Supervisees' Contributions to Lousy Supervision Outcomes
Wilcoxon, S. Allen, Norem, Ken, Magnuson, Sandy, Journal of Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory, & Research
This article features the results of a qualitative study designed to identify supervisors' perceptions of supervisees' attitudes, behaviors, and skills that contribute to unsatisfactory supervision processes and outcomes. The participants' contributions suggest presence of intrapersonal, interpersonal, cognitive, and counselor development factors that manifest themselves as supervisory relationships develop.
Supervisees' Contributions to Lousy Supervision Outcomes
Counselor supervision has been a principal focus for the profession for over four decades. Various authors have proposed models for supervision (e.g., Bernard & Goodyear, 1998; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998). Some authors have emphasized selected factors that contribute to effective supervision (e.g., Carifio & Hess, 1987; Leddick & Dye, 1987; Worthen & McNeill, 1996), while others have examined elements of less effective supervision (e.g., Allen, Szollos, & Williams, 1986; Kennard, Stewart, & Gluck, 1987; O'Connor, 2000; Watkins, 1997). The preponderance of these entries in the professional literature addresses supervisors' contributions to ineffective supervision or supervisors' gatekeeping responsibilities (e.g., Baldo, Softas-Nall, & Shaw, 1997; Lumadue & Duffey, 1999; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Wiggins-Frame & Smith, 1995).
Magnuson, Wilcoxon, and Norem (2000) contributed to this professional dialogue by examining supervisory approaches and behaviors that impede growth of students and supervisees. These authors interviewed experienced counselors concerning their worst case scenarios in counselor supervision. They asked participants in their study to describe or characterize a "lousy supervisor" (p. 192). Analysis of these interviews yielded the following six overarching principles as descriptive categories for lousy supervisors: (a) "unbalanced," (b) "developmentally inappropriate," (c) "intolerant of differences," (d) "poor model of professional/personal attributes," (e) "untrained," and (f) professionally apathetic" (p. 194). According to Magnuson and her colleagues, these principles manifest themselves in the supervision dimensions of: (a) "organization/administration," (b) "technical/cognitive," and (c) "relational/affective" (p. 194). These authors also suggested "lousy supervision may be uniquely experienced by supervisees and that it may relate to supervisees' previous experiences and attitudes toward supervision" (p. 201).
Though authors have addressed impaired supervisees, student selection, and gatekeeping procedures, less attention has been devoted to identifying qualities of trainees that interfere with their professional growth and impede their attainment of standards or expectations (Goodyear & Bernard, 1998). Pearson (2004) provided guidelines for supervisees to optimize benefits of supervision, and suggested that they avoid certain behaviors such as blaming others for difficulties they encounter with clients, emphasizing planning, and focusing on supervisors' shortcomings. Addressing supervisees' contributions to less than effective supervision, Eichenfield and Stoltenberg (1996) proposed difficulties encountered by prepracticum level counselor trainees in the context of the Integrated Developmental Model of Supervision (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). These authors suggested that (a) limited prerequisite skills, (b) cognitive factors, (c) diminished motivation, (d) unresolved personal concerns, and (e) developmental delays impede trainees' ability to achieve professional maturity. Eichenfield and Stoltenberg described supervisees who evidence these impediments as "sub-level I trainees" (p. 25). However, the description was derived from their observations and limited to experiences with prepracticum students.
Believing that broader examination of supervisees' contributions to lousy supervision outcomes would augment the model of lousy supervision proposed by Magnuson, Wilcoxon, and Norem (2000), the current authors initiated this qualitative inquiry to identify counterproductive supervisee qualities, and propose a schema for categorizing these qualities. Thus, the purpose was to explore supervisors' perceptions of supervisee' attributes and behaviors that contribute to undesirable supervision outcomes. We anticipated that explication of supervisees' contributions to lousy supervision would inform counselor education faculty members in refining admission procedures as well as assist field supervisors when considering supervision agreements. We also sought to provide information to supervisees that would assist them in deterring behaviors that contribute to unsatisfactory outcomes.
