Nondisclosure in psychotherapy group supervision: The supervisor perspective

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate aspects of nondisclosure in a sample of 30 psychotherapy supervisors, working within a group format of supervision of student therapists. The study constituted one part of a larger study, with the other, parallel part addressing nondisclosure in supervisees. The participants were recruited from seven university-based training clinics in Norway and Denmark. The supervisors answered a questionnaire comprising 12 items about feedback withheld by supervisors, supervisors' assumptions about supervisee nondisclosure, supervisors' assumptions about what students think that supervisors withhold, supervisors' use of indirect feedback, and changes in group climate with regard to openness over the course of the supervision. The questionnaire items were answered in a yes/no format, and the respondents were invited to provide examples and justifications for their answers to the individual items. The examples and justifications provided were analysed in accordance with Hill's guidelines for consensual qualitative research. The study confirmed willful and significant nondisclosure by supervisors in a number of important areas, with supervisors having a conscious attitude with regard to what they disclose. To a large extent, they modify their feedback based on assumptions about what will most benefit the individual supervisee's development. Supervisors assume that students act in much the same way, so as not to interfere with the supervisory process. The findings raise the question of whether the widespread cautiousness in terms of

Managing difficulties in supervision: Supervisors' perspectives.

“…The supervisory relationship can also raise strong countertransferential feelings in supervisors. Sources of supervisor countertransference, identified in previous research, include supervisee interpersonal style, the supervision context, unresolved supervisor issues, problematic supervisee–client or supervisee–supervisor interactions (Ladany, Constantine, Miller, Erickson, & Muse-Burke, 2000), supervisee oppositional behavior, passivity, self-aggrandizement, personal deportment, and erotic attraction (Skjerve et al, 2009). “Difficulties in supervision” are defined in this article from the supervisor's perspective and include four broad arenas: supervisee competence and ethical behavior, supervisee characteristics, supervisor countertransference, and problems in the supervisory relationship.…”

“…Strategies for managing conflict included consultation with colleagues, contextualizing conflicts both developmentally and organizationally, “self-coaching,” directly addressing conflict, reinforcing supervisee strengths when addressing conflict, interpreting parallel process, and withdrawing from the dynamics enacted. However, other studies of supervisors indicate that they use indirect interventions such as modeling, listening, questioning, and holding general theoretical/methodological discussions before addressing specific issues, particularly when issues of personal style and qualities needed to be addressed (Skjerve et al, 2009).…”

Nondisclosure in psychotherapy group supervision: The supervisee perspective

“…However, a recent article summed up different theoretical views and research on the topic, and offers practitioners a number of interesting suggestions on the basis of this summary (Knox & Hill, 2003). For further discussion, see Skjerve et al (2009).…”

Mutual assumptions and facts about nondisclosure among clinical supervisors and students in group supervision: A comparative analysis

“…Skjerve et al (2009) hypothesized that supervisors’ willingness to offer individual sessions as a supplement to group supervision is due to the fact that group supervision often is conducted as a series of individual supervisions within the same session. Since the other group members in such cases are not directly involved in the supervision of each individual (“target”) student, it only seems to be a small step from the group situation to the dyadic situation.…”

“…Details of the methodological approach have been accounted for in the foregoing papers. Data analysis was organised around the student and supervisor perspective, respectively, and the findings were presented separately, without comparing or relating them to each other (Reichelt et al, 2009; Skjerve et al, 2009). In this paper, we offer such a comparison by comparing what each party reports with regard to nondisclosure to what the other party assumes, or is aware of, is being held back.…”