The Supervisory Relationship When Women Supervise Women: An Exploratory Study of Power, Reflexivity, Collaboration, and Authenticity

Abstract

What does it mean to have a collaborative, authentic supervisory relationship? Can power and hierarchy in supervision be acknowledged, talked about, and incorporated as part of the learning? What does a supervisory relationship look like that incorporates intentional reflexivity about the relationship into the relationship? Discussions about the importance of the supervisory relationship, including the above topics, have emerged within different psychological communities, such as feminists, contemporary psychoanalytic thinkers, the competency framework in psychology training, and counseling psychologists. The supervisory relationship was investigated through a small-N, exploratory, qualitative study of women psychologists supervising women psychology trainees. Data were gathered for eight ''outstanding women supervisors'' and supervisees through sessions and interviews. These exploratory, descriptive data of real-life supervision sessions and relationships add to the conversation about relational supervision. Benefits of a reflexive, collaborative, and authentic framework to supervision are presented.

A Journey Toward Feminist Supervision: A Dual Autoethnographic Inquiry

“…In order to avoid potential disempowerment when supervisee performance is deemed unacceptable, formal, written procedures about evaluation should be provided to supervisees at the beginning of the supervised experience, similar to an informed consent process between counselor and client. This gives supervisees as much information up front as possible, and provides some assurance of due process if performance standards are not met (Falender, 2009;Mangione et al, 2011). Interestingly, none of the supervisees in Murphy and Wright's (2005) study described evaluation in negative terms, perhaps indicating that instances of negative use of supervisor power around evaluation did not occur for these participants.…”

“…This mutuality can begin with informed consent and collaborative goal development. Mangione et al (2011) found that although reflexivity about the supervisory relationship characterizes a relational supervision, none of the dyads in their study discussed the relationship explicitly during observed sessions. Through individual interview data they found, "While there was reflexivity about the supervision, there was almost none about the relationship, and many supervisees clearly yearned for more of that" (p. Lambers, 2006Lambers, , 2013 …”

“…Assuming this epistemological stance of knower -in therapy, supervision, or research -requires choice and invites self-awareness and reflexivity. To supervise from a feminist stance invites critical reflection on this knower-known dichotomy and requires even greater attention to context, subjectivity, difference, power, and mutuality.Although researchers have explored various tenets of feminist supervision (Gentile, Ballous, Roffman, & Ritchie, 2009;Mangione, Mears, Vincent, & Hawes, 2011;Nelson, Gizara, Hope, Phelps, Steward, & Weitzman, 2006;Szymanski, 2003), there exists a lack of research exploring doctoral student supervisors' experiences of feminist supervision with beginning-level supervisees. Furthermore, this has yet to be completed using authoethnographic methodology, a self-critical, emotional, and relational writing process (de Preez, 2008;Meekums, 2008).…”

Untitled

“…Although researchers have explored various tenets of feminist supervision (Gentile, Ballous, Roffman, & Ritchie, 2009;Mangione, Mears, Vincent, & Hawes, 2011;Nelson, Gizara, Hope, Phelps, Steward, & Weitzman, 2006;Szymanski, 2003), there exists a lack of research exploring doctoral student supervisors' experiences of feminist supervision with beginning-level supervisees. Furthermore, this has yet to be completed using authoethnographic methodology, a self-critical, emotional, and relational writing process (de Preez, 2008;Meekums, 2008).…”

“…However, defining a feminist approach to clinical supervision is complex, in part because feminist discourse extends beyond gender to include race, culture, class, sexuality, and other intersecting facets of identity (Falender, 2009;Gentile et al, 2010;Nelson et al, 2006). The most commonly cited themes of feminist supervision include a focus on relationship; an attempt to balance power despite the evaluative nature of supervision; an effort to model social activism; and attention to various forms of diversity, oppression, and privilege (Falender, 2009;Gentile et al, 2009;Green & Dekkers, 2010;Mangione et al, 2011;Murphy & Wright, 2005;Nelson et al, 2006;Prouty, 2001;Szymanski, 2003Szymanski, , 2005.…”