Collusive Selective Inattention to the Negative Impact of the Supervisory Interaction

Regression, Self-Disclosure, and the Teach or Treat Dilemma: Implications of a Relational Approach for Social Work Supervision

“…These articles address four specific areas: clinical instruction, evaluation, a triadic relational system, and participants' listening perspectives. The classical viewpoint, in Rock's estimation, emphasizes a diagnostic approach, whereas a relational model (Epstein, 1997;Frawley-O'Dea, 1997;Hirsch, 1997) looks at a dialogic approach that pays particular attention to how the personalities of the supervisor and supervisee interact.…”

Candidates' Anxiety in Supervision: A Discussion

“…Like the analyst, the supervisor is no longer seen as the objective observer, the one with "super vision," but rather one with another vision that may or may not be usefil in facilitating the development of the supervisee, the analytic process, or the patient. Like analysis, supervision is now generally viewed as co-constructed; that is, the supervisor is filly imbedded in the process with her own feelings, attitudes, and biases toward the supervisee and toward the patient (Lesser, 1984;Fiscalini, 1985;Epstein, 1986). As an experienced analyst, Hanoch also has developed her particular analytical style, theoretical model, and various beliefs about the practice of psychoanalysis.…”

“We Don't Get Fooled Again”…Or Do We? One Social Worker's Artistic Perspective on Supervisee Resistance and the Process of Meaning Making in Contemporary Psychodynamic Clinical Supervision

“…Other writers, such as Cartwright (2011), Epstein (1986, Ganzer and Ornstein (2004), Gorman (1999), Lawner (1989), Lesser (1983), Lower (1972), and Stimmel (1995), have attempted to disentangle the defensive nature of both supervisee and supervisor transference and countertransference. In particular, Lawner's explanation of counter identification as a supervisee's self-authored, defensive representation of the patient's defensive architecture in their own supervision, rather than the supervisee's out-of-character replication of the patient's defenses (Searles, 1955), marked a subtle but significant shift in the understanding of parallel process (Baudry, 1993;Brown & Miller, 2002;Gediman & Wolkenfeld, 1980;Levenson, 1982;Perlman, 1996;Stimmel, 1995;Strean, 1991).…”

“…I have paid specific attention to supervisee and supervisor resistance as it is observed intrapsychically (Almond, 2011;Freud, 1912Freud, /1959 in transference and countertransference enactments within the parallel process of supervision (Brown & Miller, 2002;Gediman & Wolkenfeld, 1980;Gorman, 1999;Searles, 1955;Southern, 2007), and as it is observed as a function of the supervisory relationship apart from the parallel process (Baudry, 1993;Cartwright, 2011;Epstein, 1986;Frawley-O'Dea & Sarnat, 2001;Ganzer & Ornstein, 2004;Glickhauf-Hughes, 1994;Itzhaky & Aloni, 1996;Lawner, 1989;Lower, 1972;Perlman, 1996;Safran & Muran, 2001;Stimmel, 1995;Strean, 1991;Watkins, 2010). I have hypothesized, based on my experience and the literature, that supervisee resistance, while commonly thought to signal a withdrawal from the supervisory relationship and/or the supervision process per se, may at times be more effectively understood (relative to its amelioration), as an attachment behavior (Bowlby, 1969) intended to restore a state of calming relatedness to the supervisor.…”