approach that understands tha t the research process is a fluid one imbued with potentially shifting meanings over time and context Multiple being conducted is indeed true to all involved in th e process at that particular moment. P ositivist research is predicated on determining the veracity or truthfulness of data o ne explainable meaning being the ultimate goal in quantitative circles, a transcendence of sorts. It assumes to some extent that tr uth is identifiable and perhaps unchangeable, although t his is not the case in qualitative research. arrived at based on some analytic method (Golafshani, 2003; Koro Ljungbe rg, 2008; Thayer Bacon, 2003) steeped in inflexible processes Qualitative research does not instead implement ing varying strategies to It instead relies on validation, a nd not validity. Validation is a fluid process in qualitative research (Koro Ljungberg, 2008). Historically speaking, validity has been perceived as the verification, or truth seeking activity, of any piece of research (Golafshani, 2003). Universal laws, t ruth, and actuality, among other terms, are often used to describe the concept of validity in quantitative research. I use the term validation instead of validity because it is based on the moment
64 at which partners in research engage the data. What may mea n something in one moment of time may ring false at another point. It is an incomplete process at best, where it might be possible to engage in the validation process for an indeterminate amount of time. Science operates in much the same way, although qual itative research directly engages its subjectivity and viscosity. Context drives the validation process, with knowing serving as a continuously open ended process. Beyond validity in qualitative research is the overarching concept of trustworthiness. It is findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It demonstrates to the reader that the study was designed and executed with intentionality and sound principles. More importantly, it conveys to the reader that the study is worth reading and the findings bear some merit. Guba (1981) discusses four components inextricably tied into the trustworthiness of a qualitative study. They are ( 1 ) Credibility, (2) Transferability, (3) Dependability, and (4) Confirmabi lity. Credibility concerns itself with how well the study captures what occurs in the real world (Shenton, 2004). Several strategies boost the confidence a reader has that the research is credible. One such strategy is employing research methods that are well known in the qualitative research community. In the case of this study, discourse analysis is used in understanding language in action. Another technique to address credibility is member checking. The supervisory team was involved throughout the data collection and data analysis, assuring that I accurately captured their experience. Having some familiarity with the research environment also goes toward demonstrating that the research is credible. I have experience both as a counselor in training and
65 su pervisor in training. I took notes in a reflective journal to track my thoughts throughout the study. Samples of these notes are available as Appendix E. As a qualitative researcher, it is up to me to offer the reader sufficient detail regarding the contex t of the study so they will be able to relate on some level with the work that has been conducted. This is what transferability attempts to achieve (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004). I have provided a transcript sampling, which includes analysis, as Ap pendix D. The reader will better understand the processes involved throughout the study and perhaps apply them to enhance understanding of their own situation. It is inherent upon me to detail as clearly as possible the processes involved in this study in the event a researcher were interested in repeating the work. Explicitly describing the plan from start to finish, discussing what took place during the data collection and analysis, and talking about how effective my strategy was encompasses dependability (Shenton, 2004). Finally, confirmability refers to the sense that a reader gets from reviewing the research and coming away with the impression that the findings are a reflection of the ishes, conscious or not (Shenton, 2004). The subjectivity statement conveys to the reader how the researcher is situated within their work. The audit trail also offers the reader evidence that the research findings are based on participant experiences, and not on apriori beliefs. The pre understanding and new understanding statements are meant to provide
66 they offered provided credible evidence of modified understandings and a n appreciation for change throughout the investigation. For the purposes of this particular investigation, the four individuals who participated in this research were actively engaged in helping construct the meaning of their exchanges. I sought their active input during the second group interview to solicit their understandings and knowledge of the supervision sessions. I documented our interactions in the form of a journal/audit trail of reflective notes. Audit trails help track how knowledge has been produced, altered, defined, or scrapped altogether (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The audit trail/journal offers opportunities to reflect on our work and seek clarification and depth in clinical supervision. In addition to the journal/audit trail, I member check ed interview transcripts and early analytical data with the team to further develop our understanding and knowledge about counselors in training and supervisors in training within the context of clinical supervision. This afforded me opportunities to bette r appreciate and further my understanding of how language shapes how they interact with each other. I adopt the position that while meaning in qualitative research has the potential for fluid and ever changing meanings rigor is vital. Validation in quali tative inquiry is about the process put in place to determine the trustworthiness of the work at hand. I engage in multiple activities to strive towards that in my work. I do my best to maintain fidelity t hrough the audit trail and transcript samples I also work towards validation by involving the supervisory team in reviewing the transcripts prior to the second inte rview to learn whether I had properly captured their experiences. The subjectivity statemen t allows the reader to better
67 understand how I am situated within clinical supervision, and the pre understandings and new understanding provide intimate glimpses and insight into my thoughts and reflections about the texts. Methodological Considerations S everal things must be considered in the midst of any knowledge producing endeavor. It is impossible to encapsulate all aspects of a phenomenon or activity. There is never a way to know all that is potentially knowable during the course of and after an acti vity. With that proviso in mind, my research is intended to offer a glimpse into the use of language as a shaping force between the counselor in training and supervisor in training in the helping professions. As mentioned earlier, while this effort did not take me to the beginning point in clinical supervision, it nevertheless created new knowledge about the experiences between counselor s in training and supervisor s in training in understanding the role discourse play s with respect to their respective ident ities and their relationships. Since knowing is an open ended exercise, it is not constrained by limits placed by the researcher and participant. Knowing changes based on experience and reflection. It is entirely possible that someone in the near future ma y decided to review the texts generated from this inquiry, ask it questions, and come to entirely different conclusion s I may look back at this effort and see it differently, in part based on the experiences that transpire from the time I collect this dat a to a point down the road where I may adopt a differing perspective on clinical supervision. As stated earlier, it is important to consider transferability of the findings from this e happen to be similar contextual features. No supervisory dyad shares the same experience, although
68 Additionally, the people who decided to participate in this stu dy may do so out of an inherent interest in the topic, which is the case for any type of research endeavor. Some people are fascinated by clinical supervision, whereas others acknowledge that ve affected the findings. can be very telling in supervision, it nonetheless can alter what is analyzed and how it is analyzed. Language did not turn out to be a barrie r. I could not have assumed that the supervision team that participated in this research would grasp the nuances in the English language the way that native speakers do. Fortunately, it did not emerge as a concern. However, non verbal language was not an area of focus for this inquiry. It would be of tremendous value to consider in future investigations, as they can have as much of an impact on thoughts and behaviors in clinical supervision as well as counseling. A researcher would likely find that those n on verbal cues, in conjunction with verbal cues, would yield valuable data on what transpires among the clinical supervisory team. Non verbal language is not typically a focus of hermeneutic inquiry, although social acts are described when discussing its f oundations (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000).
69 Table 3 1. Data Collection Process Phase of d ata c ollection Tool u sed Justification for u sage One Audiotaping device Capture interview for transcription Set of semi structured Orient myse lf to interview questions supervision and begin to understand language usage Consent forms To be able to interview them and use videotaped data for the second phase of data collection Computer For uploading and transcription of interview Two Audiotaping device Capture supervision sessions for transcription DVD of supervision Source of supervision sessions sess ions, to be captured via audio taping device Computer For uploading and transcription of supervision s essions Three Audio taping device Capture interview for transcription Set of semi s tructured Learn about how their interview questions semester went, and ask them to reflect on transcripts produced during Phase Two of data collection on language usage Com puter For uploading and transcription of interview
70 Table 3 2. Data Analysis Process Phase of analysis Tool used from Gee (2011) Process/justification First group interview Why This W ay and Not Read and re read entire That Way texts, identified Identities meaningful stanzas, Relationships and zoomed in and out between their experiences and my own to move from pre understandi ng to understanding of language Why This W ay and Not Read and re read entire sessions That Way texts, identified Identities meaningful stanzas, Relationships and zoomed in and out between their experiences and my own to move from pre understanding to understanding of language Why This W ay and Not Read and re read entire sessions That Way texts, identified Identities meaningful stanzas, Relationships and zoomed in and out between their experiences and my own to move from pre understanding to understanding of language Second group interview Why This W ay and Not Read and re read entire That Way texts, identified Identities meaningful stanzas, Relationships and zoomed in and out between their experiences and my own to move from pre understanding to understanding of language
71 C HAPTER 4 FIRST GROUP IN TERVIEW FINDINGS This Chapter 4 is co mprised of the first group interview Prior to the analysis of the first group interview is a statement of pre understanding of the data to be discussed. At the end of the first section, I will include a new understa nding of the data based on my analysis. That new understanding will serve as the pre understanding for the Chapter 5 Th is is comprised of a discursive analysis of the first group interview among the clinical supervisory team. The first group interview ses sion was 25 pages long, and from that group interview, 25 relevant stanzas were identified and coded. This set of transcripts and their respective stanzas were clustered into themes to facilitate analysis based on similarities across stanzas. Stanzas from the first group interview were combined into f our overall themes The themes serve as the foundation for the story structure through which the data will be discussed. The First Group Interview The purpose of the first group interview served two purposes: ( 1) to help me become more oriented to this group concept of supervision, and ( 2) to encourage them to reflect on supervision. The conversation focused on what they thought supervision was, its purpose and structure, what happens in supervision, how they figured out what to talk about in supervision, previous supervisory experiences, as well as how other supervisors have influenced their professional identities and their relationships with their supervisors and each other. A total of 25 stanzas pertaining to why this way and not that way, identit ies and relationships within clinical supervision were identified and coded into stanzas, into which four major story elements were clustered. The themes were ( 1) instruction, ( 2)
72 establishing a structure, ( 3) lang uage negotiation and ( 4) exploring professional and personal growth. Those four themes serve as the foundation for the story structure of this interview. Pre Understanding One The purpose of the first group interview was to orient them to the study as we ll as learn from them what they understood supervision to be, what happens on a week to week basis in supervision, who decides what is discussed, the kind of language used during supervision, learn about some of their previous experiences in supervision, a s well as what they hoped to gain from supervision. Supervision means a few things to me. It is a time where I can talk about my clinical work and receive feedback, instruction, and guidance from someone who can help me improve my skill set. It also provi des me with an opportunity to flesh out my thinking about therapy and what brings about change. Supervision was also a time and place where my methods would be challenged, with the ultimate intention of toughening my thinking and helping me put theory and practice together. I also came to believe, at sentiment now, as there were instances where the supervisor failed to account for my own life experiences to benefit t he work I was doing with clients. Prior to analyzing this section data, I had understood the process of supervision to be primarily a one way street, at least when it came to figuring out what was discussed. I had generally felt, regardless of whether th e supervision experience was positive or negative, that it was up to the supervisor to direct what was discussed. The leeway I felt I had going in to supervision was which client cases to discuss, based on whatever developments were occurring. Beyond that there was little negotiation,
73 regardless of whether the supervisor was a doctoral student or a seasoned clinician and supervisor. The structure was pretty standard in my supervisory experiences. We spent the overwhelming amount of time discussing client c ases, and rarely veered into any areas achievements during supervision. I usually talked about one or two cases in supervision, showed some video clips (if I had some avai lable). Supervision was exclusively focused on the process and content of my cases. 3 in my subjectivity statement. As I had mentioned, some of them helped me grow while others stood experiences were positive and helpful. I can say with certainty, though, that my supervisory experiences in community based settings tended to work out better for me in terms of g aining more assistance as a counselor in training. I would attribute that observation in part to having a stronger connection to the client population I was working with, and perhaps knowing that preference influenced my supervisory interactions. I also th ink I had a better relationship with my supervisors, getting along better with them than I did supervisors in academic settings for the large part. One of my questions to the supervisory team focused on the type of language they found themselves using in language earlier on in my training, as I was probably trying to look and sound the part of counselor. I figured if I used that language to a supervisor I would sound like I knew what I was talking
74 to properly apply the term. I relied on perceived cues from the supervisor during supervision to explain myself, believing that if I was to be seen as a credible counselor in training I clinical experiences and completed more coursework, I relied less on technical language and more on activities with my clients. I felt more confident about the work I was doing, and could rely less on technical language to explain myself. Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way Establishing a Structure June: the relationsh ip, and the interaction, right? June uttered those words while describing the purpose of supervision, sandwiched between the rest of the purpose of supervision to be. Her response frames the story of what supervision means to the supervisory team during the first group interview. Through the lens of the Why This Way and Not That Way tool, supervisi response as a question, she is seeking approval early on during the interview from the rest of the team. memory, or even intimated to a supervisee. is the over riding voice describing the purpose of clinical supervision. By framing her understanding of supervision in thi s manner, June is inviting the rest of the team to respond without having to necessarily ape her words. Brian in turn comments:
75 Brian: This is a great opportunity to reflect with other people that are even in session with you whether by video or as a co therapist Brian perceives clinical supervision as a time for him to think about the work he is time with others to slow down and think about what happens in session, wh ereas in Slowing things down gives Brian the chance to collect his thoughts and process the work he is doing with his clients. He also feels a sense of connection to his peers through his words. Heather echoes his sentiments, although saying it in a way to denote how appreciative she is to have someone physically present, as a contrast to other clinical supervision experiences: Heather: It is nice as you were mentioning to have supervisors who are there for the session She picks up where Brian leaves off, also acknowledging the experience of having someone physically and emotionally present to assist her with her clients. She as a counselor in training. From the first few minutes of the first group interview the team began to frame their story of supervision to look beyond the content of the counseli ng session. In order to talk about the interaction between the client and counselor, learning about oneself, and having someone present, the team would need to develop a level of comfort to
76 share their thoughts and feelings about their work and each other, even aspects that might be uncomfortable to hear or discuss. Brian comments on such an experience: Brian: I think it was really helpful especially in the beginning when it seemed like maybe there was an imbalance in what was going on therapy wise By saying it this way, Brian viewed supervision as beneficial towards helping him and his co counselor Esther work through what had turned out be a problem early on in frustrated him. They engaged in what he deemed to be a productive discussion that resulted in a change in how they engaged each other and their clients, all accomplishe d Esther: The supervision really helped to create the space to talk about something Since t he team stated that supervision was about covering the content and doing. Here Est her sees supervision as a parallel process to counseling: Esther: You as a therapist should be able to open the space open up the safe space so should supervision be t
77 topics in an open and honest manner so as to address them and raise awareness of I had never heard supervision framed the way she had, explicitly bringing up what seems to be for them a place to share things regardless of how they might be perceived. Even in the best clinical supervision experiences, I had never heard it stated that way. the structure of supervision, detailing the mechanism through which the team will learn about themselves, their clients, and their interactions. The team believes that being able vulnerability, June describes the importance of getting comfortable with each other to be able to open up to one another: June: examining ourselv es and examining each other which is an uncomfortable process and it is really not safe emotionally June includes everyone on the team when talking about comfort, ensuring that she includes herself She says it that way instead of another to inform the team that she must also works towards creating a comfortable atmosphere, not leaving the work entirely to the counselors. never witnessed myself i n a supervisory experience. June acknowledges the peril of allowing oneself to examine themselves and be examined by others, but cushions that
78 June: We kind of just hashed out what that conversation could look like i t is almost like just a contract We promise what we will be if the process looks like this The entire team is responsible for how the supervi sory sessions are conducted, The team, as she says, agrees to something analogous to a contract so as to articulate ther as well as have a rudimentary understanding of how to engage each other. One such detail discussed while putting together the pseudo contract as stated by June: June: And talking about what we each wanted to get out of this process and what was okay and what was not okay If certain situations come up that are more of like a conflict Each member was asked what sort of supervisory experience they sought for themselves, said in a way to give each of them a say. June wanted to learn what each team member was comfortable with and uncomfortable with in terms of addressing everyday language instead of specialist language to engage them in a comforting and non confrontational manner. going to breathe life into the structure, and the sense of collective responsibility, June unveils her theory of supervision: June: because I think in order to grow as a counselor in training you have to have a balance of nurturing and challenging Here June says in two ways how she thinks the counselors in training will become more competent at what they do. She believes enacting the identity of the
79 nurturing and chall enging supervisor will serve them well. She is not entirely certain, herself to the possibility that these two tactics may not be the most effective for this particul ar team. Later on in the interview the team told their story of how June was both challenging and nurturing, initially discussing the nurturing aspect of her work: Esther: do but more like listening to us and sharing her thoughts Brian: She was okay she j Both of them ta knowing. Brian explicitly reinforces the sentiment, em phasizing that he has some authority in how he will engage a client. I cannot personally recall ever feeling the way Brian had, not without feeling as though I had to justify myself on end to demonstrate myself to a supervisor. Near the end of the intervie Brian: I think it is an opportunity for you to really kind of push the envelope a little bit on what you are comfortable with without really fearing that there is going to be any irreversible catastr ophic damage done to your client Brian understands two things in this passage: ( 1) supervision challenges him to attempt new techniques, approaches, or lines of questioning in session, and ( 2) he also knows that he can do so with the support of the team. The second part of what he
80 supervision. He can simultaneously be challenged while sensitive to the fact that he The team uses language to situate clinical supervision as an opportunity to learn more about themselves, their clients, each other, and how they interact with their clients. Their story of supervision is articulated in a way to create a level of comfort with each other to open up space and invite vulnerability. The team believes this approach is conducive to a more fulfilling supervisory experience, instead of moving from client case to client case. Their story also distributes responsibility to each member through the lens of nurturing and challenging, understanding that risks are encouraged and that the key s to growth. Moving Towards Understanding Via Identit ies and Relationships Exploring Personal and Professional Growth June: I was more interested in their relationship with the client th a n being able to kind of experiment with the theoretical approaches or techniques The narrative of supervision for Heather, June, Brian, and Esther, focused on growth as emerging professionals starting w It included deepening their sense of self awareness as counselors and supervisors with their clients and supervisees, expanding their clinical repertoires, navigating co counseling, among others. Esther, Brian, and June discuss these com ponents early on in supervision: Esther: Yes And like reflecting on not only the content but also the process and like my experience of being with the client that kind of thing June: you the client the relationship the interaction right?