This inquiry was conducted in response to the Magnuson, Wilcoxon, and Norem (2000) study addressing supervisors' contributions to lousy supervision. Thus, the investigation team endeavored to replicate the procedures from this earlier study.
The inquiry was highly informed by phenomenology because the researchers wanted to understand the essence of the participants' perspective of their experiences with counselor supervision (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Moustakas, 1994). In the spirit of phenomenology, we regarded the participants' perception "as the primary source of knowledge, a source that can not be doubted" (Moustakas, 1994, p. 52).
Three counselor educators collaborated to conduct this study. The team members were licensed as professional counselors in their respective states and credentialed as counselor supervisors. The preponderance of their supervisory experiences was university based, though each member had provided supervision in clinical settings for supervisees seeking licensure or specialized skills (i.e., couples and family counseling and play therapy).
Sixteen potential participants received a letter containing a description of the study and the projected procedures, a request to participate, and a participant statement of consent to sign and return to the research team. Two persons did not respond, and two persons responded after we had recognized saturation and discontinued data collection, leaving 12 active participants.
Based on Patton's ( 1990) recommendations for participant selection when conducting qualitative research, the team purposefully selected and invited supervisors who would contribute information-rich data. Selection of participants was based on criteria that included (a) identification as a professional counselor, (b) eligibility for supervisor credential based on instruction and supervised experience, (c) clinical or teaching experience (a minimum of 5 years), and (d) supervisor experience (a minimum of 3 years and 5 supervisees). Additional criteria addressed the practice of supervision. For example, participants observed counseling sessions or reviewed tapes of sessions, and they met with supervisees on a weekly basis.
Team members individually conducted interviews with 12 counselor supervisors (see Table 1). The team identified and extended invitations to participate in the study until saturation was recognized (i.e., repetitive and consistent nature of contributions became apparent).
Initial data were collected during individual face-to-face or telephone interviews (as recommended by Shuy, 2002 to diversity the participant pool), ranging in duration from 35 to 90 minutes. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed to text. Upon verification by one member of the team, the transcript of each interview was mailed to the participant. Correction, clarification, and additional data were obtained during subsequent contacts with participants via telephone or electronic mail.
A semi-structured protocol as recommended in qualitative research literature (Kvale, 1983; Patton, 1990) guided the interviews. The decision to employ such a structure was based on the intentionality of the query sequence, and the belief that uniform procedures would garner more reliable data. Within this framework, we were able to explore experiences discussed in response to questions we asked and to illuminate unanticipated topics.
The interviewers began with references to the preliminary information for the study and responded to any initial questions. Demographic questions were asked to (a) assure that participants met all criteria and (b) facilitate a thorough description of the sample. To assure that participants described a broad range of supervisees, a sequence of queries progressed from (a) participants' experiences with supervisees who met or exceeded expectations to (b) participants' experiences with supervisees who were unsuccessful in meeting expectations. We invited a specific response to the research question by asking, "For the last question, I would like you to think about the worst case scenario in supervision, with a focus on the supervisee. In other words, I'd like you to describe a supervisee who you would categorize as lousy." Some participants referred to specific supervisees with whom they had worked. Others described a composite of behaviors observed in two or three supervisees, or described a hypothetical supervisee. Descriptions included supervisees who were counselors-in-training, prelicensed counselors, and doctoral students. Each interviewer prompted breadth in responses by asking participants to talk about supervisees' attitudinal factors, traits, behaviors, knowledge, and skills.
Repeated conferences and electronic communication at various junctures of data collection (e.g., subsequent to the first interview, after each member of the research team conducted one interview, and as we began to recognize saturation) enabled simultaneous and collaborative data collection and analysis (recommended by Strauss & Corbin, 1990). When the need for additional clarification of content or meaning was recognized, team members contacted participants.
Investigative team members individually analyzed transcript data prior to collaborative coding and classifying of these data via telephone conference call. Recurring words and phrases, commonalities, and contradictions were identified through line-by-line analysis of transcript data, and tentative thematic categories emerged through cross examination of transcript data. These repeated and interwoven processes yielded a schematic configuration of factors supervisees contribute to lousy supervision. For purposes of this aspect of the inquiry, the research team examined references to unsatisfactory supervision outcomes the participants attributed to qualities demonstrated by supervisees.
