An exploration of factors that influence a clinical supervisor's decision to address the personal development and dispositions of supervisees

Abstract

Research suggests that addressing a supervisee’s personal factors in clinical supervision is critical to developing their therapeutic capacities (Aponte, 1994; Krug and Schneider, 2016; Southern, 2007; Zorga et al., 2001). However, little is known about the factors contributing to clinical supervisors’ decisions to address supervisees’ personal development and dispositions in clinical supervision, despite their importance in supervisees’ professional development. The purpose of this grounded theory study was to discern the nuanced narratives of clinical supervisors and construct a theory of factors related to their decisions regarding whether to address or not address the personal development and dispositions of supervisees in clinical supervision. Using a qualitative approach to the research, the study drew on a purposive sample of clinical supervisors across the United States. A brief demographic questionnaire was followed by in-depth, semi-structured interviews for data collection. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a social constructivist grounded theory methodology. Analysis of the transcripts identified nine themes related to the primary research question: (a) boundaries, (b) conflict avoidance, (c) poor supervisor-supervisee fit, (d) supervisee resistance, (e) time constraint, (f) gatekeeping role, (g) supervisory match process, (h) rapport, and (i) supervision training experiences. Analysis of the participants’ responses to a sub-inquiry identified two additional themes: (a) supervision is not therapy and (b) it’s a gray line. The findings of this exploratory study may benefit clinical supervisors and training programs by offering strategies to assist supervisors in addressing the personal factors of supervisees. The implications of the findings suggest the need for doctoral programs in the helping fields to incorporate improved formal supervision training to reduce barriers to addressing supervisees’ personal development and dispositions. These implications may help to create more comprehensive theories on clinical supervision and improve training experiences for mental-health trainees.