81 Brian: Because you have a tendency just to go from one session to another Because you are busy and you have to get stuff done and you have to see a certain number of people and there are only so many hours in the day and even if you are in solo practice you rarely have an opportunity This is a great opportunity to reflect with other people that are even in session with you whether by video or as a co therapist Supervision affords each of them a chance to slow down and reflect on their work, allowing them to think about their relationships with their clients, each other, and how to make sense of their respective identities. Esther envisions supervision to discuss not just what was said in session with clients but how she is engaging them, providing an opportunity to learn more about herself in the process and discuss what it is like for her to work with her clients. She views supervision as an opportunity to discuss and obtain feedback from the te am about how she interacts with her clients. professional. Supervision encompasses more than discussin g clients, learning more question, wondering if this assessment is shared by others in the supervisory team. This rtainty about the purpose of loads. Her willingness to share her uncertainty is revealing and illuminating for me, June seeks assurance of her own concept of
82 supervision from the counselors in training, perhaps speaking to a slight lack of hesitance in the supervisory structure or purpose. Brian responds positively story. His to emphasize the value he finds in group supervision, perhaps meant to compliment and tighten their working relationship. In addition to reflecting about how they interact with each other and their clients, supervision also offers an opportunity to continu e to develop their theory of counseling, as stated by Heather: Heather: And using supervision to help us like maybe distill even and tease out what our theory is because I know we are writing theory papers this semester for our exit interviews and I fe el like supervision has actually been a really helpful part of that in being able to have these kind of conversations with people that are watching you do your work and what do you think that looks like? Or this is what I think I am what do you think I am ? Supervision serves as a testing ground for refining her theory of counseling prior to graduation, in part due to her uncertainty of her own skill set as a theorist and counselor. She continues to sort out her clinical identity, as well as still trying to define how she thinks people change. She ponders several questions, pointed both outwardly and inwardly, about how her theory plays out in session, how she sees herself, and how her peers perceive her. It reflects an uncertain counselor identity, one s till trying to sort herself out while engaged in supervision. counselor and supervisor. She is asking whether she is who m she claims to be, both to
83 the team and to herself. It is a place for her to enact her couns elor identity in session with clients and then later engage herself and the supervisory team to find out if her activities in session with clients is consistent with her theory. Supervision is a safe place to work out the incongruences between her thoughts and actions prior to graduation, when she is less likely to receive the same attention regarding her counseling theory June was the first to describe the structure of clinical supervision, perhaps believing it to be part of her job description. It also served as an implicit opportunity to establish the supervisor and counselor relationship: June: Also having a conversation prior to seeing clients us meeting together and talking about what we each wanted to get out of this process and what was okay and what was not okay If certain situations come up that are more of like a conflict how would you like me to bring up if this or what if something goes on? We kind of just hashed out what that conversation could look like i t is almost like just a contract Th at informed my thinking in facilitating and hopefully and I hope that in turn setting the tone for safety June articulates what she believed the basic structure of supervision ought to look like, being sure to make it as inclusive a process as possible. S he continually uses structure of supervision, seeking to strengthen their collective relationship. She was also concerned with creating an inviting environment where t hey could freely share their never recalled hearing that word leave my mouth, even if it was something I strive to do in supervision. June makes it explicit, somethin g important for me to consider. The word
84 safety in and of itself promotes to the counselors in training the identity of a supervisor who is sensitive to their unique needs. June: You are just learning with that process Like what is a good fit for you ? While getting support and challenges because I think in order to grow as a counselor in training you have to have a balance of nurturing, challenging I think that supervisor in training is exactly the same thing Later on in the interview June talks a bout her supervisory identity as one who both nurtures and challenges them. This perspective is informed by what she perceives is the most effective way for a counselor in training to grow as a professional: to be challenged and nurtured, based on previous experience she had from a former supervisor. Here June is reflecting on her own identity as a supervisor in training, informed by previous experience regarding growth, and is simultaneously attempting to bring to life her own belief system among the couns elors in training She is promoting a relationship that relies on tending to their professional needs and encouraging them to engage in self reflection and critical thinking about their intentions and approaches, as discussed at length later in the supervi the onus of structuring the nature of supervisory relationship while also leaving the door open to other possibilities Under the umbrella of nurturing comes what June terms together. June: It is a space for vulnerability It is very necessary to get there and so creating that is in a sense making sure that we have developed some sort of relationship and feel comfortable That has happened quite a bit and probably examining ourselves and examining each other which is an uncomfortable process and it is really not safe emotionally
85 She worked towards fostering a relationship among the four of them where they can permit themselves to open up and not fear being judged or maligned in supervision for their thoughts and actions. June encourages the counselors in training to take risks in supervision to get to a place where they can look inward and gain a better understanding of themsel ves, their work, and their own respective identities. Without comfort there is no vulnerability, which implicitly goes to trust in each other. And when vulnerability are a gr oup effort. I marvel at what is becoming a consistent pattern of expressing herself clearly to the team. While June is directly addressing relationship dynamics, she is also encouraging them to take the same approach when working with their clients. In thi s way June is promoting to the counselors in training a more mindful approach to their work. In this passage she is referring not to just supervision, but also attempting to impart some instruction, an identity that emerges repeatedly throughout their work together, to be discussed in further detail later. A successful example of approach Heather: And felt like just from the first date we were all together it just felt comfortable We just all contributed something to that June helped create and making that space open and we all put ourselves out there s o it I think that helped as well Every person being willing to go there and willing to open up situation, and simultaneously assumes responsibility for the structure of the supervi sory
86 that each member of the supervisory team participated in creating a comfortable environment to open themselves up to each other. Because of the work the group did collectively, they were able to craft a cohesive relationship that allowed them to be ords also convey a sense of being a responsible counselor in training by taking on the task of helping to co construct this supervisory relationship. Esther: Also knowing that June do but more like listening to us and sharing her thoughts and also knowing that she has had experience and has been there Brian: She was okay with if she had thoughts and you were saying o The sense of personal responsibility in session was confirmed later on during the interview by both Esther and Brian. In addition, both felt that they had the freedom in supervision to accept Jun (s) felt was best at that time with their respective clients. The supervisor is supporting a position that it is ultimately up to the counselor to decide how to engage their clients. This position was foste red by the comfort developed in their collective relationship, as well as experienced with their clients.
87 Brian states that there are no negative repercussions involved in taking a knowing that he was not bound to her suggestions. The team was able to craft a multilateral relationship among the four where information and ideas could flow back working relationship. Brian along with Esther, do es not imply that she operates with impunity. Without a sense of comfort or ability to navigate through vulnerable places, the counselors may not have felt like they could say no without fearing some unpleasant consequence. The team collectively seeks to grow as emerging professionals. Brian and Esther in particular noted a transformation of their respective clinical identities. They began to identify as being authentic counselors, unlike perhaps the role play simulations of ten found in graduate level counseling coursework. Brian: Then we got more comfortable and we started doing It was really funny one of the things that happened and I remember this vividly Esther said wow it is really getting real in there and we had th e discussion and I said it is really us that is getting real The therapists are starting to get real We are being more of ourselves and not what we think the supervisor wants to see we are actually doing therapy the way that we want to do it Instead of o perating through someone else, namely their current supervisor, they see that they are experiencing identity transformation through their thoughts and actions during a therapy session. Brian and Esther no longer feel as though they are playing
88 believ experience this sensation together, not as individuals. Instruction Throughout the entire body of the transcripts the identities of teacher and student and a likewise relationship were clea r. The relationship among the team echoed the theme of instruction, as the counselors often received instruction from the supervisor. The counselors found value in having June to provide instruction, as well as appreciating her presence and style. Brian: You really are just all alone It reinforces the value of having even when you get out in practice having a supervisor or mentor type person th at you could maybe meet with however many times just to reflect what is going on in your own practice Esther: It is nice as you were mentioning to have supervisors who are there for the session or at least have a good understanding of the clients that y ou are working with While Brian may not directly refer to June as being an instructor, the words assist in discussing his potential clientele, or at least, having colleagues w ith whom to share ideas. Brian comes from a position where in a previous career he was licensed as a medical professional, drawing from personal experiences where he had no one to discuss his work. I see repeatedly throughout the transcript a huge amount o f respect sense of cohesion, built off the ways they co constructed their relationship.
89 his words to appreciate the role June plays in their relationship, b eing able to discuss clinical work. Reflecting on ones work is impossible in a vacuum, according to Brian. Esther appreciates having someone both physically and mentally present to assist her with her clients. She values having June around to offer herself to provide ious knowledgeable or available to her as she might have liked. The initial group interview was conducted after their work had begun together, ith the counselors. Here she facilitated a conversation to work through a sensitive issue between Brian and Esther. Brian: Maybe I was monopolizing a lot of the time and I think that June really brought that up in a good way in one of our earlier sess ions Like were we comfortable together and how did we feel in there and did she feel like maybe I was silencing her (Esther) or I forget how it went exactly but it was a good enough discussion that the next session I think it changed almost abruptly Jun e raised the possibility that Brian and Esther were not working together in a fashion that left them both feeling satisfied to co counsel their clients. He was able to accommodate her suggestions due the manner in which she brought up the topic, not by dem eaning his effort, but instead exploring what their collective experience had been like, and Brian realized immediately that he had not been as aware of his own style as
90 space by asking about their comfort level, how they felt about their work, and whether he was perhaps keeping Esther from engaging the clients in a more satisfactory manner. Through this conversation between himself, Esther, and June, he made an immediate instruction helped Brian raise his awareness about his counseling style, becoming more accommodating to his co through their conversation. I learned quite a bit while hearing and reading this passage. There is a grace to how June works with the team that I would like to personally bottle. Although she may be a supervisor in training, she has an ability to highlight areas of con cern that facilitate productive conversations. Brian and Esther in turn take her cue and do the necessary work. The manner in which supervision was structured helped counselors. Esthe r: The supervision really helped to create the space to talk about something It very much parallels some therapy in the sense that you as a therapist should be able to open the space open up the safe space for your client to talk about things that they n eed to and that was something that we needed to talk about and figure out so that we could help our clients better unication in supervision can serve to model how the counselors engage their clients. She believes that now that she and Brian were able to discuss their own relational concerns that it will facilitate their work with their clients, and she will no longer f eel as though she was not an equal partner as co counselor. Esther was also influenced by the exchange to consider how she thought and acted towards both her c counselor and their clients.
91 Language Negotiation The field of counseling is imbued with a grea t deal of specialist language (e.g., transference, counter transference, genograms, Bowenian). In terms of word and meaning negotiation, there were two notable instances where non specialist language left them discussing their meaning and their influence o n supervision. The first word was both supervisor and counselor identity in that both are seeking to articulate their thinking in the clearest manner possible. June: Brian and I had a conversation So I was like that is not what I mean by it So i t was a great conversation to have and I almost wish we had it earlier Because I very much like your approach Brian and I think it works well for you and it works well for the client But it was the word I used to or ient us to Okay here we are together what are we thinking about with the client? Not necessarily we need a step by step what we are going to do when we are in the session Brian: That would be kind of stressful because Esther and I would go okay so Esther: like what is your plan June: Yes I meant where are you at and what are you thinking about? Here June, Brian, and Esther are attempting to explain and understand what the
92 clarified the more they discussed the term and its place within this supervisory team, teasing out what June meant to say and what Brian and Esther were trying to understand. What June is attempting to impre ss upon both Brian and Esther is the importance of intention in counseling, regardless of whether they plan out the session step by step or not. If they are intentional in their work, it is up to them to be more explicitly thoughtful of their work. While n lies an element of evaluation by June of at least one of the co counselors, based on he may have earlier in the exchange by no ting how his approach to clients is successful and effective for him. Relationship wise June is flexible to the meaning of the word increase her understanding of how they thi nk about each approaching counseling Esther: I think really when I think of plan I think of planning So having something concrete that you have to stick by and I am not very good at always sticking to a plan so that was always difficult for me I think that obviously that finally came out last week or the week before Brian : We had an idea of where we wanted to go we just d Language negotiation reveals what June mentioned earlier about them in terms guide on how they intend to engage their clients, but J une is looking for some sense of how Brian and Esther will approach their clients. Esther is trying to tell them that
93 not attempt to rein in their actions through the not operating from a script. One previous experience comes to mind for me regarding language negotiation, which I discussed in my subjectivity statement. Here, though, I do not witness any judgment, only a desire to understand and find a place where both ideas can be openly shared. New Understanding From the First Group Interview and Pre Understanding Two After having interview ed the team, listening to the audio multiple times, transcribing the audio, reading and re reading the transcripts, the first piece that stuck out to me was the idea of the supervisor not assuming all of the responsibility to create an open place in superv ision to share themselves so fully. This was foreign to me. As much as I thought that as supervisor that it was my job to create a safe environment, it never dawned on me to cede some of that responsibility to the counselors in training. much as a suggestion as an order to do something. This was also foreign to me. I was usually afraid of not taking their advice, especially at the beginning of my clinical training. It didn doctoral intern (rendering them a supervisor in training) or a full faculty member. I never felt like I personally had the option of taking a different position, even if I felt somewhat confident with a diverging opini on. language negotiation. In fact, I remember the opposite in my own experiences early on
94 client to my supervisor and a supervisee. I blithely told them that I was aware of the what the term meant, only that the client felt a certain way about a situation in their linguistic aspect of supervision was up for interpretation or negotia tion, June was able to enact an inquisitive and sensitive supervisor, at least up through this point of the data analysis. The counselors in training, in turn, demonstrated an openness to her approach. The whole process seemed very reciprocal, which is som on occasion in supervision, at least as a counselor. As a supervisor I think I tried to be more open with the counselors in training, but relying on self reported anecdotal data is inadequate and more biased than reading this supervis Beyond negotiation, I found myself paying a great deal more attention to how words were used and their intent, particularly in the way the June engaged the rest of the team and her demeanor. Although it was clear as to who m the supe rvisor was in the room, thereby establishing a teacher/student hierarchy, she nonetheless made conscious efforts to encourage the t h em to assume responsibility for their words and actions in both supervision and in counseling. The three words which come to mind spread the responsibility of what would happen in supervision to every member, and it more as her expressing herself without being entirely sure of her position, needing some
95 validation from the others, in part as an positioning herself to stay open to the possibility that perhaps her opinion was off target, for whatever reason the couns elor(s) identified. After analyzing this data, I have a better understanding of the potentiality of parsing out the meanings of all words within the context of clinical supervision. Simply because I understand one word to mean a certain thing to me doesn counselor or supervisor may understand the word the same way. Misunderstanding a word or two can alter the clinical supervisory relationship. Reading how June and Heather quickly addressed their different understandings also reinforced the n otion of I also picked up on how quickly in some instances, once someone said appeared to be a g ood deal of agreement in the transcripts between team members, regardless of whether it was June and Brian agreeing or Heather and Esther on the eye. I believe some of that the counselors in training responded to her approach. Cohesive and cooperative relationships seemed to quickly form within this team, and I did not witness much discord in the transcripts.
96 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS Chapter 5 is comprised of The new understandings from Chapter 4 will serve as the pre understanding for Chapter 5 The new understandings from Chapter 4 were (1) shared responsibili ty to structure supervision, (2) language negotiation, and (3) quick enacting of identities and relationships A t the end of Chapter 5 I will include a new understanding of the data based on my analysis. That new understanding will serve as the pre unders tanding for the Chapter 6 Th is is comprised of a discursive analysis of sessions. This set of transcripts and their respective stanzas were clustered into themes to facilitate analysis based on similarities a cross stanzas. Stanzas f rom this set of supervision sessions were combined into f our overall themes The themes serve as the foundation for the story structure through which the data will be discussed. Heather worked with a couple for nine sessions, and met with June, Brian, and Esther to discuss her c lients This set of transcripts was 61 pages long single spaced, and of the stanzas identified and coded, five themes emerged. They were ( 1 ) clinical competence, ( 2 ) Preparedness to engage clients, ( 3 ) Tending and attending to clien ts, ( 4 ) language negotiation, and ( 5 ) Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way Clinical Co nfidence Heather: Part of me is like of uncertainty about her skill set, questioning her competence early on in her work with her clients. She says it in this
97 way to convey both her apprehension and eagerness to engage her clients. By starting her comment focused on not wanting to see t h e m, a s opposed to wanting to see them, it would seem she is saying that she is more anxious than eager to meet her clients. These comments occur in the transcripts after having met with her clients one time. At this point her story is one of not feeling particu larly capable of working effectively with her clients. It seems at this point that she is seeking some help from the team about how to engage her clients if and when she sees them again. aying with encouraging Heather to focus on her clients and less so on her own anxieties as a ity, instead problematic within the context of counseling for Heather : Heather: I hate using the term curiosity in here because for me that is like personal gain but I do like the way you described it just the term curiosity for me is tricky The word itself does not sit well with Heather, but June goes on to describe what she means by the word in a way to try and better express what she means. June explains to Heather that: June: I see it more like a posture of curiosity I am never assuming To me the meaning I have it under is a non assuming
98 gain that she perceives is associated with the term, doing so to both explain and perhaps encourage her to view the word differently in this conte xt. She may also be as open minded when working as a counselor. June further describes her position to help Heather understand where she is coming from, while respecting he r opinion. While June is discussing her position, she says something that agrees with Heather, identifying a phrase that works for both herself and June: Heather: Learn and discover is something I would put on there June: Thanks for sharing that By position. She respected and valued her position through the language she used, and by explaining herself, sought to create common language for them to work from, especially since t his exchange occurs early on in their work together. Both of them work in unison, similar situation where I felt like we were both solving an issue in this manner, with suc h an open back and forth between the two. The narrative later turns towards attire and perceived clinical credibility. Heather, June, and Brian discuss what might be considered appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another, depending on the aud ience: Heather: I know but when I deal with psychiatrists p sychologists and nurses and I have to be very professional I will not wear that
99 June: This stanza section highlights the exchange between the three of them about school students a t her internship site. June responds in the affirmative, noting that she difficult time relating to Heather based on her attire. The converse is true for the psychiatrists, psychologists, and nurses, who may likewis share of teaching moments. June, by saying things a certain way, encourages the counselo rs to be more creative in how they engage their clients: June: A lot of times in therapy we like to say that we communicate So I was going to see what you guys thought about and really kind of encourage to almost be redundant but say things in a differ ent way She invites them to use new words when engaging their clients without saying whether therapists understand what communication is, not pointing at the counselors on the supervisory team directly, but commenting in general about whether counselors try hard enough to use words to enact their best attempt at understanding their clients and connecting with them. What she is attempting to say is whether counselors do thei r best to demonstrate empathy through the words they use in session. June wants Heather, Brian, and Esther to be the therapists that do truly communicate with their clients. This
100 is her way of encouraging them to continue to grow as clinicians and stave of f stagnation. By being redundant, according to June, they will not be redundant. Redundancy indicates thoughtfulness in that if someone is thinking of multiple ways to communicate with their client, it means that the counselor is thinking about their clien t. In addition to redundancy, thinking about the questions a counselor may consider asking their client demonstrates both thoughtfulness and preparedness: June: Do you have a list of questions? Heather: No I am just going to kind of collaborate with t hem not really winging it but see what is going on I have a couple floating around in my head hough to impress upon June that she will be strategizing with them in session instead of be a way to shirk acknowledgment of not having thought about what areas of their lives might be helpful to explore. supervisor. I will continue to explore this particular exchange as it pertai ns to her identity as a counselor ready to engage clients. Mentioning it also seems to buy her some time to think of some potential questions, as she ends this part of the exchange by saying As the semest er winds down, the team notices a marked change in Heather during her final session with her clients, noticing in particular her demeanor and attitude.