To assure appropriate methodological rigor, the team maintained "an attitude of skepticism" (Nelson & Poulin, 1997, p. 167) throughout the data collection and analytic procedures of this inquiry. In this regard, team members continually examined transcript data to verify that our interpretations were consistent with participants' contributions. During data examination and analysis, each member was required to verify all derived meanings with transcript data. Subsequently, terminologies were negotiated and consensus was ultimately achieved for all data interpretations (i.e., investigator triangulation). The team prepared a matrix to assure that there were multiple references to each thematic category (see Table 2). In this regard, internal consistency was revealed within individual transcripts and across transcripts. The data and findings were repeatedly reviewed to achieve more precision and accuracy for each element of the model.
The participants described supervisees whose deficiencies impeded personal and professional development in four broad spheres: (a) intrapersonal development, (b) interpersonal development, (c) cognitive development, and (d) counselor development (see Table 3). Team members acknowledge the likelihood that these spheres may reflect somewhat arbitrary distinctions. However, the emergent organizational cluster of participants' comments lent a consistent framework for purposes of data analysis and discussion. Additionally, some characteristics attributed to supervisees by the participants appear to have been acquired prior to the onset of supervision, while others emerged during the supervisory process. Selected participant comments are provided to illustrate the various spheres and subcategories.
Participants frequently and prominently described limiting factors related to intrapersonal development or "core personality components [that aren't] suited for this work" (Participant #7). Participants described psychological limitations (e.g., weak ego or impairment) and unresolved issues (e.g., trauma or substance abuse). As the supervisory relationship progressed and psychological limitations and unresolved issues manifest themselves, supervisees were described as fearful of change or unwilling to examine themselves.
Psychological limitations. Severity of psychological limitations ranged from "a fragile ego" (Participant #4) and "little self awareness" (Participant #12) to "sociopathic" (Participant #5) and "highly narcissistic" (Participants #4 & 5). Participant #3 described a supervisee who had a mental illness as an example of "how insidious mental illness can he and how someone can function actually well for a long time with it." This participant referred to the "concealment" and "dormant" stages when the mental illness would not be recognized, thus reflecting the emerging nature of the psychological limitation after the onset of supervision rather than prior to supervision. Similarly, Participant #12 described a supervisee who had "major personal issues" that become apparent when working with clients, further stating "It seemed like anything clients were bringing up would trigger anxiety for her."
Unresolved issues. Participants also described a variety of limitations that seemingly stemmed from unresolved issues "that are just blocking them" (Participant #1). For example, Participant #1 described a supervisee whose performance was "terrible" and added, "I very strongly suspect that this person was extremely abused as a child, and had not been able to get over that trauma to the point he or she could trust or could build a trusting relationship." Similarly, Participant #5 talked about supervisees who "have such deep woundings" that projection of inner conflicts thwart successful counseling efforts.
Participants' references to substance abuse were coded as unresolved issues. Describing the manifestation of substance abuse, Participant #4 said, "It's only when they get into this clinical part that their defenses and their coping no longer are enough to handle what is going on, and all of a sudden they're looking stoned coming to class. "
Fearful of change. Participant #11 described supervisees who experience "a fairly overwhelming fear. They are encountering a discrepancy between how they have seen themselves, and the kind of demands that are being put on them in supervision to act differently with people." Similarly, Participant #11 suggested that some supervisees communicate anger when they are "scared to change." Participant #7 added that fear of change may appear as anger.
Unwilling/Unable to examine self. Many participants cited supervisees' lack of self-examination as an impediment to growth. Participant #2 suggested that these supervisees are "not willing to look at themselves, to look at what they're doing, to look at their skills, to look at their own growth. Not willing to make changes." In this context, Participant #5 asserted, "Those who don't have the capacity for self-examination and reflection never make it."
