Clinical Psychology, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):178-92. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1829. Epub 2012 Dec 11.
Clinical supervision is a multi-functional intervention within numerous psychotherapeutic professions, including clinical psychology. It often relies on supervisees' verbal disclosures of pertinent information. There is limited research on supervisee self-disclosure in the UK, and none using clinical psychology populations. This study aimed to address the limitations in the evidence base. It used a constructivist grounded theory methodology to investigate qualified UK clinical psychologists' use of self-disclosure in supervision in order to develop a theoretical understanding of their self-disclosure processes. Ten clinical psychologists from various time points across the career span were recruited to the study. Four core conceptual categories were identified in the analysis as being integral to participants' decision-making processes: 'Setting the Scene', 'Supervisory Relationship', 'Using Self-disclosure' and 'Reviewing Outcome of Self-disclosure'. These four categories are comprised of a number of subcategories. The study's findings are compared with the current literature base, and it is argued that there are tensions with the scientist-practitioner model as it could be interpreted to encourage an expert stance, which may limit the self-disclosure of qualified supervisees. The implications of this perspective are discussed.
Supervision is a key process in supporting qualified clinical psychologists and the use of disclosure appears to be important in facilitating useful supervision. It appears that clinical psychologists go through a number of complex processes in deciding whether to self disclose.
临床监督是众多心理治疗专业(包括临床心理学)中的一种多功能干预措施。它通常依赖于被监督者对相关信息的口头披露。在英国,对被监督者自我披露的研究有限,而且没有针对临床心理学人群的研究。本研究旨在解决证据基础的局限性。它使用建构主义扎根理论方法来调查英国合格的临床心理学家在监督中使用自我披露的情况,以便对他们的自我披露过程形成理论理解。从职业生涯的各个阶段招募了 10 名临床心理学家参与这项研究。分析中确定了四个核心概念类别,这些类别是参与者决策过程的组成部分:“设置场景”、“监督关系”、“使用自我披露”和“审查自我披露的结果”。这四个类别包含了一些子类别。本研究的发现与当前的文献基础进行了比较,并认为与科学家-实践者模式存在紧张关系,因为它可以被解释为鼓励专家立场,这可能限制了合格监督者的自我披露。讨论了这种观点的影响。
监督是支持合格临床心理学家的关键过程,披露的使用似乎对于促进有用的监督很重要。临床心理学家在决定是否自我披露时似乎要经历许多复杂的过程。