101 questions. Brian: You You made them explain to you what they were saying So I thought that was good I thought you were more assertive. Esther: Kind of what I was talking about not being apologetic when you are kind of offering thin gs like do you get this? Like I am coming out there because I am a part of this too B oth Brian and Esther could have told Heather she had done a good job in session with her clients, but instead opted to specifically highlight what it was they noticed tha t made her different during this session as compared to other times. Both are both perceived to be a successful session. Esther implies that Heather has adopted an ac tive and collaborative role in counseling, contrasted with what she describes as an apologetic persona with her clients. Brian also seems to be taking a similar stand, expressing how he believed that she held her clients more accountable for their words an d actions in session, also comparing it to previous sessions by inserting the word I was personally floored when I listened to this final session. The change was palpable in her tone and demeanor, and everyone took notice. Moving Towards Understanding Via Identities and Relationships Clinical Competence Heather: Part of me is like just to kind of like I feel like it might be good what that was like June: And really just saying how the posture of curiosity
102 is raised throughout her narrative. Being a counselor in training seems to include moments where she experiences a crisis of confidence in her abilities to effectively work, contrasted with instances where she begins to feel competent and capable as a clin ician. Heather expressed the ups and downs of being a counselor in training throughout the semester. The first instance above is of one adopting an ambivalent stance towards the beginning of the semester. A counselor lacking confidence in their abilities might prefer not to see clients emphasize her struggle to meet with them. June responds by encouraging her to focus Here the teacher student relationship is enacted, as the supervisor immediately offers instruction to the counselor as to what Heather ought t o address with her clients. The identity enacted in this particular instance by Heather is of one of someone unsure of segments before and after, is another sign of her unce rtainty of her own skill set, again instantiating this particular identity. texts. I can recall many times with certain clients this feeling of not really having a good handle on how to work with them and qu estioning my own capabilities as a counselor, although not as explicitly as Heather. However, a marked change occurs at the end of unnoticed:
103 June: How were you differen t in this session versus other sessions? I noticed a lot and am wondering where you are at You were really different Heather: Really? June: Yeah I think so Not in a good or bad way You were just really different How did you meet them where they were? Heather: not curious but trying June: You were more assertive ast to the previous stanza. Everyone on her team notices a difference in her work. I noticed a difference in her tone of voice during this exchange, sounding livelier and more confident about this particular session. Of the nine supervisory sessions, she w as the most animated during this one. Esther encapsulates this palpable change in Heather by one more centered on the client relationship and less so on whatever structure d Heather here enacts a confident, engaged and competent counselor iden tity. Heather did not intentionally mean to take on this persona, admitting as much, instead attributing session. Brian accepts and reinforces her clinical identity, expre ssing what he observed in her actions with her clients during this supervisory session, noting how she seemed
104 them during this exchange. Esther, in her comments to He ather, observed in her session that she was not assertive and more confident and competent clinical identity, whereas perhaps in the past she was not as sure about herself, as exemplified in the previous stanza. Heather attributes this change to her effort, as June, Brian, and Esther notice her more active role in counseling. Here too I noticed how the rest of the team supported Heather and lifted her, in a figurative manner That is important for me to remember when celebrating or noticing a change that a counselor feels good about. Brian offered that Heather placed her attention directly on her clients, and not indirectly through whatever activity Heather had introduced in other sessions, clearing an obstacle in her path. She was session compared to the others, through her own description and from the rest of the team. Preparedness to Engage Clients Fluctuating levels of confidence for a counselor in training may be due in part to preparation. For each of the three counselors, preparedness, or being deliberative and intentional with clients, emerges as themes from the transcripts. Here Heather is attempting to demonstrate to June that she has put some effort into what she will be discussing with her clients. June: Do you have a list of questions? Heather: No I am just going to kind of collaborate with them not really winging it but see what is going on
105 I have a couple floating around in my head June: Give me an example of one of them Heather: Example is one would be like a favorite childhood memory Or start with like my first car See if they know some of those what is he most passionate about in life Then some of those kinds of things What is one thing you wish he knew about you Give them some small maybe requests like artifacts and then kind of us e those questions in the discussion board Not just do a question and then do another one but after each question we can kind of talk June: Okay great June is checking with Heather to figure out if she had put any thought into her upcoming se approach to supervision, she is challenging Heather. She in turn seeks to demonstrate that she is an intentional and thoughtful counselor, whereas June is occupying the identity of the c hallenging and nurturing supervisor. June is doing her due diligence to determine if Heather has thought through what she wishes to explore in session, following up her initial query about questions to obtain an example from her. Listening to her discuss a an element exists within that phrase about a lack of preparation and intention to her work. She may only be sort of winging it, but not really, which may have prompted up response.
106 Tending and Attending to Clients clinical competence, and te nding and attending to clients emphasizes her availability to her clients and identifying ways in which to meaningfully connect with them. Here Heather June and Brian discuss how counseling served to distract her from her personal issues. Heather: I was thinking while I was in there I feel a lot better I guess when you focus on other people it makes me think less about my own self and my own problems and my own stress So that o nce I am there in that moment I can escape into their Does that make sense to you guys? Brian: Yeah June: Yeah absolutely I think that it can potentially be bad when you are utilizing that to avoid any acknowle dgment of that process distinction between your own life and theirs Heather acknowledges that counseling can help distract her from whatever she is facing in her own life, checking in with th e rest of the team for understanding. She wants to be an easier place to navigate than her own at that particular moment in time. June is reminding her in her res ponse to be careful of implementing such an approach in counseling, emphasizing the importance of tending to her clients and checking whatever
107 role is with her clients. Sh e notes that her personal issues wane once she is in session, although this may potentially interfere with their work. June attempts to re orient available to her clients. Ju ne does not admonish Heather for her words, instead attempting to nurture itse lf. She goes on to remind Heather that counseling is about tending to her clients and not using her clients to sort through her own concerns. Brian and June respond ackn kground and hers to come to the forefront. June challenges Heather and the rest of the supervisory team to identify alternate ways to attend to their clients and create meaningful connections with them. The following stanzas take place halfway through thei r exchange. June: So it might be advantageous to when you are communicating you are not communicating effectively to say it in different ways so that kind of key Like he gets it on his level and she gets it on hers If you are kind of teaching when you communicate things in many different ways you will appeal to a different audience I just am like stuck on their divide Do you know what I am saying? Heather: Yes like saying it multiple times differently is just so that they understand it better because it
108 is almost like with students who have different learning skills Like some are visual and some are auditory June is taking on a more explicit identity as the teacher during this exchange, seeking to accomplish two goals: ( 1 ) Encour aging Heather (and the other counselors) to model to the clients that there are new ways to communicate with each other, and ( 2 ) To encourage all of the counselors to do the same with all clients and challenge themselves. She is also, less explicitly, mode ling to Heather how to engage her clients when she sees them again. June makes no direct mention of this to her, but begins to cite certain things that might be of clinical interest, including her mentioning of the word clients. June, though, is only partially successful at her attempt to instruct the team. s that June is t rying to teach the team, Heather s pecifically, about engaging their clients, but fails to do so in a manner that is understood on first blush. June continues to explain herself to the team, albeit seemingly directed more towards Heather than anyone else on the team. Once June finishes explaining herself for a second time, Heather comprehends her attempts to instruct them on finding various ways to talk to her clients, concisely reflecting back to her. June attempts to be explicit with her directive, enactin g the role of the challenging supervisor, and Heather expresses an openness to it. June is also using language to promote the identities of flexible counselors by demonstrating a willingness to identify new ways to work with their clients. She seeks to rem ind them that the counselors ought to ensure that they see the clients where they are, not from where the counselors are situated. Here is an attempt to reinforce to them the value of being mindful of their clients, focusing on
109 where the clients are in the ir lives and their stories, and not on the counselors. It represents a teaching moment to the counselors that one size does not fit all when it comes to clients; a good counselor recognizes clients are different. It underlines a couple of valuable lessons, one being that being more explicit is imperative to good reading June work on those two concepts helps deepen my understanding of negotiating relationships and emergent identities while imparting advice. counselors in training) as teacher As much as June challenges the team to tend to their clients, I see how she challenges herself to tend to the team. She is seeking understanding and acceptance of her suggestion, although it is lost on Heather, at least at first. Heather: She was like rebellious She went on and I thought she was being really open I was like oh my god this is amazing June: I really want you to go back and listen to the way you phrase that Brian: You said what does that word mean to you? June: Or you a re rebelling It was really good That is different than how you kind of toyed with words and challenges and it is a really good fit for you It fits for you and you are experienced i n it That works for you June notices how Heather is using language to accommodate her clients,
110 comments in here reflect the nature in which she queried a client, wherein Heather did not ascribe any meaning to the word, instead seeking what meanin g the client took from June is doing more than observing Heathers work, she is heartily praising it. She is complimenting her style, acknowledging how her particular approach is doing an effective job of tending to her clients, impl ying that just as each client is different, so is each counselor in terms of how they engage their clients. June is cognizant as a supervisor in training to know that each counselor works differently and does not attempt, at least in this passage, to foist her pe rsonal approach on to Heather. Language Negotiation The counseling profession, like any other, is steeped in what is known as specialist language. The specialist style of language, according to Gee (2011), is one n they are speaking and acting as experts and systems, and family of origin crop up in textbooks, course materials, and daily interactions within the profession. Whereas a counselor in training may need assistance understanding what a specialist term might mean due to their relative lack of experience, here the following exchange high lights where the vernacular is in need of parsing by both June and Heather. Heather: I hate using the term curiosity in here because for me that is like personal gain but I do like the way you described it just the term curiosity for me is tricky
111 Ju ne: What is a way to kind of be curious? Heather: What is my word for that? June: I see it more like a posture of curiosity I am never assuming to me the meaning I have it under is a non assuming I am not going to assume I am just curious We are just getting as much information and content and process information as we can A way that I am able to do that is to keep a posture of curiosity But also in a way that you can kind of learn and discover Maybe even just discover this is just a place of discovery for you because you have known them for an hour Heather: Learn and discover is something I would put on there June: Thanks for sharing that Heather: To me curiosity is more invasive and it is more like for me than fo r Even though obviously I want to get to know them and learn more about them so I can help them in whatever way I can Heather is attempting to identify terminology that best captures her stance with her clien ts, promoting and establishing herself as a client centered counselor focused on them and their story and not on an identity where she is satisfying what she perceives to be a self eschews it ou although she later acknowledges that in order to be of use to them, she will need to me (emphasis intoned by her) he does not dismiss utility of the word curious, instead stating that the word is not a good fit for her. The manner in which she states this is a sign of respect to the supervisor. June in turn expands her identity as that of the inquisitive supervisor by asking what word or words would fit better for how she intends to engage her clients.
112 She wants to partner with Heather to find a shared way to express their interest in g so she is also enacting a flexible supervisor identity, promoting a bilateral relationship evidenced by the dialogue on word negotiation. June is not attempting to force Heather nd words that better suit what Heather is attempting to accomplish in counseling with her clients. Here session with her clients. Knowing what terminology suits Heather will h elp June more effectively communicate with her about her clients. I found this entire thread to be revelatory in terms of understanding how they collaboratively engaged each other without either adopting a superior or defensive stance. They both genuinely felt heard, nts, and not on who is right or wrong. Heather is trying, by sharing what she thinks is a better fit word wise for her, to demonstrate that she is focused on her clients. Identity wise words do their part in presenting or attempting to enact a certain assuming that identity. The supervisory team discusses clothing in different settings and its impact on counselor identity. Heather: She is like well you Do you think I should be looking professional? June:
113 Heather: I think the way she meant it was June: There is the culture of the school and the messages Brian: Do they know they are in a specified program June: It is very competitive Heather: When you talk about school what do you mean? Like when you are actually in school as a student or a teacher or what? June: Teacher Heather: That is what I thought you meant Because I noticed that when I work with teenagers I will wear my nose ring and everyone will be like that is really cool Yeah I know but when I deal with psychiatrists psychologists a nd nurses and I have to be very professional I will not wear that June: Heather: But in court I wear something professional often times a pant suit because I would get a different response whereas if I go to a family dates because I would want to be very relaxed in my attire until they got to know me Although there is no text prior to the beginning of this pass age mentioning who made the initial comments to Heather about not looking like an adult, the first half of this Regardless, it begins an exchange about what it means to dres s in a certain way in a certain context so as to appear credible and knowledgeable as a counselor. Heather, June, and Brian understand, to an extent, that certain environments require a certain dress code so as to fit in and seem convincing in the identity they are enacting. Heather
114 wondering if there is something amiss with the way she dresses and presents herself to others. By not wearing what is deemed appropriate clot hing, she is unsure as to whether she is a credible counselor. June reassures her, implicitly stating that looks are but one component when presenting oneself as a counselor. They also acknowledge the influence and pressure that certain environments have on counselors in training. Heather understands that her relationship with others partly depend s on how her physical appearance Heather will dress differently based on her perceived sense of who is the authority figure or in control of the situation. If sh e believes she is in control or her appearance, Heather dresses more like herself. When it comes to others perceived to be higher on the helping profession food chain, she dresses more conservatively. She bases her appearance on what is deemed acceptable a s a professional. Heather mentions that while around youth at her clinical site she wears her nose ring so as to help connect with her clients, she removes it implies th at by wearing the nose ring she is somehow not professional, potentially questioning whether she is capable of delivering competent clinical services. June in turn responds by intoning that in order to be an approachable counselor with teenagers, wearing t Heather continues by adding that while in a legal setting she ups the ante attire wise, wearing pant suits. Heather believes that part of her identity as a counselor is accou nted for in the way she physically looks while engaging different people.
115 Understanding Three understanding emerged for me: ( 1 ( 2) learning that negotiation exists between the counselor in training and the supervisor in training, and ( 3) everyone, including a supervisor in traini ng, can struggle to make a coherent point. Heather pointed out during one of her counseling sessions with her clients that she perceives therapy as an opportunity to delve into their world and forget about hers. I consider this a new understanding for mys elf in that she is relying on her identity as a counselor for therapeutic reasons, choosing to leave behind her own personal identity, instead of using some of her own lived experience as a tool for engaging her clients. Although I previously understood th at a clinician will leave some of who they believe to be behind in order to engage their clients, Heather states it in a way that she appears to be removing her own self entirely from the therapeutic process. Counseling literature discusses the importance of the relationship between the counselor and their client, and as a blank canvas. Even during stressful times in my life, I never found myself wanting to check m yself entirely at the door before I sat down with a client. Here she is using her clients to serve what appears to be a very personal and potentially selfish purpose, tr ying to describe her approach with her clients. I understand better now how incongruous
11 6 and its co ntradiction. taught me that language negotiation can exist, enacting a flexible supervisor in training identity and an assertive counselor in training identity. I never thought prio r to listening and transcribing this portion of the supervisory sessions that the counselor could reject what a supervisor had to say. My thinking had always been that the supervisor is right, at least publicly, and that disagreeing with them, regardless o f how respectful a person was while doing it, was considered inappropriate. Supervisors can choose to be open to uring the first group interview, indicating that she saw the entire team as co collaborators in their work part to the way that Brian, Esther, Heather, and June framed the supervisory experience. As much as supervision is discussed in the literature as involving someone more knowledgeable overseeing the work of someone less knowledgeable, it does not always translate to a seamless flow of communication. Either I had nev er noticed it with my supervisors, or had never been made aware of it as a supervisor. I noticed and appreciated the difficulty of instruction while June attempted to speak to the counselors about redundancy in counseling. Enacting the identity of the supe rvisor in training, one June described as both challenging and nurturing, is not a mindlessly easy task. A mini counter narrative emerged for me while reading her back and forth with Heather,
117 noticing that supervisors as well can struggle to come up with t he right words at the right time, said in just the right way to make an immediate impression upon the counselors. On a somewhat unrelated note to the three things that I better u being frequently reminded while analyzing the transcript data to refrain from commenting on the content of the supervisory sessions. It was initially difficult for me purpose here is to gain a better understanding of identity and relationships in clinical supervision, not develop a running commentary of what is said and then ponder about how I would have done things similarly or differently. Several of the exchanges in sessions have reminded me well.
118 CHAPTER 6 Chapter 6 is comprised of the The new understanding from Chapter 5 serves as the pre understanding here The n ew understandings from Chapter 5 were ( ( 2) learning that negotiation exists between the counselor in training and the supervisor in training, and ( 3) ev eryone, including a supervisor in training, can struggle to make a coherent point. A t the end of Chapter 6 I will include a new understanding of the data based on my analysis. That new understanding will serve as the pre understanding for the Chapter 7 Th is is comprised of a discursive analysis of The transcripts clocked in at 112 pages long, and from that group interview, 3 5 relevant stanzas were identified and coded. This set of transcripts and their respective stanzas were clustered into themes to facilitate analysis based on similarities a cross stanzas. Stanzas from this set of supervision sessions were combined into f our overall themes Esther and Brian worked with a family for twelve sessions, and met with J une and Heather to discuss her case. F our primary themes emerged. They were ( 1 ) C linical co nfidence (2) Supervisor as knowledgeable/instruction ( 3 ) Moving Towards Understanding Via Why This Way and Not That Way Clinical Confidence Esther: I would like to see them kind of uncivilized
119 the co cou nselors are not only eager to engage their clients, but wanting to see their clients when they are not trying to make a favorable impression on anyone. Esther t o describe how they act towards each other while around other people. Brian, Esther, and June wonder what would happen if and when their clients became uncivilized, and what that would mean to them: Brian: To me if they became uncivilized in front of us I think it would mean that they were becoming more comfortable with us Brian explicitly states what he believes it would mean to him, echoing a similar comment made by Esther. Brian and Esther appear undeterred in their approach with their clients, demon strating at least two things to June. The first is that Brian and Esther are telling each other that they are on the same page regarding their clients, both of them eager to further develop their relationship with their clients so as to create a sufficient is that Esther and Brian are showing to June that they are prepared to engage their I have b een in several co counseling relationships before, and yet never fully grasped the process the way Brian and Esther begin to do so here. The theme regarding their relationship emerges later in this set of transcripts thin gs in a way to appear united as co counselors. A united front was not always readily apparent as Brian and Esther worked together, emerging several times throughout the semester. June noticed during their second session together how they appeared to be op erating more as a cohesive unit:
120 June: You guys have more of a rhythm Did it feel that way? Brian: More of a rhythm? Yes because I was really trying to give her an opportunity to talk first because I just want to jump in and say stuff so if you could see it past to require time figuring out how to work together during counseling. What is of note here is that this becomes a recurrent theme in their relationship du ring supervision. At this particular moment, Brian is aware of how much he talks during session, and is using this awareness to refrain from doing all of the talking. He understands that he can be garrulous at times, and is explicit in creating opportuniti es for Esther to respond to a acknowledge what she saw during their work together as more back and forth between Esther and Brian. He seeks and later obtains validation fo r his attempt at the end of this part of their exchange through Esther and June. Esther: No that was good I really thought the same thing June: I very much noticed Whereas Brian was likelier to do the majority of speaking during the initial session with their clients, he was apparently more reserved during the second session. Both Esther and June took note of that, with Esther adding that by not being the first to respond to their clients, Br ian did not get in the way of her desire to engage them. narrative focuses on whether their clients are gaining anything from their time with them.
