|
Article Excerpt
A review of group literature, much of which is anecdotal or theoretical, revealed that coleadership has been a common practice in training and therapeutic settings for well over 50 years. Careful examination of group practice reveals a surprisingly small amount of empirical evidence to support what apparently is a widely practiced method for the training of group leaders. However, the anecdotal support of group coleader practice is impressive if not convincing. That scholarly work is summarized in this article, and research implications for coleader practice are discussed as they relate to counselor preparation.
**********
A fundamental condition of counselor preparation is the development of group leadership skills (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, 2001). One training model that has been used widely is the group coleader model, which typically involves either the pairing of a counselor-in-training and an experienced counselor or the pairing of two trainees with careful supervision by an experienced counselor (G. Corey, 2000; Gladding, 2003). Jacobs, Masson, and Harvill (1998, p. 361) have described this model as very advantageous in the preparation of trainees. The group coleader model has also been well documented as an accepted treatment structure across theoretical orientations and within various mental health domains (Gallogly & Levine, 1979; Greene, 2000; Markus & King, 2003).
As early as 1957, Gans proposed the use of group leader dyads for the purpose of training future group leaders. There was apparently, however, little follow-up interest in the topic until recently. Indeed, coleadership-related literature in professional counseling has been described as disorganized and unfocused (C. O. Levine & Dang, 1984) and full of sustaining citations that focus on theory and anecdotal practice (Fall & Menendez, 2002). That said, coleadership remains a popular model for group counseling, as evidenced in the recent professional literature (Kelly, 2006; Milsom, Akos, & Thompson, 2004; Olson & McEwen, 2004; Pan, Chang, & Yu, 2005; Smiley, 2004; Stanger & Harris, 2005). With a history of more than 50 years of use, the presumption would be that group coleadership has a documented record of efficacy. The purpose of this article is to (a) explore the experiential and empirical record of that efficacy and (b) reflect on the use of group coleaders, specifically as a training method in counselor education.
Group counseling is based on the premise that the social self cannot be fully recognized, understood, or affected without accounting for one's interactions with others (Yalom, 2005). This inseparability is equally applicable to issues of coleadership, although coleadership remains inadequately understood (Dugo & Beck, 1997; S. Hoffman & Laub, 2004; Livingston, 2001; Riva, Wachtel, & Lasky, 2004).
Group coleadership can be defined as a modality of mental health treatment delivery in which two practitioners simultaneously work in collaboration with the same clients for the purpose of facilitating therapeutic action for and between group members (Fall & Wejnert, 2005; Okech & Kline, 2006). Our review of this literature indicated that the modality is typically referred to as cotherapy by the disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, social work, and marriage and family therapy; coleadership or cofacilitation are the terms used within the counseling profession.
In this article, we use coleadership as a generic label that encompasses all disciplines. Taken as a whole, this body of literature is impressive in its quantity, despite the fact that coleadership has received comparatively little empirical attention (Fall & Menendez, 2002). Given that limitation, it is surprising that coleadership remains a widely used training vehicle in counselor preparation programs (C. O. Levine & Dang, 1984). In this article, we explore gaps in the group coleader literature, thus revealing its tenuous underpinnings.
Historical Context
The use of coleaders in clinical settings has its roots in the early part of the 20th century. Seidler and Zilahi (1930) reported that Alfred Adler began using cotherapy with individual patients in the 1920s at the Vienna Child Guidance Clinic. Formerly referred to as multiple therapy, Adler's primary purpose for implementing cotherapy was to train future therapists (Dreikurs, 1950; L. W. Hoffman & Hoffman, 1981; Izadi & Slavik, 2005). Independently, Freud used cotherapy as an adjunct to individual treatment in instances of therapeutic impasse, wherein two cotherapists would discuss the case in the presence of the challenging client. Later, Reeve (1939) involved his clients in dialogue, in which the cotherapists interacted with each other and with individual clients to facilitate client engagement and to promote insight. Meanwhile, in the United States, Moreno (1945) used coleadership in psychodrama groups, using one therapist to direct and the other as an auxiliary ego to assist with and to identify transference and countertransference.
Hadden (1947) initiated the coleadership literature by pairing clinicians-in-training with more accomplished clinicians for firsthand experience and feedback. Observing that clinicians of equal experience also enhanced their personal and professional development through collaboration, Rudolf Dreikurs introduced coleadership into private practice (Dreikurs, Shulman, & Mosak, 1952). In the same year, Lundin and Aronov (1952) proposed the use of coleadership for group work with emotionally disturbed clients. By the 1960s, the literature reflected the growing appeal and potency of coleadership with a variety of clients, including children (Belmont & Jasnow, 1961; Ginott, 1961; Kassoff, 1958), adolescents (Block, 1961; Davis & Lohr, 1971), couples (Low & Low, 1975), individuals experiencing sexual dysfunction (Masters & Johnson, 1966), and clients presenting with psychosis (Orange, 1955).
For the past 50 years, the debate regarding the merits and drawbacks of coleadership has endured, with most arguments grounded in theory and subjective experience alone (Benjamin, 1979; Bowers & Gauron, 1981; Davis & Lohr, 1971; Dick, Lessler, & Whiteside, 1980; Fall & Menendez, 2002; Getty & Shannon, 1969; McNary & Dies, 1993; Roller & Nelson, 1991; Yalom, 1995). Although the use of coleadership in counselor preparation expanded throughout the 20th century (B. Friedman, 1973; Ward, 2004), coleadership has received surprisingly little empirical attention. Although not substantiated by data, Yalom (2005) asserted that all but a few group leaders prefer the dyadic leadership model. The recent resurgence in theoretical and anecdotal writings on coleadership (Cohen & DeLois, 2001; Efron & Moir, 1996; Fall & Menendez, 2002; Harwood, 2003; S. Hoffman & Laub, 2004; Izadi & Slavik, 2005; Livingston, 2001; Nosko...
|
