Insecure Attachment in Clinical Supervisory Relationships: Balancing Personal with Professional
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The clinical supervisory relationship (SR) between counsellors-in-training and established psychologists has been considered by counsellor trainees, researchers, and the profession to be one of the most crucial and influential aspects of the training process. Accordingly, more positive and strongly bonded SRs have yielded a higher amount and magnitude of positive supervision outcomes in supervisees’ observed and felt sense of professional development and competencies. In the past few decades, an attachment theory lens has been applied to the SR to help explain relational dynamics that can enhance or hinder the quality and strength of the alliance. Within this literature base, insecure (as opposed to secure) supervisory attachments (ISAs) have been demonstrated to interfere with the SR and thus, the training process and its positive outcomes. Ethically speaking, part of a supervisor’s professional responsibilities is to work through relationship barriers or ruptures that occur within the SR that have the potential to impede training. However, addressing attachment concerns often involves more personal, rather than professional, interactions and conversations which can cross professional boundaries, take time away from other training activities, and create more emotionally intimate relationships. Overcoming an ISA in the SR can therefore further threaten the already challenging personal-professional balance supervisors are expected to maintain. As such, the current study aimed to acquire a deeper understanding of clinical supervisors’ experiences navigating and overcoming ISA in their supervisees, while still appropriately balancing their personal and professional roles. Methodology: Three clinical supervisors practicing in Alberta were interviewed. All participants had experiences within the last five years of successfully easing at least two supervisees’ ISAs into a more secure bond during clinical supervision. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was then employed to analyze each interview separately and later collectively to extract similarities and differences in themes among participants. Results: Five group experiential themes (GETs) and 15 sub-themes emerged from the interviews. GETs consisted of: (1) Increased Demands on Supervisors, (2) Supervisors’ Intentional Attunement for Guiding Action, (3) Supervisors’ Encouragement of Vulnerability (Becoming a Safe Haven), (4) Supervisors’ Activation of Exploration (Becoming a Secure Base), and (5) The SR Gaining Equilibrium. Conclusions: The findings from this study reflect many of the findings and recommendations in the attachment theory literature and established best practices for clinical supervisors in the supervision literature. Furthermore, these findings provide further insight into how ISAs can (a) be identified, (b) challenge the supervisor, (c) be successfully and appropriately addressed in the SR, and (d) change when easing into more security. Implications for practicing clinical supervisors and supervision training are presented. Future research may wish to investigate the success of particular methods outlined in this study, gain the perspectives of supervisees, and understand the role of diversity in addressing ISA in SRs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».