121 June: I love the family dynamics Brian: That is what I was going to ask you from out there what did it look like because I always worry that if they feel like that we drove an hour just to do this and Esther: I think they really liked this time together Because last week mom was talking about how she wanted the family to spend time together and this and that I think this is really good Brian focuses on his own insecurities as a counselor, questioning whether their clients are gaining anything of val ue from counseling. He wonders if they feel like they are wasting their time coming to see him and Esther, explicitly more so about himself by this instance June explicitl y, and Esther and Heather implicitly. Esther immediately puts this notion to rest, pointing towards a specific example from the clients so at to provide him with concrete evidence that the family values their time with her and Brian. Whereas he is unsure a bout their contribution, Esther makes it clear to both him and feelings, expressing i counseling has been a productive endeavor. their sense of competence while remaining focused on clients, again due to their strong As Brian and Esther continue to see their clients, the issue of their working relationship emerges again. In this particular exchang e, Esther shares her struggles with Brian, trying not to offend or hurt his feelings:
122 Esther: I think that is something that is really difficult for me in here because I am seeing differences in our styles because I am starting to develop my style with f amilies a little bit and even in my individual sessions I allow that space for like them to mull things over before I kind of throw in what I want to say or if I want to say something and so having somebody right next to me that is always prepared with a question or prepared to facilitate further discussion is intimidating (5 seconds of silence) Heather: It is cramping your style June: Is that hard to say Esther: Yes that was really hard to say Esther carefully begins by contrasting her style with Brian, attempting to directly downplay any possibility that she believes her approach is any more effective than his. However, she makes it clear that his counseling style has been problematic for her as they meet with their clients. She stresses the emphasize her struggle, taking responsibility for her words on herself, and not on Brian or anyone else. Inasmuch as Esther prefers for her clients to have space in counseling, way of saying that her development is being stunted because she has been unable to co exist with Brian in a satisfying way. While talking about sitting next to someone who always seem to have something t o say, she is saying that she feels as though she needs to keep up with him, or else she will find herself left behind in session. Esther does not find his approach to be slightly difficult to adjust to, but by using the word
123 follows, something uncommon during their supervisory sessions, most likely in this instance because of th to her comments, promising to be more mindful in session. The following supervisory session, after a counseling session begins with Brian seeking feedback from the team, and specifically Esther on his performance: Brian: I really backed off a lot tonight right Esther: A lot Brian: I mean I was trying to yeah Esther: I really appreciated that because it gave me that space Brian: There were a lot of times I was ready to say stuff but I was like no I am really going to relax and give her some time with some silence consciously supp ressed his desire to speak multiple times throughout the session, therapist. He showing that he is trying to attend more to how she conducts herself in counseling, permitting the space Esther described in the earlier set of stanzas. Esther mentioned way of rea ching out to her. I immediately noticed how she got his attention by speaking up, and he in return sought to address her concerns to create whatever it was she felt she needed to feel as though she had a more equal role in co counseling. Space, room, and i
124 Esther: I feel like you made a lot more room too Like there were multiple times where you said I and then you wer e like I mean can you to us or me and us versus I and we Where you actually did have space Esther notices that not only is Brian working to create more space for her as a co counselor, but is also beginning to use language to explicate that with the clien ts. By Esther in session. He is trying to make it clear to everyone that he and Esther are working together as co therapists and collaborators. It is also worth noting that Esther is saying this without Brian prompting anyone for validation. The ensuing supervision session brings up the sense of balance between the two again, this time with a shift in Brian: Were you comfortable with the balanc e tonight Esther: Yes I was There were a couple of time s that I would have liked to have something to say and then I felt like you were going in a very good direction so I was just there supporting Brian begins this exchange by focusing on he r level of comfort in the session and not on his performance, as he had done previously. Esther makes a point to him of not wanting to disrupt a good flow between Brian and their clients. Here she is saying in such a way to reassure him that she does not r equire that she speaks an equal amount of time if there appears to be a productive dialogue amongst all of them. Esther is letting Brian know that, as his co counselor, there are other meaningful ways to contribute to counseling. Their narrative later shif ts from balance between herself and Brian to her self identified inability to be more active and engaging in counseling, a contrast noted by the two of them as well as June.
125 Esther: In the session I think I want to try to challenge myself to become more active i n this session and really try to engage and find those openings a nd try and actively find them more frequently It appears at this point that Esther explicitly acknowledges for herself that, through her work with Brian, she could benefit professionally by being more active and engaging in therapy whereas Brian could learn to be more contemplative and reflective in counseling. This realization dawns on Esther, saying so in the way she articulat es her need to more often find those possibilities to jump in during counseling, and not due to her more talkative co exploiting them as often as she could have. Their relationship is so strong, at least from challenges without being prompted. combination of the two: June: Okay how can I help you get with that How can you be supported through that June enacts on the identity of the nurturing supervisor to assist Esther in upported through immediately, based on her words. Moving Towards Understanding Throu gh Identities and Relationships Supervisor as Knowledgeable/Instruction June: If that ever happens what message would that be sending you?
126 opens with the establishment of Jun e as being knowledgeable and experienced regarding counseling, and Brian and Esther as also possessing knowledge and experience about their own lives and a first experiences. Knowledge and experience permeate thro ughout the supervisory team, enacting, shaping, and re shaping supervisory identities and relationships. During the early stages of their work together, June establishes her identity as challenging and nurturing supervisor with Brian and Esther. June furth er instantiates and enacts the challenging aspect of her supervisory identity through the question with Esther and Brian at the beginning of this section, seeking during the second supervisory session with them what would happen if their clients begin to a ct uncivilized in front of them. She is asking them in order to determine if they have begun to think through the consequences of seeing them when they are not being polite towards each other. She is attempting to find out from them whether they have consi dered the clinical implications of seeing their clients behave uncivilly in front of them and what it would mean: Esther: I guess it would give me some better insight actually Brian: To me if they became uncivilized in front of us I think it would mea n that they were becoming more comfortable with us Each, through their responses, enacts inquisitive and intentional counselor identities, capable of thinking through their therapeutic behaviors. Esther believes that seeing them uncivilized would increas e her understanding of their relationship dynamics, whereas Brian think s that seeing them behave differently would indicate to
127 query they continue to enact a supervisory and counselor relationship, with the supervisor asking question s to elucidate their thinking and the counselors responding to demonstrate their clinical abilities. This particular exchange is familiar to me based on previous understandings of what supervis ion is supposed to be about. Although June queries the counselors on their clinical capabilities, the counselors also find themselves wondering whether they are competent, speaking to their respective identities as able therapists. Brian and Esther wonder occasionally if the clients they are seeing are gaining anything useful from their encounters. Here Brian asks June what she thought of their work together thus far: Brian: That is what I was going to ask you from out there what did it look like because I always worry that if they feel like that we drove an hour just to do this and Brian seeks to accomplish several tasks in his comment s to June. First, he is questioning his clinical competence, unsure if the time and effort their clie nts are making to sit with him and Esther are paying off. The family is driving a considerate distance for therapy with two counselors who are not licensed and somewhat clinically inexperienced compared to their licensed peers. Secondly, he is seeking feed back from relationship to June by soliciting her advice. He could choose not to quest ion himself, but by doing so directly to June, he is seeking to strengthen what he is constructing as a deferential working relationship. Brian is working off of his assumption that the supervisor is more knowledgeable and experienced at assessing the meri t of Brian and
128 them, I have a better understanding of the multiple layers a brief comment can make when it comes to someone trying to sort out their own clinical ident ity and relationship with their clients. I continue to learn about the various ways a sentence or two can be received and possibly processed by a listener. Although June the clients are gaini ng something from their time together in counseling, demonstrating June: I noticed that you checked in with them at the end I am really excited that you guys did this and how was it f or you? Did that kind of like help pacify your worry that they are not getting something out of it? were gaining anything from counseling, but also asked the clients themse lves. Since the way, Brian may be thinking that the clients are being civilized to them instead of revealing their uncivilized selves to Brian and Esther. Brian looks wisdom to determine if counseling is effective, and in turn offers an attentive and supportive response. She notices that they take notice of their work with clients, using the check in as an opportunity to evaluate the time that Brian and Esther have spent with them. Since the counselors look to June for instruction and guidance, June occasionally utilizes supervision to incorporate lengthier thoughts about counseling theory and practice, including her notions of emotional and mental health differences in counseling approaches, and how to engage clients in novel ways, folding these back into the topic
129 at hand as a means of sharing her experiences and using them to teach Brian, Esther, and Heather. She uses these opportunities as teaching mo ments, whether it is intended emotional health means to her and how it applies to their clients, seeking to enact a knowledgeable supervisory identity and simultaneously encouraging the counselors to look to her as a source of pertinent information, thereby reinforcing the teacher/student relationship. June takes the opportunity here to share her idea of emotional health with the team : June: My first impression is that emotional health is kind of when you can sit next to horrible things that have happened to you and be able to acknowledge them and they are not stunting you to move forward She is attempting to impress upon Esther and Brian how to conceptualize their clients, teaching them a new way to understand them and use that understanding to better engage them. The supervisors typically respond in a deferential manner, able in addition to maintaining a respectful stance in supervision. In another instance, June describes directive and non directive stances in counseling, using these approaches to differentiate between Brian and Esther: June: But your therapist approac h stance is directive and nondirective When you are nondirective you can hold out and then in summation you start talking about themes
130 In contrasting their styles, June emphasizes what she believes are key difference in their styles: a directive counselor is likelier to take advantage of every conceivable directive counselor may prefer to wait longer in session to re and the teacher/student relationship. Not only do they accept these ascriptions, they in turn use them to de scribe each other: Brian: I do not like slow times you are very relaxed Esther: I have been really good at that The exchange prompts a series of conversations throughout the duration of supervision regarding their therapeutic styles, challenging b approach. June notices time and again when she witnesses Brian adopt more of notices in one instance how Brian decelerated his usual pace and the int ended impact on their clients: June: That is actually a paradoxical injunction to go slow which is a really nice way too because sometimes you have to go slow and slow and steady wins the race June explains to Brian, and the rest of the team, that altern ating approaches with clients demonstrates a flexible counselor identity, one better prepared to adapt to changes from person to person. Each client may have a different preference for pacing in counseling, and being able to recognize it as a sign of clini cal maturity. Once again
131 June impresses upon the counselors the value of attending to their clients and modifying their approach to be sensitive of their respective needs. The manner in which she does it does not undercut their own styles, instead doing it in a way to see the value in embracing different approaches, something I noticed. Although the counselors tended to look to June for her knowledge regarding their clients, June deferred to her counselors since she felt that they ultimately had a better un derstanding of what was taking place during sessions. She simultaneously lays some of the responsibility for accumulating knowledge about their clients on the counselors inasmuch as she demurred to them on clinical issues, challenging them. Here June leave s the course of action with their clients up to Esther and Brian: June: then toss the idea that is fine June tells the counselors that should they have a different plan of action, they ought to pursue it without any fear of retaliation or negative consequences, in part because they are the ones engaging the clients, while June observes from another room. What she may view as clinically appropriate from her perspective may not work while in the room with the clients, and she acknowledges as much, deferring to their experience and knowledge. Much like a multi pronged highway system leading in diverging directions, Esther k together, and their relationship with each other as well as June and Heather also twist in several directions. The relationship between Brian and Esther initially appears to be unified after their first s:
132 Brian: that they are telling us the same thing over and over but they really want to tell us something When conversing with their clients, Brian promotes a unified clinical identity, a collaborative and supposedly supportive co counseling relationshi p in the early stages of therapy. During the subsequent session June notices an improved rhythm between the two, and Brian views that change as an attempt toward a more egalitarian relationship in counseling in terms of space for each to engage their clien ts: Brian: Because I was really trying to give her an opportunity to talk first because I just want to jump in and say stuff Their relationship begins to move from one of being unified to one moving towards equity. Brian attempts to create and yield talking time and space to Esther. He recognizes that he can take up a lot of space in counseling, and wants to be a more accommodating co counselor. She agrees to both June and Brian: Esther: I real ly thought the same thing t his week was much easier clients and her co counselors compared to the previous concurring with June that a shift emerged between the two. She felt a greater sense of collaboration between herself and Brian, affirming his attempt to be more of an accommodating counselor. As accommodating as Brian attempts to be with Esther, she has noticed over their work together contrasting styles in how they engag e clients, and its impact on how they work together: Esther: Because I am seeing differences in our styles because I am starting to develop my style
133 However, as much as Brian may feel that he is an accommodating and egalitarian counselor, Esther disagrees feeling squeezed out of counseling due to his tendency to jump in quickly in session: Esther: And so having somebody right next to me that is always prepared with a question or prepared to facilitate further discussion is intimidating Esther experience s what she perceives is an unbalanced relationship, one based on inequity between the two in terms of how she is able to work with the clients. She is using her words to attempt to shift the balance of the relationship back towards something more egalitari clients. It serves to open his eyes about his clinical identity as well as his relationship with his co counselor: Brian: I think that is great I am going to give you more time I think that is awesome I never thought it might be intimidating for the client Maybe they would l ike a break instead of me just rattling stuff off recognizes instantly that perhaps he should slo w his pace down to give not only Esther more space in therapy but their clients as well. He openly and enthusiastically accepts reaction. He immediately wants to improve h ow he interacts with his co counselor and their clients, admitting that they might appreciate a slower pace in counseling. This
134 What I picked up from this nse based on the relationship they are seeking to build. He instantly recognizes what he could do differently, something lost on a past version of me based on my pre understanding of negotiation among co counselors. June takes this opportunity to encourag e Brian to adopt a more mindful clinical identity regarding himself and his clients. She challeng es him to take more time to reflect on how he interacts with their clients and Esther as well as how he uses his words to initiate action: June: Get what you need as far as space and time in your sessions As far as putting out there You have such great things to contribute to the session For you I would look at the video and not focus on oh I should have known that homework You should critique yourself June conveying to him that he ought to devote more time to evaluating his work and how he engages their clients. June simultaneously adopts the challenging and nurturing supervisory id entity as she articulates this opinion to him. She is using language here to instruct him to think more about how his counseling style impacts their clients and his relationship with Esther. In a sense, she is challenging him to adopt a slower pace to his work, similar to that of Esther, while also careful to highlight what he does well in ervisor she used his strengths as the starting point and not the ending point in her comments.
