Rescuing the Thought From the Thinking of It: A Duoethnographic Study of the Effects of Narrative Letter Writing in Clinical Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the creative use of narrative therapy letter-writing practices in the clinical supervision of a therapist-in-training, focusing on the shared experiences of a supervisor and supervisee. Using duoethnography, the authors exchanged 54 narrative supervision letters during an 8-month practicum. Supervision requires balancing evaluation and teaching while fostering a supportive relationship that facilitates growth. Drawing from narrative therapy’s rich tradition of letter-writing, clinical supervision literature, and adult education theory, the authors examine the impact of this practice on clinical skills, identity, and supervisory relationships. Data collection consisted of in-depth conversations conducted with a single facilitator. Thematic analysis revealed six key themes: Pedagogy, Adult Learning, Narrative Concepts, Identity Development, Relationship Development, and Power Dynamics. By sharing their letters and insights, the authors highlight the transformative potential of narrative practices in supervision and aim to inspire others to adopt similar experimental approaches that enrich both supervisory relationships and clinical education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".