|
Article Excerpt
Thirteen doctoral students, 7 Caucasians and 6 Hispanics, participated over 3 semesters of practicum/internship in a qualitative research project exploring the experience of becoming supervisors. A follow-up study with 5 different doctoral students confirmed and refined findings 1 1/2 years later. The research team of 2 female faculty members and 1 male research assistant (the authors) identified 6 themes emerging from individual and group interviews with supervisors-in-training regarding the process of becoming a supervisor: (a) learning, (b) supervisee growth, (c) individual uniqueness, (d) reflection. (e) connections, and (f) putting it all together.
**********
The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2001) requires doctoral curriculum to include supervision theory and practice. Both the American Counseling Association (ACA; 2005) and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES; 1993) codes of ethics emphasize that counselors should receive training for services they provide, including supervision. There is, however, scant research on training doctoral students to become supervisors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Ladany & Muse-Burke, 2001). Ladany and Muse-Burke have indicated that one reason to conduct supervision research is to better understand the supervision process. Our study developed out of a perceived need to fill a gap in the literature in understanding the process of becoming a supervisor from the point of view of doctoral student supervisors-in-training (SITs).
In addition to theoretical approaches, legal-ethical issues, and evaluation, most models of supervision training address experiential processes related to supervisor-supervisee relationship, multicultural influences, and supervisory climate (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Bradley & Whiting, 2001). In an attempt to understand the developmental experience of supervisor trainees, some authors have discussed the psychological need of generativity and the idea that becoming a supervisor is a fulfilling developmental phase comparable to becoming a parent or teacher (Alonso, 1983; Shechtor, 1990). Others have constructed developmental supervision models in terms of stages and describe a transformational experience from counselor identity to supervisor identity (Hess, 1986; Stoltenburg & McNeill, 1997; Watkins, 1994; Whiting, Bradley, & Planny, 2001). Emphasizing cognitive transformation of trainees, Borders (1992) discussed a shift from "thinking like a counselor to thinking like a supervisor" (p. 139).
In a case study, Williams (1987) described personal experiences of supervisor trainees when he used experiential techniques in working with learning problems, parallel process, and SIT individual needs. His main thesis was that becoming a supervisor required changes in the learner and in the supervisory relationship as well as the acquisition of knowledge. Haynes, Corey, and Moulton (2003) reported personal stories of graduate students and supervisors in a discussion of qualities of the ideal supervisor and the difficulties faced by new supervisors. The voices of trainees have been essential to understanding the process of becoming a supervisor.
Another aspect of supervision training has been multicultural concerns, which, if not adequately covered, are likely to have a significant impact on supervision training. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) asserted that supervisor openness and cultural effectiveness will determine if supervision is constructive in nature. They further maintained that professionals have become more cautious and accountable in cross-cultural interactions. Garrett et al. (2001) and Gatmon et al. (2001) stressed the value of talking about cultural issues during the supervision experience to obtain satisfactory supervisory outcomes.
Finally, Baker, Exum, and Tyler (2002) have emphasized that there is still much to study about supervision training. We believe the literature review supports research that traces the experience and perceptions of SITs throughout the training process. Our study was designed to explore the counselor supervision training experience from the perspective of doctoral student SITs, describe their meaningful experiences, and identify dominant themes in the supervision training process.
Method
Qualitative methodology goals to increase understanding and give meaning to human experience matched the purpose of this grounded theory study. Moreover, grounded theory approaches allow a theory to emerge from data as opposed to researchers using data to test a preconceived theory (Glaser, 1978). Individuals were interviewed to capture a rich, detailed description of the personal experience of becoming a supervisor. Focus groups afforded another plane of data collection, facilitated ongoing sharing of experiences, and created an interactive process that deemphasized researchers' roles and produced meanings unavailable through individual interviews (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005).
Participants
One of the strengths of qualitative research is the capability to gain deep insight and understanding by intensely studying a small purposeful sample (Patton, 2002). Thirteen doctoral students in a single cohort were invited to participate: 10 women, 3 men, including 7 Whites and 6 Hispanics. Students reported an average of 7 years of counseling-related experience ranging between 2 and 15 years in community, school, and/or student services. All 13 students participated in the focus groups conducted during each of three semesters of doctoral practicum/internship experience.
Eight doctoral students from the next cohort were invited to participate in a follow-up study 1 1/2 years later. Five of the students accepted the invitation: 4 women and 1 man, including 2 Whites, 2 Hispanics, and 1 African. Experience of these individuals ranged from 1 1/2 to 22 years in community and school counseling. Both cohorts were enrolled in the investigators' doctoral practicum and internship classes. Researchers made every effort to ensure that participants were not required or coerced to participate. Informed consent was presented, including communication that clearly established the option to decline.
Lens of the Researchers
The principal investigators were 2 White, female professors (first two authors), each with more than 15 years of supervision experience. A White, male doctoral student (third author) from a different cohort was research assistant. All 3 researchers held state and/or national credentials as supervisors. Although researchers took care to make no assumptions prior to the study and made every effort to be unbiased during the collection and analysis of data, prior experiences and personal contact with the students may have influenced their understanding of the findings. Potential biases were addressed by the use of multiple researchers, multiple methods, member checks, discussion of findings with colleagues, and input from doctoral interns other than participants in the original research (Patton, 2002)....
|