135 ntifying. She wants to build on what he does well and then challenge him to push himself farther, to continue to develop his skill set. The teaching supervisor identity is in full effect during this particular exchange among the team. She offers several ex amples of how he could analyze his work, including being more economical with his words in session: June: I was really eloquent in the way that I phrased or purposeful in the words that I used June is modeling here what she thinks could be useful for B rian in terms of how he could reflect on his clinical style. He appreciates the feedback, and then goes on to share his own insecurities about his abilities and his relationship with Esther. He had originally did not want to have a co therapist, and based on what he thought the process was of being paired with a co counselor, as concerned about his clinical skills: Brian: Well I can understand if they want to have co therapists because they feel somebody strong and somebody weak and I said I think they put me with one of the stronger people At this point Ted is using his words that it is dawning on him that he may have been paired with Esther because she had a different skill set to bring into therapy to compliment h is own. His comments demonstrate appreciation for Esther, her style, as well as the rest of the team. Brian sees her as a strong counselor, and does not want to give the impression to Esther or to anyone that she is inferior due to the fact that he talks m I find this exchange humorous and revealing, as I have too found myself in the same place as the, but never having had the gumption to openly discuss it in supervision. What strikes me through and through is how respectful and generous team members are towards
136 each other, not playing up the strong versus weak on to the other person and instead reflecting back on themselves about what the pairing might have said about themselves. He had previously thought that the pairing was done based on strong versus weak counseling personalities, a sentiment Esther also shared: Esther: I was really like hurt that I was paired with you because I saw you a s such a strong therapeutic personality and I was like really concerned require more inten se instruction. In turn she felt that the co counseling relationship counselor that she would be unable to match him in session, going back to her sense of clinical competence a s well as their relationship. relationship, and also allayed concerns both had expressed about their respective sense of clinical competence. June used her position as the challengin g and nurturing supervisor to help facilitate the discussion and point out areas for growth for both while noting their unique strengths. Their pairing has an additive effect, and the conversation ultimately unifies the relationship between Brian, Esther, and June. From this point forward in their work together, Brian adopted a more mindful approach in counseling with their clients and Esther, demonstrated in this excerpt: Brian: There were a lot of times I was ready to say stuff But I was like no I am rea lly going to relax And give her some time with some silence Esther has something to say so I am going to wait
137 Instead of jumping in as he might have done earlier in the semester, Brian instead adopts a deliberate stance to giving Esther and their clients space to express themselves and not occupy the entire session with his voice. In what becomes a common theme from this point forward, Esther agrees that the sessions are more collaborative, and becomes more mindful of his style and when it is more effectiv e in counseling: Esther: There were a couple of times that I would have liked to have like you were going in a very good direction So I was just there supporting Instead of feeling margi nalized, she instead adopted a supportive stance with her co counselor. She believed that he was helping their clients move in a therapeutic direction, and did not want to interrupt the good work that was underway. It reinforces a collaborative relationshi p instead of a competitive one. As a way of demonstrating his mindfulness of Esther, he makes a point of asking during every supervision session after a counseling session if she felt that she had enough space in session in which to operate, to which she r eplies in the affirmative each time, and then discuss its impact on their work together. It slightly surprises me how much a relationship can change with a domino effect on their identities by one co counselor commenting on space in counseling. Emerging C ompetence Throughout supervision Brian and Esther, as counselors in training, one of their goals is to develop into competent clinicians. The counselors use supervision to conceptualize their cases, discuss strategies for the most effective engagement, and talk about potential areas of discussion with their clients, among other topics of
138 relevance to their work. All four team members use this time to think out loud and obtain feedback from others, and thereby potentially shape future activities in counselin g. Esther takes time on occasion to reflect on her counseling process with the team: Esther: I am going over a lot in my head right now, about reasonings and questions and one thing that I am really curious about because she does mention going to counseli ng in the past She has never mentioned why Thinking out loud affords her the opportunity to convey to the rest of the team a experiences may impact their lives and their work in counseling. She wants to impress upon the others that she is exerting herself. June is also active at imparting advice to Esther and Brian when it comes to challenging them to continue to push themselves in how they engage their clients: June: So challenge yourself a little bit to connect to be curious and maybe to prompt some questions with the genogram and see how that goes for you not to rely on the same methodology and technique with every person or family. assuming position and identity as counselor, as she had stated in one of her supervision sessions with Heather. A capable counselor utilizes clinical tools like a genogram ( a family tree tool that examine s relationships) in various ways to obtain information to assist the client(s) and counselor in developing meaningful and satisfying therapeutic conversations. June, adopting her identity as teaching supervisor, challenges th em to continue pushing for novel ways to interact with their clients. Word economy in counseling is another area of emphasis for June with
139 both Esther and Brian, whether too many are being said or not enough with clear clinical intent. Enacting again the i dentity of the teaching supervisor, and simultaneously working on the teacher/student relationship, June regularly points out moments where both could alter how strategic they can be with their clients. As a supervisor in training, June also occasionally s truggles with articulating herself economically to the team. The counselors also identify moments where they could have said things differently, say more, or say less to communicate more effectively. Here June suggests to Brian a way to analyze his own wor k while watching the videotapes of his sessions: June: I was really eloquent in the way that I phrased or purposeful in the words that I used June attempts to instruct Brian on the value of adopting a more critical counselor identity. I understand bett er from these comments how a supervisor can use their something well. In addition, s he challenges him to pay more attention to how he occupies space in counseling an d how he uses words to express his thoughts and feelings. On the flip side, Esther voices doubts about how inactive she perceives herself to be with clients, and not just with the clients she sees with Brian: Esther: I think I just looked back over that an d was thinking like And this is kind of a constant for me And it is not always just in here She makes these comments prior to the last few remaining sessions with their clients. It reveals for Esther a crisis of confidence in her clinical capabilities. She
140 session, regretting perhaps that she missed opportunities. She continues by saying that this concern of hers is not li mited to her experience with Brian. Esther is concerned that while she may not be doing any harm to her clients, she wonders if she is not doing enough to be clinical helpful. What I found revealing was that her thoughts were not prompted. So, in a sense, she is developing some semblance of competence, or at least awareness of who she is while she is in the room with clients. June, as in other instances during supervision, adopts a supportive stance with her while encouraging her to explore her insecurities as a counselor. The other three team members reassure Esther of her clinical capabilities, in particular June praising her desire to process her experiences: June: Then I think it is really very healthy and very responsible for you to reflect June perc desire to reflect on herself as positive attributes of her counselor identity. In turn, Esther decides during this supervision session to adopt a more vocally active role in counselin g: Esther: I think I want to try to challenge myself to become more active in this session and really try to engage and find those openings and try and act ively find them more frequently otify others that she intends to be more vocal in session. Esther is seeking permission and support to adopt a more active counselor identity Whereas Brian was working towards adopting a more reflective counselor identity and be less vocally active in ses sion, Esther seeks to become a more vocally active partner with him. Since she does not view herself as
141 particular vocal in session, Esther looks to June as the supervisor to provide guidance to model to her when it would be appropriate to jump in more fre quently in session: June: Okay how can I help you get with that How can you be supported through that Since Esther has already taken on the task of challenging herself, June feels that it is up to her to nurture and assist her in her request. The back a nd forth between June Esther takes on a more vocal role in counseling, don e without any prompts. Understanding Four emerge, particularly in regards to why things are said the way they are, the relationships among all four members and their respective identities. Whenever June pointed out an area of concern with the counselors, she consistently used words in ways to support their growth and build on their development as counselors in t she provided feedback to a counselor about attempting a new approach or technique, she would begin her comments by highlighting something the counselor did well so as to attempt to instill confidence about their abilities, and then use that comment as a scaffolding device. It is a new understanding for me as a counselor in that in previous clinical experiences, when a supervisor wanted to point something out as a potential area for growth, i t was not usually offered with a supportive remark. Not having been on experience where I rarely heard things said in a way to support or strengthen. That
142 particular e xperience, even though it was a difficult one, informed how I would want to engage a counselor should I was to ever assume the role of a supervisor. I appreciate in training with their sense of c ompetence and confidence. Three new understandings emerged regarding the relationships and identities between Brian and Esther and among the entire team. The first understanding is just how difficult it is for two people with different clinical styles to co exist, and the value of challenge, and June and Esther were instrumental in engaging each other and Brian in order to alter their relationship and heighten their awareness o and identify meaningful ways for them to co automatic; like any relationship, time and communication is required. Although I am very aware of the reality that any relationship thrives or d ies on those elements, in therapy, I had primarily assumed that since we are trained to be effective communicators that those things would simply sort themselves out with minimal effort or pain. Brian and Esther rely on their relationship with June as thei r supervisor to challenge, nurture, and guide them through her suggestions and advice to work on their own relationship with supervision to support each other and ensure tha t both feel as though they are a part of the co counseling effort in an equitable manner. I understand better now how a counselor relationship. Part of that boils down to negotiatin g space, something I had not been
143 keenly aware of prior to analyzing the data. Direct communication is powerful in ameliorating discord in co counseling. The second new understanding to emerge from the data is just how fluid and unstable identities can see m from week to week, even during a supervisory session. Counselor style and identity were often intertwined with each other, impacting their relationship not just with each other but also with June and Heather. One thing that I did notice that was consiste Regarding Esther and Brian and their identities, they seem to shift gears, along with their sense of clinical competence. Whether it had to with how vocal a counselor was or how much or little they reflected about their work, they each and both fluctuated in how they perceived themselves based on how they articulated themselves in supervision. Regardless of the issue that was raised, June used her position as the challenging and nurturing superv isor to engage them to reflect on their experience and figure out how to build on the experience. In each instance Brian and Esther paused to consider her opinion, and almost always accepted her guidance and worked on addressing their concern. A third und erstanding emerges from the area of knowledge and respect. Although in most instances June was perceived by the rest of the team as the most knowledgeable person in the room, she also made it a point to highlight to the team that they too possessed knowled ge about the clinical process. I believe June was doing this for a couple of reasons. The first is that I believe that she sincerely felt that the counselors had a better understanding of what was transpiring during counseling, and did not want to overstep her bounds and impose herself on them. Secondly, I believe
144 she was attempting to encourage Brian and Esther to shoulder more responsibility about their work with their clients. I consider the notion of knowledge to represent a new understanding for me due to what I had previously believed to be a primarily top down approach of clinical supervision as a counselor. I had typically operated under the assumption that the supervisor always knew more than me, and usually left it at that. The data suggests otherw ise, both explicitly and implicitly. Turning towards respect, the data demonstrated over and over again a sense of mutual respect among all four team members. It did not matter who was speaking or what was being discussed. Even when Esther was discussing h er discomfort with kind. Even when June was challenging him to consider how much space he was occupying in counseling, she did not demean him or attempt to scold him. I nstead she pointed out things he had done well and then used them to build on his good work. I consider this a new understanding based on previous knowledge and experience about respect. This was a mixed bag in my experience as a counselor, and hopefully n ot as a respect as well as how the counselors were communicative to each other in ways that did not diminish their hard work.
145 CHAPTER 7 SECOND GROUP INTERVIEW FINDINGS The second group interview served two purposes: ( 1) to encourage the supervisory team to reflect on how language shaped their identities and relationships over the course of their semester together, using the transcripts as a guide, and ( 2) to ask to them to think about their professional identities from the beginning of the semester to the end The conversation focused on how the semester went, what role they believed the words they had on their identities and relationships with others, asking them to reflect with the help of the transcripts what role their words had in how they engaged each other. The new understanding from Chapter 6 serves as the pre understanding for Chapter 7 The new understandings from Chapter 6 were (1) using language to support and bui ld clinical development, (2) the difficulty in co counselors co existing, (3) fluid and unstable identities, and (4) everyone possessed knowledge. A t the end of Chapter 7 I will include a fi n al n ew understanding of the data based on my analysis. The transc ripts were 18 pages long, and from that group interview, seven relevant stanzas were identified and coded. The themes developed from the stanzas were ( 1) connecting to each other ( 2) and ( 3) identity fluidity Moving Towards Understandin g Via Why This Way and Not That Way Connecting to Each Other June: Picking up from the previous section, to continue to engage each other in respectful ways. During the secon d group interview, one of the initial topics of conversation revolved on language negotiation among the
146 from her perspective the back and forth with Heather regarding this word and its impact on their relationship, adopts a position as a peer and not one as assuming a more knowledgeable position. She characterizes the exchange as a give and take between the two, not a unilateral monologue. June: So to me that was great beca use had we now have done that it might have left a bad taste in your mouth and you would have discarded any kind of contribution June offers her ap preciation to Heather for feeling comfortable enough to direction, and thereby diminish ing her overall clinical and supervisory experience. June acknowledges the weight that particular word had at that particular moment during their work, viewing now as a critical point between the two, underscoring the value of collaboration between the cou nselor and supervisor. their work, leaving me to continue to marvel and reflect on how powerful an utterance can be. It reminds me the value of being thoughtful and intentional in this line of work. Brian also picked up on t he collaborative spirit among the four of them and the benefit he drew from supervision: Brian: And then when you get another group with people who start talking about the process and things that are going on in the session g about wow we really are counselors we have our own language
147 Accustomed to solitary practice, he found that supervision accelerated his identity development through group participation. Without the experience he may not have had the necessary context to reach a point, at least as not as quickly, that he began to believe that he was adopting a legitimate counselor identity and no longer playing make believe. This amounts to a compliment to the rest of the team for helping facilitat e his professional develo pment, and not just a moment of clairvoyance. As the team continues to reflect on their experiences together, both Esther and Heather contrasted the use of clinical language between their respective clinical sites since both were doing therapy at other loc ales. Here Heather notices the difference between the two and its impact on her own development: Heather: and we use a very specific type of therapy the multi systemic therapy is like its own little brand of the rapy in a sense and with that becomes like along with its basically a whole new language that I have to learn Heather is saying that in this particular experience she felt a sense of empowerment over the kinds of words she felt were most appropriate for h er clinical the various ways different clinical sites use language on a day to day ba sis and the had some semblance of autonomy to practice in her preferred way, much in the same way that June felt about her experience with the team. June contraste d her experience with this team compared to other supervisory experiences in a setting that valued other clinical priorities:
148 June: Sometimes when I supervise school counselors of being aware of different mem bers of the family or the couple system and so it does become very individual and I always go to the family system as a whole and you guys were just so you gave me the freedom as a supervisor to go there ject it You embraced it in fact potentially limiting to herself and her supervisees. However, due to receiving permission from Brian, Esther, and Heather to practice in the way sh e was trained as a clinician and how she would prefer to practice as a supervisor, and was thusly able to concentrate on topics that were of clinical interest to her. She perceives it as amily and couple to cushion her opinion. Although the counselors could have asked June not to practice in this manner, she enthusiastically thanks them for permitting h er to work this way. Moving Towards Understanding Via Identities and Relationships Connecting to Each Other June: While reflecting on their work together throughout the semester and reviewing both sets of transcripts of their supervisory sessions, June looks back on several instances and its impact on their relationships and respective identities. Her comment dur
149 meaning for each of them, came to a shared realization that they were both articu lating similar ideas, just through different terminology. She understands how working through that particular word in an equitable manner positively impacted their relationship: June: So to me that was great because had we not have done that it might have left a bad taste in your mouth It speaks to their relationship in that had June had adopted a unilateral approach disengaging Heather from her. She also acknowledges and r as a counselor, someone with their own thoughts and beliefs about language in therapy and supervision. June uses language to position herself as accommodating and flexible supervisor. I continue to notice a respectful undercurren t while they reflect on this episode of their work together. The fact that honest negotiation took place changes a pre understanding I held about the work between a supervisor and counselor. Their counselor identity in that language is used to challenge her to use her own words and not accept what June says blindly, thereby encouraging critical thinking. Heather notes the lack of hierarchy in the exchange: Heather: like a level of hierarchy work Someone was right someone was wrong correct understanding or better grasp of the word while the other one did not. It was more of a matter of the two of them working together as a cohesive unit to figure out the best way to engage each other while simultaneously serving the clinical needs of her clients.
150 le and tackle challenging topics in supervision due to their ability to engage each other honestly and with respect, with an eye towards professional development: Brian: Well I think to the fact that we did communicate easily and when we did discuss how things were going on in session I think it developed our professional identity because like me most of these experiences are pretty solitary and then when you get another group with people who start talking about the process and things that are going on in the session they Brian uses language here to articulate his own sense of professional evolution counselor to think and act. Group supe own sense of identity development by being able to bounce ideas back and forth off of each and provide feedback and encouragement for the work they were doing. For him this setting become more readily apparent t o him than if he had been operating by himself without his peers to help him enact this newfound identity. The group setting translated into quicker recognition of his counselor identity, revealing a moment of clarity for himself. He later realizes that as a counselor he has own way of saying and doing things. For Brian, his counselor identity seemed to crystallize during this experience. Identity Fluidity For Heather and Esther, however, it continued what has been for them a fluid understanding of clinica l identity. Heather describes her experience, going back and forth between this experience and another clinical site and how its specific language has impacted her counselor identity:
151 Heather: very specific type of the the multi systemic therapy is like its own little brand of therapy in a sense and with that becomes like along with its basically a whole new language that I have to learn coming into this job ounselor identity is fluid based on work location. What is considered acceptable and recognizable counselor language can change depending on the setting. It also depends on who is negotiating the identity, and it is not her. The other clinical site is determining what is acceptable counselor thinking and acting. Her comments present a challenge to the notion of a coherent and unified counselor identity from context to context. She sees herself as having to adju st to her new setting in terms of language with June in that theirs was not unilateral in the use of language to describe and understand things in and out of session. Es ther shared similar sentiments regarding the fluidity of her counselor identity while simultaneously employed at another clinical site: Esther: I just struggle with that I guess because it was such a change of reference because I had an idea of what I woul d be doing in a private practice setting or something more of like ongoing counseling whereas the job I landed is not quite that She had expected prior to her obtaining her current job that the manner in which she used language as a function of her counse lor identity would similarly translate in other counseling venues. Esther attempts to reconcile between what she thought would be the case when obtaining employment and how her counselor identity would be affected in a new clinical setting, acknowledging t he difficulty of her transition. She finds herself adjusting how she operates as a counselor in this new setting, underscoring how
152 identity changes based on interactions, having to enact fluid counselor identities in the process. Again, as Heather had expl icitly stated, Esther alludes to the fact that she must adjust to her new setting, and not the other way around. It is a discomfiting realization for both of them, one that challenges what they thought they knew about themselves as counselors. It is one I understand better through their recollections, learning how much of an impact it can make on who they believe themselves to be as counselors, sometimes separated from their theories of choice. Their comments implicitly highlight how this supervisory exper ience left a positive impression on them in terms of their identity development as counselors, by having the flexibility to pursue their own clinical interests in a supportive environment. June continues this line of reflection regarding her own experience while supervising Brian, Esther, and Heather : June: I felt a lot of freedom because I identify as a marriage and family therapist and I felt the freedom in that supervisory training experience Ju ne uses language to express a sense of liberation with the prospect of enacting her clinical identity as well as preferred supervisory identity. She was able to concentrate on marriage and family related systemic issues, whereas in other clinical settings, noted in an example highlighting school counselors, she may not have had the opportunity to do so. June uses language to acknowledge and appreciate the Her words do not necessarily strengthen their relationship; at this point it serves to demonstrate a measure of gratitude to them. June turns her attention to how she used their language to assist her in framing her relationship with them:
153 June: the language really ga ve me a view of like where you guys were at and where you were willing to go and you were always willing to go in a very collaborative family system oriented direction which increased my comfort level but I think that one of the ways I gauged that was by t he language that you used and the flexibility that you had entertaining new language She used their language to gauge her own language with them, speaking to finding connections and scaffolding a working relationship among the four of them. Instead of pre determining how she was going to engage the counselors, June took how they articulated their thoughts and ideas about counseling and used them to tailor her work with them. She wanted to ensure that she was engaging them in ways that seemed to be developm entally appropriate while also challenging them, going back her characterization during the first interview as being a challenging and nurturing supervisor. While initially using language to describe her intentions for building a relationship with the coun selors, she is also conveying a flexible supervisory identity, Final New Understanding Much of what was discussed during the second interview was familiar to me after having analyzed t heir first group interview and the supervisor sessions. Two new pieces of understanding emerged for me from this set of data. The first was the sense of discombobulation regarding their counselor identities when working in other sites. The s sense of appreciation to the counselors for embracing her style of supervision. an academic training setting to the community, to be much of a struggle the way they d id. I had never found it to be disruptive in the same sense they did. I did learn through
154 my own clinical experiences what types of clients I preferred to work with, but never considered how disruptive a community site can be from an academic site. It seem ed to cause some consternation with Heather, Esther, and Brian as their experience with June did not translate to other venues. Thinking that their counselor identities were to be consistent regardless of where they practiced produced some level of dissona nce just that it was an adjustment and shock regarding their previously held notion of a consistent counselor identity. ion to do supervision in a certain way, but June seems to have said just that while reflecting on language and her own once heard a supervisor thank me, while in the role of the counselor, for allowing them to conduct themselves in a certain manner. I would never have thought to myself that the supervisor needed to seek permission to operate outside of their preferred manner. what the counselors experienced in terms of being in different settings and practicing in ways that were not as familiar to them.
