A phenomenological investigation of "good" supervision events.

Abstract

This study explored the experience of supervision events from the perspective of supervisees using a qualitative phenomenological research methodology. Eight intermediatelevel to advanced-leve l trainees participated in a tape-recorded interview in which they described a recent good supervision experience, yielding transcripts that were subjected to a qualitative analysis. A general meaning structure for the experience of good supervision events was developed. Identification of salient themes reflective of good supervision events within the general meaning structure resulted in four distinct supervision phases: (a) existential baseline, (b) setting the stage, (c) good supervision experience, and (d) outcomes of good supervision. In addition, the quality of the supervisory relationship was cited as a crucial and pivotal component by all supervisees. The learning and acquisition of counseling skills and the formation of a professional counselor identity are two of the most important functions of graduate training in counseling psychology, and psychotherapy supervision plays a central role in this learning. Although much effort is devoted to counseling and supervision activities and theory building is in progress, little in the way of research has been conducted that examines the experience of psychotherapy supervision events from the perspective of supervisees. What does the experience of good supervision consist of for supervisees? Are there any central factors that must be present for good supervision experiences to occur? Supervisees' experience of good psychotherapy supervision is essentially a question of personal meaning, and the phenomenological research method lends itself well to the investigation of personal meaning. Phenomenological inquiry is very similar to the interviewing techniques central to the training of counseling psychologists. Thus, inquiry into the experience of good supervision events is a natural methodological extension of researchers' previous training experiences. Also, most su