Supervisees' ability to relate to others was repeatedly addressed in factors coded as Interpersonal Development. For example, Participant #4 described supervisees who "don't seem to be prepared to get involved in an interpersonal process. And that includes how they relate to the class, how they relate to us, how they relate to themselves, and their own behavior." Interpersonal factors may appear as supervisees communicate insensitivity, disrespect, or judgmental attitudes with clients. Interpersonal limitations may also impact supervisory relationships.
Social limitations. These supervisees may lack "social intelligence or intuitive sense" (Participant #3) that resulted in their inability to "connect with their clients because they |have| really bad social skills" (Participant #10). In fact, they may not "want to be around people." According to Participant #11, "They may be a tremendously emotionally fused or emotionally cut off person" or have "significant interpersonal boundary issues. "
Lack of sensitivity/respect. These supervisees' interpersonal relationships are also affected by their "lack of sensitivity to others" (Participant #6). They may impose their own agenda "rather than having the trained or innate ability to meet clients where they are and make an assessment of what is needed" (Participant #3). They may also be disrespectful to clients. For example, Participant #4 described a "judgmental" or highly critical student.
Unable to grasp client's perspective. Social limitations and insensitivity or disrespect manifest themselves in various ways as supervisees work with clients and supervisors. Such supervisees may not be empathie because they have "no concept of what [people with other lifeexperiences] are living" (Participant #12). They seem to lack the capacity to "step outside themselves" (Participant #1) and put themselves "in a very meaningful way into the other person's shoes, and understand, really deeply, the other person's perspective" (Participant #5).
Unwilling/Unable to accept feedback. The preponderance of the participants' comments coded within this category addressed supervisees' responses to their supervisors. For example, participants mentioned guardedness, defensiveness, or distrust. Similarly, they described supervisees who responded aversively to supervisors' feedback. "They seem to fend off feedback before it gets to them " (Participant #4). For example, Participant #7 observed "Whether it is positive or negative, feedback feels like a personal attack to them regardless of how it is presented." According to Participants #10 and #4, respectively, "they have a need to be right, and to be unchallenged" and "They may also project their inadequacy onto the supervisor."
Participant #4 described a supervisee to whom it was "almost impossible to give feedback." Participant #10's supervisee "was really threatened by feedback." In this relationship, "yes, but" responses to feedback were frequently encountered.
Defiant/Avoidant in supervision. These supervisees' resistance to their supervisors "goes from extremes, from the person who just kind of sits there and says, 'Yes. OK' and never does anything differently to a person who is overtly hostile-who just totally resists any kind of input, and starts to get into a conflictual relationship with a supervisor" (Participant #11). Supervisees' responses may vary from "pure denial to actually, as the denial |can't| hold, to pretty aggressive defensiveness." They may be "trying to avoid the tasks that [are set] out for them" or "remain silent a great deal . . . [and] retrench into their silence" (Participant #6) or "discredit the supervisor" (Participant #9).
The participants also suggested that problematic supervision results from
supervisees' cognitive limitations. For example, Participant #2 described the "worst case scenario" as "someone who just doesn't really use common sense, who just doesn't have a sense of the world around them, a sense of what's going on." These limitations may result from limited intelligence, lack of cognitive complexity, or limited analytic ability. As supervision progresses, these supervisees may be unable to have conceptual discussions or their thinking may be rigid.
Limited cognitive and intellectual ability. Participant #2 suggested that "there is a certain intellectual level that is important for counselors, as well as being able to think." Describing a supervisee who "lacked basic intelligence," Participant #7 added, "What seemed to be very basic concepts, she couldn't relate. She couldn't recount what was going on with the clients. She felt very cognitively disorganized." This becomes problematic for supervisees "who just can't think through, can't process a problem, can't focus, just seems to be all over the place because it doesn't make any cognitive sense to them" (Participant #4).
Lack of cognitive complexity. Participant #1 described supervisees who have "a narrowness of vision" and who " have not come to grips with the fact that there really aren't any true answers to questions of life." Similarly, Participant #7 suggested that these supervisees "don't get the big picture" and as supervision develops, "they try to apply a number of different steps or strategies, without knowing what the target is." Participant #7 elaborated on a discussion of cognitive complexity by stating, "I don't know that it is particularly a matter of intelligence; it's just not understanding the nature of how complex psychotherapy is, and how much we impact it as counselors."