155 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A summary of the findings from Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 will make up the bulk of Chapter 8 beginning first with a summary of the findings. I will then identify several discourses that were shared across the transcripts as well as highlight a few that stood apart from the others. While doing so, I will refer to counseling literature that concentr ates on language and its impact on the supervisory process as it relates to identities and relationships. Synopsis of Interviews and Supervision Sessions The first group interview initially served two purposes, which were to help orient me to how this team perceived and understood supervision, as well as encouraging them to reflect on supervision. Within this particular frame, they discussed what supervision was, how it was structured and what its purpose was, oriented me to how the team approached supervis ion, what its purpose was, what occurred on a weekly basis, previous supervisory experiences, expectations for working together, reflections on supervision and how language is used to enact and shape counselor and supervisor identities and relationships. F our primary discourses emerged in this set of transcripts: ( 1) instruction, ( 2) establishing a structure, ( 3) language negotiation, and ( 4) exploring personal and professional growth. Several new understandings became apparent to me after analyzing the dat a. The first was of the supervisor not assuming all of the responsibility for creating an inviting space to share whatever needed to be talked about. The second was learning that the counselors had the option of not following ggestions for taking a particular course of action in therapy. I also noticed a great deal of negotiation among the team. Each member was
156 not always bound by what some else stated, free to voice a response without any retaliation or fear of being evaluated at least not openly. I also noticed a heightened awareness of not taking words for granted and assuming their meaning, taking greater The first round of supervisory transcripts focused primarily on Heather and June. preparedness to engage clients, her fluctuating sense of competence, language negotiation between herself and June that reflected a mutually respectful relationship and simultaneously knowledgeable counselor and supervisory identities, and the understandings became apparent to me, including the use of one second new understanding continued a new understanding from the first group interview, one of language negotiation between counselor and supervisor, lear ning that the counselor had the leeway to conceptualize her stance independent of what the supervisor suggested. A third new understanding that emerged was the realization that anyone, including a supervisor, can struggle to articulate themselves. It revea led to me that even supervisors, regardless of whether they are in training or not, can experience trouble trying to make a point. The second round of supervisory transcripts focused primarily on Esther, Brian, and June. Of the discourses from this set of transcripts, Brian and Esther immediately enact a shared eager counselor identity, contrasting Heather at the outset. Another is
157 that of occupying space in counseling as well as diverging counseling styles and finding ways to enact them without suppressing the other person. The discourse of the challenging and nurturing supervisory identity and the mutually respectful relationship among the team members is a constant presence in this set of transcripts as in the others, including when June encourage s them t o consider their intent with their clients, emphasizing that they know best as to what transpires during therapy in the moment. The instructive supervisor identity is present throughout this set of textual data among the rest, using their differing clinica l styles in two of multiple examples in this particular set of session data. She also pontificates on what mental and emotional health means It represent ed what appeared init ially as a united front and then turned out be much trickier to fully enact as a co counselor relationship. Brian and Esther appeared confident at the beginning of their semester together, but by the third session were experiencing difficulties breathing l how difficult it had been for her to co exist with him in counseling. That moment seemingly transformed both their identities and their relationships throughout the rest of the semester. Brian and Esthe r were painstaking in their attention to providing each other with the necessary space with which to operate and not feel excluded. It coincides with both of them questioning their identities as clinically competent and effective counselors. I learned from this round of data about supervisory consistency in the way of using supportive language regardless of the situation facing June and Brian and Esther. Counseling identities, and even supervisory identities, appear to be unstable at best, at least with cou nselors in training and supervisors in training. The data revealed
158 that a core therapeutic identity is elusive at best for an emerging professional, often subsumed to an extent by the clinical site. Another new understanding from the data was the way in wh ich the supervisor attempted to delegate responsibility of the clinical process to the counselors, conveying to them in the process that they possessed knowledge and were capable of competently engaging their clients. One new understanding of note was that of m utual respect among the supervisor and counselor, based on several of my past experiences in the role of a counselor. The final set of transcripts was developed from the second group interview among the entire team. Language negotiation, specifica lly between June and Heather transcribed sessions and their work throughout the semester. Brian spoke about how group supervision accelerated his clinical identity deve lopment, acknowledging and appreciating their contributions to his growth. The team discussed how different clinical sites required different clinical and supervisory identities and relationships, as each member briefly detailed how these situations forced them to react and adjust to their surroundings. Heather found this particular supervisory experience to be helpful as well as she did not feel subjugated by June. June identified the strength and respect within the supervisory relationship among all four of them, built with the purpose of creating a safe environment to permit them to be vulnerable with each other and take risks when doing so in other contexts might have had negative consequences on their counselor and supervisor identities. Brian also goes on to talk about his own realization that he view of himself. June speaks about being able to practice as a supervisor from a
159 marriage and family perspective, notin g that this is not possible in all clinical contexts, thanking them for giving her permission to enact this preferred supervisor identity. During the final set of transcripts fluid identities and its impact on them as emerging professionals continued as a theme from earlier data. Each of them discussed during the second group interview the realization that they needed to adjust to their new site identity and relationship wise, with little negotiation. I had also learned about seeking permission as a supervi sor from the counselors to work as she had been trained, something I had never witnessed or read about. Shared Discourses Among the Transcripts Throughout the transcripts, multiple similar themes emerged among the four in both group interviews and supervi sion sessions. Several identities were enacted repeatedly in nearly the same manner while others changed over the course of the semester. One identity that remained relatively steadfast among the corpus of the texts isor and that of the counselors enacting the identity of the learner. More often than not the counselors sought instruction from June as to how to pursue a particular avenue of conversation with their clients. In one instance for example, as her way of ind irectly instructing them to assume more responsibility with their clients, she would defer to them to generate their own ideas and plans of action during specific moments in counseling. In another June spoke to the sessions about maintaining a creative stance with their clients by challenging them to continue to find novel and meaningful ways to engage their clients. Language negotiation among the team members was present throughout the four
160 and again during the second group interview. The conversations that took place about able to assert herself as a counselor, whereas all four of them discuss during the second group interview how little leeway they had in other clinical and supervisory settings to be abl e to articulate themselves without any potentially negative consequence to their relationships with their peers. June notes how in school settings she is unable to supervise in her preferred marriage and family counseling style, or as Heather and Esther po int out that in other settings they must adapt to the language and attire of those around them. Heather and June both recognize that not having had that relationship for the rest of the semester, as this topic emerged early on during their time of conver sation between June, Brian, and Esther during their set of transcripts and the second group interview as they worked out how it was they mapped out a course of action with their clients, implicitly providing June with a teaching opportunity about the impor tance of intentionality with them. A third discourse shared among the four sets of transcripts was that of creating space and comfort to allow each other to discuss whatever they deemed necessary to make the supervisory experience satisfying for each of t hem. June was intentional in her efforts based on prior experiences she had in supervision, believing it to be an effective way to supervise, and the team agreed based on their own previous
161 experiences as well. This discourse was shared among all four team members, understanding through their responses over the semester that the intent was guided was one prevalent example in which the co constructed vulnerable space paid dividends. Fluid counselor and supervisory identities rumbled as an undercurrent among all four during both group interviews as well as the supervision sessions. All four acknowle dged how flexible clinical and supervisory identities can be across contexts, pointedly noted by June when she thanked the rest of the team for allowing her to practice in her preferred supervisory identity. The counselors, notably Heather and Esther, cont rasted their experience with this team compared to other clinical sites where they were subjected to specific and seemingly unmovable ways of using language and practicing therapy, presenting them with the challenge of modifying their respective counseling identities to better fit in to their new environment. Counseling and supervisory identities and relationships are reflexive in part by context, at least for emerging professionals. Clinical confidence can also fluctuate based on fluid identities and relat ionships. The inconsistency among the counselors was consistent throughout, mirroring a non linear path for each of the three counselors. Both Brian and Esther conveyed competent counselor identities early on, but as the semester progressed, and their work together unfolded, began to question their own styles of working, challenging themselves to modify their pacing and tendencies to directing or not directing their clients, leaving both
162 of them wondering at several points whether they were as clinically ef ficacious as they competence began on less assured footing, uncertain if she wanted to see her clients prior to her second session with them. She had also revealed, in part du e to co creating worlds as an escape for her. The team noticed, as did I, a marked change in her sense of competence by the end of the semester, and I could audibly detect it was well while listening to and transcribing the transcripts. The team made no secret as to how she seemed different, particularly after her final session with her clients. The final discourse of note that was shared across the transcripts, one that was group interview, she self identified as a challenging and nurturing supervisor. She applied and enacted this identity with Brian, Esther, and Heather consistently throughout the semester, using them interchangeably when the moment seemed more appropriate for one or the other, and sometimes with them in unison. Diverging Discourses Within the Transcripts Multiple distinct discourses emerged throughout the transcri pts, the first coming where psychologists, psychiatrists, and other medical personnel w ere present, she felt it necessary to dress in more formal attire, as well as in court proceedings. She also found it valuable to her counselor identity to speak more like them to seem more knowledgeable and capable. Heather noticed that when it came to wo rking with youth at another clinical site that wearing her nose piercing and dressing less formal appeared to
163 help her appear more approachable. Formal or informal attire influenced to some extent the words she used, depending on the setting and those arou nd her. Counselor identity in terms of speed and pacing was a raised in Brian and engagement styles, where Brian was quicker paced and Esther was more deliberate in her approach. June noticed and then challenged both Esther and Brian to adopt the during supervision to instruct them about directive and non directive counseling styles, hoping to dra w attention to them about their different approaches in the hopes of inviting them to consider incorporating some of their counselor identity in the approach opposite Becoming authentic counselors coursed its way throughout the first group the semester, akin to a Pinocchio moment where he had undergone a transformation the second group interview session he reflected on what it meant to his counselor identity to have participated in group supervision, believing that a group process sped up his development as a counselor. It was as much a compliment to his peers as it was playing in a theories class. The fourth dive rging discourse of note was the co counselor relationship between Esther and Brian. It was unique to their sessions since Heather did not work with a co
164 counselor. Although they appeared cohesive early on in the semester as a co counseling pair, Esther eve ntually expressed her concerns about inequity in the relationship, which led to Brian questioning his approach and exerting more self restraint throughout the rest of the semester. He also asked Esther after every counseling session if she felt that he had backed off and given her more space with which to operate in therapy. He in turn took on a more thoughtful counselor identity, wondering if sometimes he needed to ease up with his clients and provide them with more space to reflect and respond in session. That response in turn left Esther challenging herself to adopt a more vocally active role in counseling, seeking assistance from the rest of the team to identify instance in counseling where she could say something to the clients. Towards the end of the s emester both were seeking ways to of the two in counseling and Esther the more measured in terms of when she spoke. Talk in Counseling and Supervision Literature Whil e the nursing and speech pathology professions have examined language through discourse and hermeneutics to enhance their understanding of its impact on identities and relationships, counseling and supervision have dedicated less time and attention on how these approaches can produce new knowledge to inform the field and expand my understanding of these findings. What currently exists in terms of identity and relationships in counseling and supervision mainly exists in the form of theoretical pieces advocat ing for a heterarchial supervisory relationship, shared knowledge approaches in supervision, along with limited research pieces utilizing critical discourse analysis to explicate the power balance/imbalance in supervision. The overwhelming majority of thes e scholarly exploits do not examine identity and relationships via the
165 counselor in training and supervisor in several of these pieces speak to the manner in which the team interacted with each other and its i mpact on them, providing paths to incorporate their experiences into already established literature. The style in which June engaged the counselors in training mirrors that of what Anderson and Swim (1995) discuss regarding clinical supervision as a colla borative conversation. Their work highlights the value of understanding the supervisor as a mentor and the supervisee as an expert in their own right. The manner in which Brian, Esther, Heather and June worked together parallels the thrust of Anderson and piece. However, it did not rely on actual conversation used during supervision, or reflections from the team about their work, instead obtaining feedback from supervisees in the form of individual interviews. The piece also focused on faculty as the supervisor and graduate students as the supervisees. Nonetheless, the notion that counselors possess knowledge and reflexively impact supervision is supported in the findings from this research. It provides a potential link in which the language used by f aculty with the supervisor, who in turn supervises counselors in training, would make for a compelling future investigation. In looking to additional counseling literature focusing on relationships and identity, Edwards and Keller (1995) propose an altern ative model to what they consider to be the predominant approach to clinical supervision, that of one of a hierarchical is valued, opting to co construct the supervis ory experience. The authors argue that supervisees have something meaningful to offer in supervision, and should not adopt an
166 entirely passive role. Both play an active role in creating knowledge through their interactions, sensitive to the role of languag e in this process. Although Edwards and Keller offer an example from one of their own personal experiences while being supervised by a supervisor in training, illustrating the problematic nature of a hierarchical supervisory structure on their growth as a counseling professional. The article espouses the position that the experience for both the supervisor and supervisee, when working as partners and less so as teacher/learner, is more enriching for all involved, including the clients. June and the counselo rs in training approach supports the idea of heterarchical supervision. The team used language to flatten supervision to spread the responsibility for the experience among all four team members, undertaking a social constructionist stance towards knowledge Each of the four sets of transcripts wove in the value of creating a safe and vulnerable environment to discuss their work and their relationships with each other. Smith (2011) discusses how creating such an environment allows for supervisors and supervi sees to take risks with each other by bringing up uncomfortable topics that would not be otherwise raised had the relationship not been based on mutual respect and care for each other. He maintains that all supervision and counseling relationships are inhe rently imbued with risk, adding that timing is an important variable in knowing when to raise a difficult issue. Smith offers several examples in both supervision and in counseling to demonstrate his point. In the supervision sessions in my research, two m oments come immediately to mind that mirrored the value of having established a safe and secure working environment from which to take risks, those being when Heather
167 li ke she was not an equal partner in co therapy with him. In both instances the discussions were conducted in respectful and constructive ways, done after several supervisory sessions, allowing for the four of them to develop their respective relationships w ith each other.
168 C HAPTER 9 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The use of actual conversational data in clinical supervision is sparse, appearing sporadically in other professions such as nursing and speech pathology (Hekelman, Blas, & Bedinghaus, 1996; Leahy & Walsh, 2008; Stevenson, 2011). The present investigation, seeking to increase understanding as to how language affects the interaction between counselors in training and supervisors in training and the impact it has on their respective identities and re lationships with each other as well as with their clients, presents several discussion points and implications for practice and future research from both a theoretical standpoint as well as from a pragmatic perspective. The findings from this investigatio n reveal several things about the supervisory commonplace for the counselors in training and supervisor in training from this particular experience. Whether it was beginning th e semester eager to engage clients or shying away from them, the counselors enacted identities and relationships demonstrating an unsure footing. They also recognized, along with June, how working at different clinical sites required adaptations on their p arts in order to fit in with the at different places, as they all articulated throughout the semester and during the group interviews. This inquiry also conveys the difficulty in developing a co counseling relationship and the productive consequences in addressing those quandaries. Although both Esther and Brian were well intentioned and seemingly in a solid position early on in the semester, issues emerged, and Esthe
169 with the clients. It worked akin to a domino effect where by the end of the semester both Brian and Esther were seek Alethic hermeneutics operates on the assumption that texts reveal something that is out of plain sight (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Heidegger, 19 77 ). Those same texts serve as the departure point thro about the topic of interest. Existential hermeneutics, a sub form of alethic hermeneutics, posits that the texts serve to offer meaning in life, and in this case, how language is used to enact certain identities a nd relationships in clinical supervision. The transcripts revealed multiple discourses regarding aspects of identity and relationships of counselors in training and a supervisor in training. Textbooks and articles discussing clinical supervision do not typ ically examine actual conversational data, instead relying on surveys or interviews. Hermeneutics, paired with textual data, offers opportunities to better understand and get closer to the actual experience of supervision among trainees, removing a layer b etween the researcher and the supervisory team by forgoing instruments and surveys commonly used. Although discourse is labor intensive as a means to analyze data or as an epistemological stance, it generates knowledge that can deepen our understanding of what clinical supervision means to supervisors and supervisees. It can also be implemented to increase understanding of the counseling process to figure out how to best engage clients to invite and encourage meaningful change. Discourse can challenge comm only held or taken for granted assumptions by directly examining whatever speech act is at hand, revealing novel ways of understanding and exploring
170 how language compels us to think and act in certain ways. It replaces the researcher at the center of the p rocess, instead actively including those with whom she or he comes into contact as the focal point. In the counseling and supervision profession, predicated on language, discourse would seem to be a logical fit for understanding its impact on the client, c ounselor, and supervisor. The findings from this study cannot be replicated but can be transferred depending on the relevance of this particular topic to a future reader or investigator since this investigation was qualitative in nature. The unique circ umstances and tentative conclusions of this study would be difficult if not impossible to replicate but can encourage clinical supervision researchers to consider in how language can drive identity in this particular setting, increasing understanding and perhaps as its own discourse, influence future practice and research. It can also reveal how the relationships between counseling and supervising trainees unfold and change over time. One potential application from this investigation to assist counselors in training and supervisors in training would be to take a portion of their work to transcribe and analyze to better understand how their use of language impacts their relationships. It might also provide insight into why they use certain words in a certai n way and determine to what extent they influence client, counselor, and supervisor interactions. Although counselors are encouraged in some training programs, and required in others, to review their counseling sessions, inviting them to capture their use of language verbatim and then use that information as a teaching tool could help them better
171 understand how influential language can be and how it in turn reveals to them how they are perceived by their clients and peers. An implication for both supervi sors in training and counselors in training in practice is attending to fluid identities as they make their way out of academic settings into community settings. All four members of the supervisory team expressed a need to referred ways to use language to exchange information about clients and how they were best understood. The counselors in particular noted how they were the ones having to adjust to the ways in which the community settings operated, with little accommodatio n or input from their sites as to their preferred ways of thinking and acting about clients. It contrasted their experience with June, leaving them to experience some uncertainty regarding their respective clinical and supervisory identities. Identities an d relationships for the team became something of a bumpy ride for them as they moved from context to context. In a teaching context it would be useful to talk with both the supervisor in training and counselor in training about their expectations for emplo yment post graduation regarding the work environment, considering whether there is a good fit theoretically or if they are seeking a departure from their training. It would be useful to engage them about identifying strategies to ease any adjustment proces s and help them in figuring out how they can advocate for their own professional identity as well as how they would prefer to scaffold supervisory relationships to ensure a productive and mutually beneficial relationship. This may take on the form of discu ssing with them how to adopt a more critical approach when seeking employment opportunities.
172 In this specific instance the interplay between the supervisor in training and counselors in training resembled more of a heterarchical model of clinical supervi sion (Edwards & Keller, 1995). The transcripts revealed a collaborative approach among all four members where each possessed knowledge and wisdom to be shared in their conversations although the teacher and student identity and relational discourse was eve r present throughout the data. The team co constructed a space in supervision to afford respect and vulnerability, one which enhanced my understanding of how language could be used to effect those identities and relationships. The findings suggest that la nguage used between supervisee and supervisor have an influence on how they perceive themselves, how their clients view them, and how they interact with their peers. It supports counseling literature on the concept of parallel processing (Haber, Marshall, Cowan, Vanlandingham, Gerson, & Fitch, 2009; Tracey, Bludworth, & Glidden Tracy, 2011) whereby processes that occur during therapy can also occur during supervision. It further speaks to the concept of isomorphism in which the therapeutic relationship sim ilarly instantiates itself in clinical supervision (White &Russell, 1997). In several instance, especially during Esther and and how it played out during therapy. After concerns were raised by Esther and addressed by Brian and the rest of the team, the clinical and supervisory atmosphere transformed into a more equitable relationship between Brian and Esther, allowing them supportive of each other, paving opportunities for them to discover more about their own identities and allow themselves to continue to be challenged and nurtured by June. Little research has examined how
173 parallel processes between co therapists and their clients impact their work, which might produce useful knowledge for marriage and family programs that implement co therapy in their clinical sites. Discourse analysis can serve as a useful methodology for understanding how language in use influences iden tities and relationships in counseling. The majority of research literature on talk in counseling and supervision relies on quantitative approaches that exclude textual data from supervisory and therapy sessions, opting for data collection approaches that rely on secondhand information such as surveys and questionnaires. Scholarly activity would benefit from looking at data that captures what is actually said in session to better understand how impactful language is for the supervisor, supervisee, and the c lients. It would also assist researchers in testing out theories and approaches in counseling and supervision, instead relying yet again on language enacts and shapes our thoughts and activities effectively synchronizes with the counseling and supervision profession, matching up our work of talking with a way of looking at how we talk and what meaning it imbues to our selves and each other. The recursive nature of counseling and su what is actually uttered in session. in this particular study the supervisory team were provided with transcriptions of their sessions and asked to reflect on language while reviewing, forming the foundation for the second group interview. This approach offered them an opportunity to consider how language shaped their identities and relationships, thereby relying on their feedback for increasing understanding of its role in supervision,
174 which could also be use d for counseling. Although this is a labor intensive approach, it nonetheless offers avenues for insight and improvement. Gee (2011) proposes 27 tools for analyzing text. This investigation utilized three of them, leaving the texts with multiple avenues for further examination. Additional analysis would produce new knowledge about clinical supervision and the journeys that both the counselor in training and supervisor in training experience through their use of language. It might also serve to shed additi onal light on the findings from the current study. Discourse analysis is flexible epistemologically, leaving the researcher with a myriad of possibilities to explore textual data. Discourse analysis could be applied within supervision and counseling cours es as a means of highlighting the importance of language and its impact on their respective relationships. As a means for peeling back the layers of language to help reveal intent and purpose behind words, counselors and supervisors both would benefit from reading and reflecting on their words to assist in their development. Leahy & Walsh (2008) utilize a form of discourse analysis for a piece regarding speech language pathology. They advocate that incorporating discourse aids supervisors and supervisees in improving their clinical work by attending to how they use language while engaging clients. Although this article falls outside of counseling and supervision, it nonetheless touches on the value of discourse when working with clients and using it to deepe n In order to further understand language and its impact on identities and relationships, another potential area of exploration and discussion would be to include supervisory sessions between the supervisor in training and her or his supervisor.
