Learning to Be Supervisors: A Qualitative Investigation of Difficulties Experienced by Supervisors-in-Training
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the challenges and difficulties of supervisors-in-training during the course of providing individual and group supervision to master's-level counseling trainees using both group and individual formats. We interviewed 10 supervisors-in-training regarding their supervisory experiences with master's-level counselor trainees. Data analysis used a variation of the consensual qualitative research method (Hill, Thompson, & Nutt-Williams, Citation1997). The results included five categories of difficulties: (1) managing the "gatekeeping" role, (2) simultaneously managing multiple processes, (3) experiencing an ongoing attempt at establishing a supervisory stance, (4) self-doubt about their abilities as supervisors, and (5) managing dynamics with their co-supervisors. We discuss some reasons for the training difficulties that the doctoral supervisors-in-training experienced in assuming a new role and offer implications for supervision curricula and training in doctoral programs. KEYWORDS: clinical supervisiongroup-format supervisionsupervision processessupervisors-in-trainingqualitative research Acknowledgments This study was part of a larger project that focused on counseling identity, and the participants were also asked about factors that they believed fostered and hindered their professional identities. However, only data related to supervision processes were included in the data analysis reported in the manuscript. The interview protocol is available by contacting the first author. Notes Notes. Categories 1 through 4 apply to all 10 participants: "General" refers to categories endorsed by 9 or 10 participants, "Typical" refers to categories that were endorsed by 5 to 8 participants, and "Variant" refers to categories that were endorsed by less than half of the participants (1 to 4). Since only 6 of the participants co-supervised, only these 6 are represented in category 5: "Typical" refers to categories endorsed by half or more (3 or 4) participants and "Variant" refers to categories endorsed by less than half (1 or 2) of the participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it