Limited analytic skills. Limitations related to analytic skills comprised notions of "an inability to use logical analysis," (Participant #1), "very low intuition" (Participant #4), difficulty in abstract thinking (Participant #1), concreteness (Participant # 4), and limited insight (Participant #1). A supervisee with limited analytic skills may have difficulty applying "learnings from past experiences" when working with clients. This may relate to an inability to "gain insight from the experiences" (Participant #1).
Unable to conceptualize. As cognitive limitations emerge in the course of supervision, supervisees may be unable to conceptualize (Participant #2); in fact, there may be a "huge void in conceptualization" (Participant #7). Participant #12's representative description was, "Her ability to actually link her case conceptualization with, and actually come up with treatment plans was also weak. So she tended to be in a fairly reactive mode. She was never really able to articulate any frame of reference for her work, or why she was choosing to use one intervention over another."
Rigid. Cognitive limitations may also contribute to rigidity. They may have "one view, one perspective, of how things should be" (Participant #11) and "end up justifying what they did rather than exploring what happened and thinking about some alternative approaches, which aren't necessarily better, but alternatives" (Participant #9). Ambiguity may also be challenging and, consequently, unsettling (Participant #12).
To a great extent, factors classified within Counselor Development appeared to be interrelated extensions of the previously described developmental spheres (i.e., Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Cognitive). In this regard, Participant #7 recounted an experience with a supervisee by noting
It was like watching a sand castle crumble. ... As I worked with them, [they were) really not very knowledgeable about the theories behind psychotherapy, or the process, or even what constituted a decent psychotherapeutic interview or interaction. So (there was| a huge void in basic skills and conceptualization. . . . The nightmare piece was so much interpersonal rigidity. That led to hostility in supervision.
Similarly, Participant #8 stated, "Either they come in with pretty good innate, mechanical skills or they don't have them and they don't want them. Either way, they seem to believe that 'If I have to change my skills I will have to change myself.' It's back to that life experiences thing and that self awareness." The emergent factors that clustered within the Counselor Development sphere included the following.
Limited skills and limited knowledge base. Participant #2 suggested "the worst case scenario is having very poor skills." In a similar manner, others described skills deficits for such supervisees as "generally low" (Participant #9) and reflecting a "huge void" (Participant #7).
Participants also suggested that "very little knowledge base" (Participant #5) and difficulties with retention "of information from one's class to the next" (Participant #6) impeded counselor development. For example, "they may not be knowledgeable about theories" (Participant #7).
Limited motivation for learning. An inadequate knowledge base may also stem from motivational factors or lack of commitment to the process of supervision. Participant #6 observed "They may be shocked and actually surprised when we're actually asking them to learn skills and to mock role plays and personalize their education." Similarly, Participant #4 noted "They may be uninvested or over-committed, and thereby lacking the mental or time resources to address learning appropriately." Participant #9 suggested that the "worst attitude is the person who basically feels like they're punching their ticket. They already know how to do this and this is just a hoop that they've got to jump through in order to get the degree." Participant #8 offered a similar example, saying "It's almost like, 'what does it matter? I just want to get my hand stamped and go on to my new job.'" These supervisees may "do minimal kinds of things" (Participant #12), for example, "If I said, 'Go look at the literature,' she'd find an article. . . . Someone else might have looked for at least three. . . . That motivation wasn't there." Referring to post-graduate supervision, Participant #3 commented "They may think the supervisor's requests are absolutely unreasonable! "
Limited understanding of the counseling process. Participants also cited limited or inaccurate understanding of the counseling process. For example, according to Participant #7, lousy supervisees may not understand "how complex psychotherapy is ... and what constitutes psychotherapy." Participant #9 noted "They may perceive that counseling is running an agenda, or a teaching process with clients, information-giving to clients, if not advice." Participant #8 added, "There isn't a trust in the process. . . . Many of them don't even see it as a process. They just see it as something they have to tolerate." In a similar fashion, Participant #3 observed, "They may think, 1I know all the answers. I'm just going to pull 'em out of my back pocket and put 'em out to the client. . . . it's a very dangerous position for the therapist to take."