175 Understanding how their identities and relationships are enacted and shaped would help inform what occurs between the supervisor in training and the counselor in training. It would offer an addi tional layer of how they are negotiated based in part on what happens on another level. I would speculate that, as a gatekeeper to the supervisory and counseling profession, that the supervisor in of language may influence and sha pe their identity and inform them how to engage their own supervisees. An institutional analysis of language in clinical supervision, one that incorporated the supervisor, supervisor in training, and counselor in documents, such as textbooks, wo uld offer generate additional knowledge about its impact in supervision as well as counseling. I would also argue that looking towards supervision in non clinical settings would also yield useful data in understanding how language shapes the identities of supervisors, supervisors in training, and counselors in training as well as how their respective relationships play out based on language. Every supervisory experience, whether clinical or non clinical in nature, has the potential of deepening our understa nding of language and its impact on our relationships with others. One piece of data that was not considered for this investigation, but could prove useful in future research, is videotape of the supervision sessions. Although vocal intonation assists re searchers in determining intent and purpose while analyzing textual data, having visual data would help capture body language. This additional piece of information would help construct a more holistic picture of how supervisee and or do not align up with their physical reactions and responses and what that could mean.
176 A PPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE 1 I would like to engage in a conversation with you about clinical supervision and the formation of your working relationship. I would lik e to ask you a few questions: 1. Please tell me what think clinical supervision is about. 2. Tell me what occurs in clinical supervision on a week to week basis. 3. What are some of the things you talk about in supervision? 4. How do you come to decide wha t is discussed in clinical supervision? 5. What are some of your past experiences with other supervisors? 6. How have other supervisors influenced the way you think about and approach supervision? 7. What might you expect to learn from each other over the course of your time together? 8. What does it mean to be a counselor in training/supervisor in training?
177 A PPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE 2 to take some time togethe r to look at some portions of the transcripts and reflect on time together. 1. How did your semester go? 2. How would you describe your relationship throughout the seme ster? 3. What role do you think the words you used in supervision influenced your relationship? 4. When looking at some of the transcripts, reflect on the types of words you used and their impact during supervision. a. How do you think the words you used in clinical supervision shaped your relationship? b. How do you do think the words you used in clinical supervision shaped your professional identities? c. How would you describe your professional identities at the beginning of the seme ster to the end of the semester throughout supervision?
178 A PPENDIX C PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT E MAIL Hello, My name is David Cavalleri, and I am collecting data for my dissertation. I am seeking to interview graduate students who are providing clinical su pervision to other graduate level students in the Department of Counselor Education. The purpose of this study is to understand how supervisors and supervisees use language in their working relationship. One supervisory dyad will complete one interview las ting about sixty minutes, and will have up to 10 of their supervisory sessions audiotaped. Compensation is not available for participants. Through this research we hope to generate knowledge that will help other graduate students gain some understanding i nto the co creation of the supervisory relationship. If you are interested in participating in an interview, please reply to: David Cavalleri, at firstname.lastname@example.org or (407) 456 1541 Thank you for your consideration. David Cavalleri
179 A PPENDIX D TRANSCRI PT SAMPLE Note: This portion is taken from the first group interview through some sort of guide or having a guide to help you hone counseling skills and it is also a place where you have accountability from the supervisor and the supervisee stance because the supervisor is also constantly learning from the supervisee. So, for me, there is a lot of different elements that are kind of going on simultaneously to creat e processes and questions. David: I was kind of curious, when you were describing the bit about reflecting. The way that you said that, I was thinking, is it kind of like taking a polite pause, you know taking a moment to just kind of slow down and sto p and start to think What just happened here? Is it that kind of a thing. Esther: Yes. And like reflecting on not only the content, but also the process and like my experience of being with the client That kind of thing you the client, the relationship the interaction, right? Brian: Because you have a tendency just to go from one session to another because you are busy and you have to get stuff done and you have to see a certain number of people and there are only so many hours in the day and even if you are in solo practice, you rarely have an opportunity. This is a great opportunity to reflect with other people that are even in session with you, whether by video or a s a co therapist. This is my first time ever having a co therapist in the room with me, so it is a great experience to have someone to rely on and to talk about the sessions and when you are doing your case notes and you share feedback w isolating practice is when you are by yourself. It looks like Esther is telling the group that, as a cit, she uses sup to process the content and process of counseling; this sounds like she is relaying what goes to her emerging identity as counselor sup agrees an d builds on expanding self awareness; position Brian echoes both of them, recognizes the value in this process for himself and in general (with the emphasis there; he seems very extraverted (energized by other people)
180 You really are just all alone It reinforces the value of having even when you get out in practice or mentor type person that you could maybe meet with however many times just to reflect what is going on in your own practice. It is really valuable. I think it changes the way that you approach the clients Esther: It is nice, as you were mentioning, to have superv isors who are there for the session or at least have a good understanding of the clients that you are working with I was thinking about my internship sites and other settings. I have been fortunate enough to have onsite individual supervision so they are more knowledgeable about the clients and the issues and I think that helps too r of you done co therapy before? Female voice: No. David: How would the two of you describe that experience? Because now it is not one voice and one body working with clients, you have two. Female voice: I think that that is why supervision has been so helpful as well because it has also given us the time to case conceptualize. To really think about what is going on, what we get an idea of what each oth er thinks is going on and how we want to proceed. Brian: Even beyond that when we are in the sessions and Supervision is valuable; sees it as educational; a compliment to everyone else (a little bit of impression management?) Another complimentary remark; appreciative to hav e other perspectives to help her work with her clients; are these expressions of uncertainty about their work? The sup seems confident in her words to them Self reflective statement about his work with Esther and how sup has helped; see if she agrees with him; seeking some validation from her and others, but mainly more about expressing how their work changed throughout the semester; emphasized likely to gauge whether she found his comments accep table.
181 we have really established a rhythm in the room We are very comfortable with each other I think in the beginning, it was very difficult for bo th of us I am kind of a big personality and so it is hard to get a word in edgewise and so we really had to talk with that and make some effort on my part to allow room for Esther to feel comfortable Now, I think that we have a good banter in there I think that our family feels really comfortable with us. David: Theoretically, where do you come from? What are you working on, at least theoretically speaking? Male voice: I am like a solution focus. Female voice: I do a lot of things. There are definitely some that I take from solution, but there is a lot of client centered things like validating, summarizing, like basics and trying to fit that in ery interesting. Male voice: So, we are coming up with a new theory. Solution focus and a little bit of reality. have a co therapist. David: H ow so? Female voice: I am more accountable in another therapy setting where I am the only therapist, so I need to be a little bit more active in the session. That is the beauty of co therapy is that you do have somebody, if you are not sure where to go always got something in his head that he is ready to go with, almost always. So, knowing that, changes how I interact. I guess one of the things that we talked about this semester was the difference between direct and in direct counseling kind of things. I pointed at Brian because he is very direct and in a session, I can be more indirect. Like I said, lots of summarizing. Female voice 2: Similar in the counselor stance. Male voice: Yes. Female voice 2: Like ar e you more kind of passive? Male voice: So, with co therapy, that has just been part of it.
182 David: How has supervision helped to form how the two of you work together? Other than kind of sorting your stuff out so that you can co exist. What has it been like having Esther, June? Brian: I think it was really helpful, especially in the beginning when it seemed like maybe there was an imbalance in what was going on therapy wise Maybe I was monopolizing a lot of the ti me and I think that June really brought that up in a good way in one of our earlier sessions like were we comfortable together and how did we feel in there and did she feel like maybe I was silencing her or I forget how it went exactly, but it was a good enough discussion that the next session, I think it changed almost abruptly. That was my focus going into the next session is what we had talked about and both were to insure that I allowed room for Esther to do what she wanted to do. I think i t worked out great. I was afraid I would have a tendency to not say anything, and was actually a nice balance. In that way, I think supervision helped a lot. Esther: The supervision really helped to create the spac e to talk about something. It very much Parallels some therapy in the sense that you as a therapist should be able to open the space, open up the safe space for your client to talk about things that they need to He found sup helpful to balance talking time in counseling; it invited him to reflect on himself and look at the impact he was having on their relationship; it also changed how he saw himself and her in session; foc us on discussion (talking about this imbalance) and Esther having room to be herself; trying to show that he has learned and is a better counselor as a result of the What Brian said worked; she accepted his take on their work; s Brian as a guide for her work with her clients; maybe a teachable moment for her? term that is used to describe multiple processes that bear nical term in counseling, something an MFT would learn in an MFT theories class
183 and that was something that we needed to talk about and figure out so that we could help our clients better. June: It is a space for vulnerability. It is very necessary to get there and so creating that is in a sense making sure that we have developed some sort of relatio nship and feel comfortable. That has happened quite a bit and probably examining ourselves and examining each other which is an uncomfortable process and it is really not safe emotionally Just to tou ch on what you guys were saying about co therapy is that one of the things that I have seen as a supervisor is that you guys being in that relationship gave some flexibility in what you could do in the session, because each of you could align with different family members. team approach. You know, if you guys would have recognized that you are capable of doing that in co therapy but since there wer e other eyes and a team approach that that was less limiting. It just expands what you can do and gives you other possibilities. the process behind the content; relationship; goes on to praise them for their flexibility and imparting how important it is to be open and vulnerable with each other, and to help them understand that vulnerability and flexibility are important (to her) when it comes to counseling
184 (new conversation) 1:20 H: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? She is like, look professional. Do you think I should be looking professional? H: I think the way she meant it was an adult type. (inaudible) J: There is the culture of the school and the messages. B: Do they know they are in a specified program. J: It is very competitive. H: When you talk about school, what do you mean? Like when you are actually in s chool as a student or a teacher or what? J: Teacher. H: That is what I thought you meant. Because I noticed that when I work with teenagers I will wear my nose ring and everyone will be like that is really cool. Yeah, I know but when I deal with p sychiatrists psychologists nurses and I have to be very professional I will not wear that. You are too This goes to identity and what it something wrong with the way she presents herself; is she undermining herself as a counselor by dressing the way she does; goes to perceived sense of credibility T his goes to rship, too, as sup own way of presenting herself Identity changes based on the context; with younger folks, to and in other instances, she differently based on perceived she dresses more like herself; when it comes to others higher on the helping profession food chain, she dr esses more conservatively; bases appearance on what is acceptable Seeking validation for who she is; sup affirms it
185 high class. H: But in court, I wear something professional often times a pant suit because I would get a different response whereas if I go to a family the first time they see me because I would want to be very relaxed in my attire until they got to know me and realize (inaudible) Children who have some typ e of emotional behavioral diagnosis. An alternative school for education. Who knows what to expect when they walk in the door? I personally feel exhausted. J: Where are yo u at with that? to live with her. I sort of feel like there is a lot there and I feel like my mind is so for not. I took the time even from yesterday to today it was not there. J: You were kind of protecting yourself from being overwhelmed and that is okay. (inaudible). I guess my first question is what do you need from us today? What do you need from us to get through the session? J: Okay. So we are going to just establish that this is going to be a struggle for the next hour. Having your sister in the hospital and also having to help a couple of clients. There is some things that you are feeling strongly about your sister. It is a lot. We can do this. H: I am thinking that I will just kind of let you do your thing. I will actually talk to you J: Okay. I love that yo u brought that up. So, you are saying that there are things great, amazing. Now, what do we do with that? We want to make sure that you stay more in expiration mode about h er perception. Because what happened, if we are dress, but behave in the same way; trying to demonstrate that she knows that her appearance influences her rship with others; present ation matters; this goes to identity and rships with different constituents
186 struggling with someone, it reminds us and can create a barrier for us to really understand the meaning she has behind her situation. You can use your things with your sister, but it may be a little too raw well and we feel that it might resemble kind of where he is at. It sounds like you have a good understanding of where he is at or you feel you do. So now, how to get in touch with her perception and she guar H: I was thinking about it yesterday because he spoke a lot and especially when I talked J: It is like the reverse of a typical relationship. H: The woma n talks more and the woman is in touch with her feelings and the man J: So maybe creating a space for her to express herself. Even like hey guys, I have an idea. Draw on this paper what that manic episode looks like and you can draw it for what it looks like or feels like for you. That kind of thing. lked a little bit about a synopsis. and then continue that with so draw something that (inaudible) Low point. So what does that look like. H: If it is crazy, the cat J: Then that way, it is kind of like externalizing it for you too and it is a way to kind of take care of yourself. Knowing that you have a lot of feelings and you are human and we are human. That is no problem. It is enough of a wall. I think that it is a way to take care of yourself too. th em. So, I guess you can also say what supports you? So, it might be the Harry t hings. So, you are the center and maybe you have like a bunch of different circles that are your influence.
187 Right now, I have my family and I could show them. Then, you are cu (new conversation) 1:35:46 J: What did you think? (2 seconds of silence) H: I think it went well. (2 seconds of silence) J: Me too. H: I was thinking while I was in there I feel a lot better I guess when you focus on other peopl e it makes me think less about my own self and my own problems and my own stress So that once I am there in that moment I can escape into their world ny h H: My projection because I am a very visual person. I can understand things so much better when I see them. to understand and gain insight and perspective. This may not necessarily work with them, but you can be very up front like you were doing. I am a very visual person and I understand you better just by you putting it on paper and me asking questions aroun d your perception and what that looks like on paper. This helps me. protecting you from that rain and adding that into the picture and creating map dots to th e picture. I think so much of a fuller story. And how he talks about the caretaker. He said it all right there. I love to take care of her. It is my duty. silence as evasiveness; counselor is telling her that she agrees that focusing on the client makes for better therapy; another reminder about being p resent with the client and counselor is saying and doing to the sup; this counselor has her own stuff that has the potential of getting in the way; the sup re orients her to focus on the pr ocess of engagement; getting her to see that she was present with clients
188 a bout her having a problem. We have talked so much about externalizing this week in class. I think they both saw that this thing was totally separate from them. They are a couple still and they are still the same people. Maybe that is some of the relief you are feeling too. I even felt like they felt relief when they realized it was some thing out there really problem focused at all tonight. J: Yeah, but you d just a storm. B: Th ere was optimism in both of their pictures. He is going to the tree in the sun and there. H: And their pictures, we were able to join them. B: They are very simi lar. H: You can kind of walk up the tree. B: I thought it was really neat.
