Reconsidering parallel process in psychotherapy supervision: On parsimony, rival hypotheses, and alternate explanations.

Abstract

A much hallowed concept, parallel process has been referred to as supervision's signature phenomenon, having now been a part of psychoanalytic and psychotherapy supervision for over 60 years. But I propose that much of parallel process is a fiction, and in what follows, I consider why I believe that to be so. Though promising, parallel process research is still in embryonic form (Tracey, Bludworth, & Glidden-Tracey, 2012;Watkins, 2015c), and the primary "evidence" for parallel process remains the clinical case report, case example, or anecdote. But how much real evidence do such reports, examples, and anecdotes provide? I consider that question subsequently, selectively examining parallel process case examples and anecdotes across the last 6 decades. On the basis of that examination, the following problems were identified: (a) case examples involving highly conflicted supervision relationships and questionable interpretations (e.g., where the supervisor instigated the very conflict that she/he then interpreted as a patient-therapist parallel process issue bubbling up into supervision), (b) case examples being far more easily explained by rival hypotheses and alternate explanations, and (c) mismatches between parallel process definitions and case examples. In constructing clear and usable parallel process case examples, 3 intertwined recommendations are proposed: (a) provide a clear definition of parallel process, (b) provide a definition-consistent case example, and (c) provide case commentary that makes clear how the interpreter arrived at her/his interpretations (i.e., showing the thought process involved).

Consultation competencies in prolonged exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“…One factor that may derail the feedback process is the experience of parallel processing. Parallel processing is a broad concept that was borne out of psychodynamic theories related to transference and countertransference (Searles, 2015) and, as a psychodynamic construct, has a questionable empirical basis (Watkins, 2017). Within the PE-consultation framework, however, we use this term to refer to the learning that occurs in the dyads involved in the program: therapist/patient, consultant/therapist, and program trainer/consultant.…”

Supervisors’ experience of delivering individual clinical supervision to qualified therapists: a meta-ethnographic synthesis

“…Whilst the notion of parallel process originates from psychodynamic theory (Morrissey and Tribe, 2001), the phenomenon has been identified within other orientations (Raichelson et al , 1997) and has been described as supervision’s most influential concept (Binder and Strupp, 1997). By understanding a parallel process, supervisees can better comprehend their work with clients and parallel treatment-supervision difficulties can be explored and addressed (Carroll, 1996; Watkins, 2017). As this phenomenon is not limited to supervisees, supervisor’s experiences are also of interest.…”

A Common Approach for Clinical Supervision in Psychotherapy and Medicine: The Person Centred and Experiential Model

“…A common behavior in supervision is called parallel process and refers to the mirroring, observed as a sequence between the patient or client, the supervisee and the supervisor [39][40][41][42].…”