Mechanistic focus. Limited skills and understanding of counseling process, along with limited knowledge and motivation, also appeared to contribute to an attitude concerning supervision as a process similar to an apprentice in a trade skill. For example, Participant #2 spoke of a supervisee's adherence to a mechanistic focus, essentially saying, "Give me a cookbook. Give me the recipe and I'll go try it." Similarly, Participant #10 observed they may "need their clients to fit them rather than to fit their clients . . . . They're only effective with a limited clientele." Or, as noted by Participant #9, they may "grab onto one theory in a pretty limited way. And then they try to apply that to everything. They see that's the answer to whatever the problem is... They don't want to get bigger than that, and think more integratively about using theories" (Participant #9).
Unwilling to grow and change. Participants described supervisees' lack of growth and resistance to change as both an emergent and an enduring characteristic within the context of counselor development. For example, Participant #2 said, "When I have somebody [in the worst-case scenario category], as ' watch them through the semester, their skills are not improving. And regardless of the feedback, I'm unable to help them move and to change to grow." Participant #2 added that "these supervisees may have "pretty good technical skills, but they just don't want to do much with what they have. . . . They do the minimum in the performance area, but they don't want to change. They just don't care." Similarly, Participant #9 observed that "Once they get to the point of feeling like Tm getting it' then they stop learning. And they keep doing the same thing over and over."
Some participants provided comments that reflected a synthesis of the four spheres that emerged from the data. For example, Participant #12 stated
I don't think there is a single set of characteristics that . . . makes somebody a poor supervisee. I think that there are varieties of things, and it's a little bit from Column A, and a little bit from Column B, and then from Column C. And they come together to create somebody who is not ready either to utilize supervision well, or just can't.
In a similar manner, Participant #6 suggested that "it tends to be a combination of academic neglect, and a lack of sensitivity to others, and not having a committed enough stance to performing counseling process skills." Finally, Participant #12 observed
I think it could come down to some general kinds of problems. It was really a combination of poor to adequate, but never really strong skills that could balance out other deficits, that could balance out character, or behavioral kinds of issues. Most of the people that I would label poor supervisees typically did have a fairly low internal motivation, self-awareness, poor analytical skills, and very poor tolerance of ambiguity. They wanted to be told what to do, or their defenses were so strong that they wanted to be told that they were right, regardless.
Interpretation of these findings must be considered within the context of the parameters of the study's purpose and design. The inquiry was conducted to generate tentative findings of an educative and descriptive nature, as opposed to a diagnostic or definitive nature. The results are offered to assist supervisees in avoiding counterproductive behaviors, and to provide a structure that may aid supervisors in early identification of supervisees who may encounter difficulties. Indeed, categorizing a supervisee as "lousy" based on his or her demonstration of these descriptors in isolation would constitute a gross misuse of the findings. The proposed four spheres of supervisee development may be more interactional than discrete.
Despite limitations, the findings from this study suggest spheres of behavior, attitude, perspective, and knowledge that may hold promise for identifying problematic supervisees. Such a schema may assist supervisors and supervisees in identification of potentially troublesome behaviors, attitudes, and skills, as well as bolster identification of strategies for remediation.
Goals of supervisees described in this study may not include personal and professional development. Rather, their prominent and foremost goals may be a discrete stage or status (e.g., graduation, licensure, or employment). A related supposition might be that the intentions of such supervisees in developing client goals might involve manipulation of others, self-deception, avoidance, and defensiveness rather than maturity, autonomy, and effective decision-making. From a developmental perspective, a long-range concern might also be that such supervisees may ultimately become "lousy supervisors" (Magnuson, Wilcoxon, & Norem, 2000), thereby perpetuating less than professionally desirable supervision practices.