189 sessions 1:44:09 E: I think that is something that is really difficult for me in here, bec ause I am seeing differences in our styles because I am starting to develop my style with families a little bit and even in my individual sessions, I allow that space for like them to mull things over before I kind of throw in what I want to say or if I want to say something and so having somebody right next to me that is always prepared with a question or prepared to facilitate further discussion is intimidating. (5 seconds of silence) H: It is cramping your style. J: Is that hard to say? E: Yes, that was really hard to say. J: Is that hard to hear? B: No, I think that is great I am going to give you more time. I think that is awesome. I never thought it might be intimidating for the client Maybe they would like a break in stead of me just rattling stuff off. So, I think that is good. J: You know, what is really interesting too is in pres and posts, Counselor is using words to display her displeasure with her rship with her co counselor; wants to convey to him how she works, and is seeking space in counseling to be herself; fee ls Counselor is letting counselor know that rship is not equitable; feels it is unbalanced; is attempting use words to alter the nature of the rship (in her eyes) Using words to try to strengthen their rship, to make it more equal between the t wo space wise; using words to question his own identity as counselor, that perhaps if he comes off this way to counselor that perhaps he comes off this way to clients; a moment of pause for him
190 even if we are rushed or you are feeling rushed, you get what you need to say in, so I would offer that, and you a re really good at it and I really admire you for that and if I could say anything, you should be really confident that you get what you need in pre and post. So, get what you need as far as space and time in your sessions. As far as putting out ther e. You have such great things to contribute to the session. For you, I would look at the video and not focus on oh, I should have known that homework. You should critique yourself I really want you to look and say what is it that I did well. If it has prompted David, even though wow I really felt that interruption was just a clear indication of he is not done. Or I was really eloquent in the way that I phrased or purposeful in the words that I used. Because those are the things that I saw you do today. It was mixed with less confidence than I am used to seeing from you, but I really want you to focus on those things. B: You know what was really great? Like when Don said something and he said oh, I am sorry and you said, go ahead, I was going to ask you a question anyway. Sup is encouraging counselor to be more mindful of himself an d his clients; to adopt a more client centered approach in style but challenging him at the nurturing and challenging); she is challenging him to be more challenging to himself; this is going more tow ards his identity as a counselor, and he responds by validating her, thereby retaining the sup counselor/student/teacher rship Sup wants him to be economical as a counselor, going towards his identity; not so much towards their rship, although it goes to his rship with his clients; she wants him to pay more attention to how he occupies space in counseling and how he uses words to express his thoughts and feelings The counselor seems to be stinging a little bit by not addressing what was said more directly
191 I thought that was awesome Then, can I share something? J: Yeah. B: I wrote this in my journal when we got our assignments. I had asked to be in solo therapy because I wanted to be using my videos and so, I reflected on that through my journal and I have told Dr. Naomi how happy I was that I am in co therapy and another thing that might make you feel better is that when we were co therapists when I was talking to D r. Naomi I said well I can understand if they want to have co therapists because they feel somebody strong and somebody weak and I said I think they put me with one of the stronger people so I want you to know that I said that. J: That is really good. E: I think that I shared with Heather at one point like when I first saw the co therapy, like the therapist list, I was really Like Hurt me tha t I was paired with you because I saw you as such a strong therapeutic personality and I was like really concerned oh you know I had a lot of self confidence issues surrounding therapy, so I was like. J: I am so glad you shared that. I am so gl ad you felt free to share that. That is very powerful. Counselor is working quickly to adopt a more mindful attitude by asking to speak, instead of just speaking Is trying to compliment his co counselor, trying to convey to her that she is a strong counselor, wants her to know he thinks she is strong and v iews her as at least an equal; this passage is entirely complimentary; goes towards his rship with his co counselor; wants to let her know he because he talks a lot; he weakness She wondered if she was the weak one, wondering if she was going to require more guidance and instruction; that her identity was less developed; that she was not going to be an equal partner as co counselor Complimenting for taking assertive stance, demonstrating competence as counselor; using words to elevate assertive counselor; strengthens rship
192 at all because I felt the same way. Why would you pair me with her, Maybe, she paired us together beca use we are different and this is what the family needs. J: As far as my thinking that is behind it, I never once thought that. Not once. So, this is very new for me. And I guess I know she thinks that way either, so it is really interesting and I am so glad that you brought that to the room today. Really glad. Thank you Brian. Yeah. J: Your s ession was just really collaborative and really neat to watch. Setting the tone for everything. B: I thought it was neat that they were excited that they could include David this time have given that homework yet, so that was good and it all worked out great. e, it was a way for me to open up and say like that is really awesome that he is doing that, because I was a little worried that he was just kind of like closed off this session, because Stacie chimes in. She and Don are very, I feel like their boundaries are less rigid. J: I feel like reciprocity. Reassuring f emale counselor that she is not weak; using language to reassure that she is skilled (also goes to identity); counselor said she sometimes lack confidence, and this was an attempt to boost it (feeling of uncertainty, inadequacy) Using words to recognize their unique strengths and see it as an additive effect, not a reductive effect; meant to unify them as team
193 E: Yes. I think that is what I am thinking is that it is easier, or maybe it is just their pattern, is that when David is trying to talk, that Susie often comes in and kind of clarifies. I feel like Joe do well. That is a really gravy thing. I was even joking about saying, not to take away from his time, but I am, you know talking, but he did, he acknowledged that and that is very important. Espec ially, I thought with how much he can talk. He has a lot to story about, that he did transition out of his story about bunk at the beginning. I was worried about nd it got really loud and I wond everything. E: When I tried to, okay, it is probably a good time to turn to David, because I can feel dad an J: How did you feel about where people are aligned? B: You mean with each other?
194 Note: This portion of transcripts is taken from the second group interview l you with June, She was a collaborator. She was just like fellow clinician that would be the sounding board for discussion of what was going to happen me rephrase t hat. I think that you know the second Brian is it was pretty casual. You saying? B: Yeah I never feel like what happen like read the textbook in the chapters cannot to make before we are on [Indiscernible] [0:15:43] brush up on everything. metapho well with me, and we talked about it, and what meaning do you take from that word. There was Interviewer: Like curious for example? J : There was the curiosity first The posture of curiosity Well the meaning that Heather derived from it was very different and through a discussion and wh at was it that you like to take and what is it hearing when I say that? And then kind of like really kind of teasing through that and figuring out and then we realize using different wo rds room? And so that was like where she is or to kind of what she likes to kind of contribute and to the therapy room J: So to me that was great because had we now have done that it might have left a bad taste in your mouth and you would have discarded any kind of contribution Sup using language to pos ition rship between the two as one of two peers trying to sort out what meaning a word had in their work together; not assuming a one up position with the counselor; positions the exchange as a give and take; using language to share responsibility in deter mining language that fits for both; not assuming a unilateral position Goes to rship and identity; goes to rship in that unilateral use of meaning in language would have disempowered counselor; goes to flattening hierarchy in rship (hierarchy in terms of teacher/student);
195 but you felt comfortable enough to say or I don want to be curious want to have a posture of curious Okay what is that mean for you and then we work through it and got to a place where we even came up with like a different way of expressing it I think that it would still in agreement what kind of what could happen or what needed to happen which would sounded lovely to me to have that happen that level of comfortable ability and then for it like kind o f like what coursing about and like a level of hierarchy work. Someone was right someone was wrong d to that piece. June: We used got lot of metaphors true and I think we all connected to metaphors like oh my father like of common language that we all kind of connecting to and when whatever would tend should be metaphor things just made end so then yo u took it and communicated it to the client at whatever way for you and then another way that I think Brian you and Esther at the elop your relationship so you did become one in the therapy room and we played with you think we instead of think blah, blah, blah. We played with what does that do in the therapy room if you were adjust to use the words Esther and `I or we and made that kind of a team effort. Have it this [Indiscernible] [0:20:10] and through that kind of meet so I think that the worse strategy is very played with language to see if it made kind of lasting effect on the dynamic in this therapy room too. cool reading that part. Yeah I remember the metaphor so during the first interview at the end of the interview still happen should the paper with the circles and with the names of stuff on there. What is said about the metaphor for the four of you that seem to resonate? Goes to identity in that she is using language in that she accepts counselor as having her own thought processes and them; sup uses language to position herself as accommodating and flexible sup, attempting to create a more intimate rship; also goes to counselor identity in that language is used to challenge counselor to use her own words and not accept what sup says blindly (encourage critical thinking)
196 e and you know the way to connect with people. I think the metaphor allows people to each add to their own meaning of it before at the same time like joining toget her for like shared terminology so H: I also think to that work really well not just to create that common like the metaphor is creating the common language between us, but it also created like these ideas or we to symbolize our kind for going through room that help them under of then their ow n situation ruler and so, because they could understand that more have been in term we were able to understand and more reflect and I just felt like it was a very big approach e thing. actually talking about, because sometimes we would do the discu ssion and I was really what use she was, because maybe I will thinking along different was and then so I told we see him so I remember and I still have the stuff and th time I think very cool. So now I like metaphor, I would never a metaphor now I guess. June: Using metaphor is now okay? B: No. (Cross talking). nt who is going to be really through did to the kind of stuff and maybe, because of experience is triggered something in you I remember every clients like that who the way that they really got through was through a metaphor or through the artwork or findin g some other things. B: Because our couple believe is very metaphor [Indiscernible] [0:24:14] really I used metaphor describe a lot of the relationship if I reca ll so just talking about it and a good new and I, because [Indiscernible] [0:24:31] so using these metaphors in our discussions in our sessions really what you would bring what the discussion I would like is. So that it was very helpful and I give like this metaphor. June: I think too, for me is that power of metaphor is that when after we get lost in the content of what kind of words are we saying. Metaphors can kind of help me to see the process so it allows me to pan out and see maybe the bigger picture and patterns that
197 are going on, instead of [Indiscernible] and it anchors me and so it was valuable as a supervisor to use the metaphor if I felt that we all are getting lost in the content and maybe we were at different places and work so get starting this part of the story and your focus from this art of the story and maybe we all need to how do together on the same page and look out the full picture again like how do we anchor ourselves and join in a common place. Yeah I think [Indiscernible] [0:26:01]. like a story that can be told and how like everyone might see a little bit differently, but and going to what June was saying. because I mean I did kind of false along a line or some of the stuff, but you know clearly the words has some kind of influence on the relationship and how do you think the words that you end of using in clinical supervision shape your professional ident ities? E: Say that again? Interviewer: In terms of your identities as counsels in training and supervisors in training, how do you think the experience that you have together? You know the kind of words that you used and you talked about being casual, being using metaphors, you know really kind of getting on the same page using the same kind of words, same kind of terminology. How do you think that experienced shape your professional identities? B: Well I think to the fact that we did communicate easily and when we did discuss how things were going on in session I think it developed your professional identity because then you like me most of these experiences are pretty solitary and then when you get another group with people who start talking about the process and things that are going on in the session they understand wow we really are counselors we have our own language We have our own way of looking at things Using language to convey evolution into authentic cou nselors with his own way of counselor; his authentic counselor identity was enacted and more quickly recognized by working in a group setting; being a counselor became more real due to this setting; a moment of clarity thro ugh language about his own (and own specialized way of thinking and acting in session; had he stating that this process would not have crystallized as quickly
198 and the way of disturb breaking and discussing of ours elves. So I think [Indiscernible] [0:28:27] do you feel absolute alone to that every time to someone share something you have to get you feel that the process are goin more there is smarter what I did you had the counselors so I think for me just to be here with folks and you know we were casuals when I have something to say do you feel like the value what I said. One thing [Indi scernible] [0:28:56] I know that I really value what she says and so I guess for me it just make me feel like I was part of a bigger group. like this question now at a company and we use a very specific type of therapy that The multi systemic therapy is like its own little brand of therapy in a sense and with that becomes like along with its basically a whole new language that I have to learn coming into this job. When I first got there I was kind of lost and then getting accustomed to learning a whole new language so I think as a therapist to be able to join into that shared language is important especially for the group to kind of like introduce the new person to kind of to create that language together depending This goes to identity; couns elor identity is fluid, based on work location; the language used can change, and what is acceptable and recognizable can change depending on the setting, who is negotiating identity, what is acceptable counselor thinking and acting; switching from setting to setting challenges the notion of coherent and unified identity; she sees herself as having to adjust to her new setting in terms of language and identity, not the other way around; it also speaks to rship between herself and sup in that their rship was not unilateral in the use of language to describe and understand things in and out of session
199 on what stage the group is already in. n this question. Interviewer: What would you have a hard time with?
200 APPENDIX E AUDIT/JOURNAL TRAIL SAMPLE
215 R EFERENCES Alvesson, M., & Sk o ldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative researc h London: SAGE. Ancis, J. R., & Ladany, N. (2001). A multicultural framework for counselor supervision. In L. J. Bradley, & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice (3rd ed.). (pp. 63 90). New York, NY, US: Brunner Routl edge. Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher R.R. (1964). (Eds), The individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation of his selected works. Harper: New York. Antaki, C. (2002). Transcript notation. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from Staff Home Pages at Loughborough University, http://www staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/notation.htm. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). (Eds), Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Baker, S. B. Exum, H. A. & Tyler, R. E. (2002). The developmental process of clinical supervis ors in training: An investigation of the supervisor complexity. Counselor Education and Supervision 42 (1) 15 30. Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.) Needham Heights, MA US: Allyn & Bacon. Bradley, L. J., & Ladany, N. (2001). In Bradley L. J., Ladany N., Bradley L. J. and Ladany N. (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice (3rd ed.) New York, NY US: Brun ner Routledge. Bubenzer, D. D. (1991). Use of live supervision on counselor preparation. Counselor Education & Supervision 30 (4), 301. Campbell, J. M. (2000). Becoming an effective supervisor: A workbook for counselors and psychotherapists Philadelphi a, PA US: Accelerated Development. Campbell, J. M. (2006). Essentials of clinical supervision Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Coe Smith, J. C. (2007). Being in relationship in counseling supervision: Dialogic constructions with master 's level counseling supervisees. Unpublished dissertation. Corey, G. (2008). Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Cormier, L. S., & Bernard, J. M. (1982). Ethical and legal responsibilities of clin ical supervisors. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 486 491.
216 Cornforth, S., & Claiborne, L. B. (2008). When educational supervision meets clinical supervision: what can we learn from the discrepancies? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 36 (2), 155 163. Cote, J. E. & Levine, C. (2002). Identity Formation, Agency, and Culture New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crocket, K., Cooper, D., Crocket, A., Elder, J., Flanagan, P., Horide, P., Mortlock, S., Silvester, G., Talbot, W. & White, C. (2004). Responsibility in counselling supervision in New Zealand: An exploratory study of supervisee perspectives. New Zealand Journal of Counselling, 25(2), 18 33. Crotty, M. (2006). The foundations of social researc h: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE. Denton, W. H., Nakonezny, P. A., & Burwell, S. R. (2010). The effects of meeting a family therapy supervision team on client satisfaction in an initial session. Journal of Family Therapy, 3 3(1), 85 97. DuBois, J. W. (2006). Comparison of transcript symbols Retrieved March 12, 2010 from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/A04comparison .pdf Falender, C. A., Shafranske, E. P. (Eds.). (2008). Casebook for clinical supervision: A competency based approach. Washington, DC: APA. Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the Supervisory Styles Inventory. Jour nal of Counseling Psychology, 31 (4) 541 557. Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. London, New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2 nd Ed.) London, New York: Routledge. Geron, Y., & Malkinson, R. (2000). On becoming a supervisor in family therapy. Clinical Supervisor, 19 (1), 61 75. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4) 597 607. Goodye ar, R. K., & Guzzardo, C. R. (2000). Psychotherapy supervision and training. In S. D. Brown, R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 83 108). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction Los Angeles: SAGE.
217 Grondin, J. (1994). Introduction to philosophical hermeneutics. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29 75 91. Haber, R., Marshall, D., Cowan, K., Vanlandingham, A., Gerson, M., & Fitch, J. C. processes. The Clinical Supervisor 28 (1), 72 90. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings Albany, NY: State University of New York. Heidegger, M. (1977). On time and being. 1st Harper Colophon ed. New York: Harper & Row. Heidegger, M., & Brock, W (1949). Existence and being: With an introd. by Werner Brock Chicago: H. Regnery Co. Heidegger, M., Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). Being and time New York: Harper Perennial/Modern Thought. Hekelman, F. P., Blase, J., & Bedinghaus, J. (1996). Discourse analysis of peer coaching in medical education: A case study. Teaching And Learning In Medicine 8 (1), 41 47. Holloway E. L., Freund, R. D., Gardner, S. L., Nelson, M. L., & Walker, B. R. (1989). Relation of power and involvement to theoretical orientation in supervision: An analysis of discourse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(1), 88 102. Holloway, E. L., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1995). Supervision: Its contributions to treatment efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63 (2), 207 213. Jefferson, Gail (1984a). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.M. Atkinson and J.C. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.346 369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ ersity Press. Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191 2 22). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jordan, K. (1999). Live supervision for beginning therapists in practicum: Crucial for quality counseling and avoiding litigation. Family Therapy 26 (2), 81 86.
218 Kaiser, T.L. & Barretta Herman, A. (1999). The Supervision Institute: A model for supervisory training. Clinical Supervisor 18 (1), 33 46. Kiesler, D. J. (1985). Manual for the Impact Message Inventory: Research edition Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Koro Ljungberg, M. (2008) Validity and validation in the making in the context of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 18 (7), 983 989. Ladany, N. & Friedlander, M. L. (1995). The relationship between the supervisory working alliance and trainees' experience of role conflict and role. Counselor Education and Supervision 34 (3), 220 231. Lawless, J. J., Gale, J. E., & Bacigalupe, G. (2001). The discourse of race and culture in family therapy supervision: A conversation analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 23 (2), 181 197. Leahy, M. M., & Walsh, I. P. (2008). Talk in interaction in the speech language Pathology clinic: Bringing theory to practice through discourse. Topics In Language Disorders 28 (3), 229 241. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Locke, L. D., & McCollum, E. E. (2001). Clients' views of live supervision and satisfaction with therapy. Journal Of Marital And Family Therapy 27 (1), 129 133. Majcher, J., & Daniluk, J. C. (2009). The process of becoming a supervisor for students in a doctoral supervision training course. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(2), 63 71. Martin, J. S. Goodyear, R. K. & Newton, F. B. (1987). Clinical supervision: An intensive case study. Professional P sychology: Research and Practice 18 (3), 225 235. Milne, D. (2009). Evidence based clinical supervision: Principles and practice. Malden Leicester, England: Blackwell Publishing. Milne, D., Aylott, H., Fitzpatrick, H., & Ellis, M. V. (2008). How does c linical supervision work? using a 'best evidence synthesis' approach to construct a basic model of supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 27 (2), 170 190. Montalvo, B., and Storm, C. L. (1997). Live supervision revolutionizes the supervision process. In T. C. Todd and C. L. Storm (eds) The Complete Systemic Supervisor: Content, Philosophy, and Pragmatics (pp. 283 287). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
219 Moorhouse, A. and Carr, A. (2001) A study of live supervisory phone ins in family therapy: correlates of client co operation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 27 (2), 241 250. Morrissey, J., & Tribe, R. (2001). Parallel process in supervision. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 14(2), 103 110. Myers, I. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers Brig gs Type Indicator Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Nelson, K.W. Oliver, M. & Capps, F (2006). Becoming a Supervisor: Doctoral Student Perceptions of the Training Experience. Counselor Education and Supervision 46 (1), 17 31. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Penman, R. (1980). Communication processes and relationships. London: Academic Press. Petticrew, M., & Rob erts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide Malden, MA US: Blackwell Publishing. Scaife, J. Inskipp, F. Proctor, B. Scaife, J. & Walsh, S. (2008) Supervision in clinical practice: A practitioner's guide (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 63 75. Stevenson, C. (2011). Postmodernising clinical supervision in nursing. In J. R. Cutcliffe, K. Hyrks, J. Fowler (Eds.) Routledge handbook of clinical supervision: Fundamental international themes (pp. 93 101). New York, NY US : Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Stolze, R. (2002). The hermeneutic approach in translation. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 37 279 291. Storm, C. L. & Heath, A. W. (1985). Models of supervision: Using therapy theory as a guide. Clinical Supervisor 3 (1), 87 96. Thayer Bacon, B. (2003). Relational (E)pistemologies New York: Peter Lang; 2003. Tracey, T. G., Bludworth, J., & Glidden Tracey, C. E. (2011). Are there parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision? An empirical examination. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.
220 Wark, L. (1995). Live supervision in family therapy: Qualitative interviews of supervision events as perceived by supervisors and supervisees. American Journal of Family Therapy, 23 (1), 25 37. White, M. B., & Russell, C. S. (1997). Examinin g the multifaceted notion of isomorphism in marriage and family therapy supervision: a quest for conceptual clarity. Journal Of Marital & Family Therapy 2 315 333.
221 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Ignacio Cavalleri was born in Alexandria, Virginia in 1972. He is the son to Robert John Cavalleri, an Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer who earned his doctorate from New York University in 1970, and Maria de Jesus (Marichu) Alcazar Cavalleri, who devoted her life to her family and tending to the sick and elderly. Dav id has one brother Mark, is married to Jennifer Rae Nagy Cavalleri, and has two children, Abigaile Rose Cavalleri and Roman Ignatius Cavalleri. David earned his Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education from the University of Central Florida in 1994, and a Master of Science in Counseling Psychology from the University of Florida in 2001. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the fall of 2012.