Toward a research-informed, evidence-based psychoanalytic supervision

Abstract

Although establishing an evidence base for psychoanalytic practice has become a matter of increasing practical and accountability concern, the establishment of an evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision has yet to be given any consideration. In establishing a more comprehensive evidenceinformed approach to treatment and training, the corollary need to build an evidence base for psychoanalytic treatment supervision would accordingly seem an important next step to address. What research supports the use of psychoanalytically informed constructs in supervision? With that research base considered, is there any sort of an evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision practice itself? In this paper, I would like to examine those two questions, giving particular attention to two psychoanalytically derived variables of supervision import: the supervisory alliance and parallel process. Based on research review, data thus far provide a high degree of empirical support for the supervisory alliance as perhaps being the crucial fundamental and foundational variable in making supervision work or not. While comparatively far more limited and less robust in nature, data about parallel process offer a tentative degree of support for that construct's importance in supervision as well. While still only in its most formative period, we at least appear to have an informed and informing evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision beginning to take more substantial shape.

Common and specific factors converging in psychotherapy supervision: A supervisory extrapolation of the Wampold/Budge psychotherapy relationship model.

“…Although a supervision–patient outcome link is admittedly difficult to demonstrate directly, the case can be made that what positively affects supervisees is increasingly likely to positively affect their patients (Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000). Perhaps focusing on supervisor–supervisee outcome can best be thought of as a necessary and highly important intermediate step in improving patient care and ultimately unraveling the acid test question (Watkins, 2015b). In what follows, we give emphasis to that intermediate step.…”

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

“…Study criticisms have included the following: small sample size, no formalized data analysis, reliance on self-report measures, lack of comparison cases, presence of observer–confirmation bias, lack of independent raters, primarily graduate student participants, and failure to specify gender and race (Mothersole, 1999; Watkins, 2015c). Whatever the criticisms, the data allow us to say that (a) a multidirectional parallel process can exist and get enacted between the therapy–supervision dyads and (b) supervisors would do well to be mindful of that possibility throughout supervision (Watkins, 2015c).…”

“…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?…”

On a culturally humble psychoanalytic supervision perspective: Creating the cultural third.

“…How could it be pursued? Psychoanalytic supervision research is all too limited, and a contemporary pressing need is to correct that reality and begin building a viable evidence base for supervision practice (Watkins, 2014c(Watkins, , 2015b. In reflecting on the material presented thus far, a number of potentially researchable hypotheses are suggested.…”