Additionally, less than satisfactory outcomes in counseling supervision may result from an interaction between supervisees and supervisors. Indeed, one supervisee may experience a supervisor as lousy. Another supervisee may experience supervision provided by the same supervisor as highly productive. By the same token, a supervisor may recognize knowledge, skills, and attitudes in supervisees that resemble elements identified within this model. Another supervisor may regard that same supervisee as stellar. Quite possibly a supervisor manifesting characteristics previously associated with lousy supervision (Magnuson et. al, 2000) and a supervisee manifesting characteristics identified in this study may view one another as competent, and the outcome as beneficial.
Indeed, the complexity of supervision complicates research. Developmental concerns of clients, supervisees, and supervisors affect outcomes. Personality qualities of clients, supervisees, and supervisors also affect outcomes. We suggest that further research be conducted to examine the interplay of these factors, and their contributions to supervisees' professional growth and clients' attainment of therapeutic goals.
Allen, G. J., Szollos, S. J., & Williams, B. E. (1986). Doctoral students' comparative evaluations of best and worst psychotherapy supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 91-99.
Baldo, T. D., Softas-Nall, B. C., & Shaw, S. (1997). Student review and retention in counselor education: An alternative to Frame and Stevens-Smith. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 245-253.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1998). fundamentals of clinical supervision (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Carifio, M. S., & Hess, A. K. (1987). Who is the ideal supervisor? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 244-250.
Eichenfield, G., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1996). The sub-level I trainee: Some developmental difficulties encountered with counselor training. The Clinical Supervisor, 14(2), 25-37.
Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs' follow-up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 294-305.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Goodyear, R. K., & Bernard, J. M. (1998). Clinical supervision: Lessons from the literature. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 6-22.
Kennard, B. D., Stewart, S. M., & Gluck, M. R. (1987). The supervision relationship: Variables contributing to positive versus negative experiences. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 172-175.
Leddick, G. R., & Dye, H. A. (1987). Effective supervision as portrayed by trainee expectations and preferences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27, 139-154.
Lemadue, C. A., & Duffey, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model for evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 101-109.
Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview. A phenomenological and hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14, 171-196.
Magnuson, S., Wilcoxon, S. A., & Norem, K. (2000). A profile of lousy supervision: Experienced counselors' perspectives. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 189-202.
Moustakes, C. (1994). Phenomenalogical research and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, M. L, & Poulin, K. (1997). Methods of constructivist inquiry. In T. L. Sexton & B. L. Griffin (Eds.), Constructivist thinking in counseling practice, research, and training (pp. 157-173). New York: Teachers College Press.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). Reasons for less than ideal psychotherapy supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 19(2), 173-183.
Patton, M. P. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pearson, Q. M., (2004). Getting the most out of clinical supervision: Strategies for mental health counseling students. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26, 361-373.
Shuy, R. (2002). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holestein (Eds.). Handbook of interview research (pp. 537-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stoltenberg, C., D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Watkins, C. E. (1997). The ineffective psychotherapy supervisor. Some reflections about bad behaviors, poor process, and offensive outcomes. The Clinical Supervisor, 16(1), 163-180
Wiggins-Frame, M., & Smith, P. (1995). Out of harm's way: Enhancing monitoring and dismissal processes in counselor education programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 118-129.
Worthen, V., & McNeill, B. W. (1996). A phenomenological investigation of "good" supervision events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 25-34.
S. Allen Wilcoxon
The University of Alabama
The University of Northern Colorado
The University of Northern Colorado
S. Allen Wilcoxon, Ed.D. is a professor and the chair of Counselor Education Programs at the University of Alabama. Ken Norem is an adjunct faculty member in the Counselor Education Program at the University of Northern Colorado and a private practitioner in Greeley, Co. Sandy Magnuson, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the Counselor Education Program at the University of Northern Colorado.
Send correspondence regarding this article to Dr. S. Allen Wilcoxon, The University of Alabama, Professional Studies, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0231.…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Supervisees' Contributions to Lousy Supervision Outcomes. Contributors: Wilcoxon, S. Allen - Author, Norem, Ken - Author, Magnuson, Sandy - Author. Journal title: Journal of Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory, & Research. Volume: 33. Issue: 2 Publication date: Fall 2005. Page number: 31+. © Texas Counseling Association Fall 2008/Winter 2009. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.