Supervisees' perspectives of power use in supervision

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 283-295

  Murphy, Megan J ^a   Wright, David W ^b  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24344473050     PISSN: 0194472X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01569.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson, H., & Swim, S. (1995). Supervision as collaborative conversation: Connecting the voices of supervisor and supervisee. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14, 1-13.
2. Bonosky, N. (1995). Boundary violations in social work supervision: Clinical educational and legal implications. Clinical Supervisor, 13, 79-95.
3. Burke, W. R., Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzard, C. R. (1998). Weakenings and repairs in supervisory alliances. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 52, 450-462.
4. Cohen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of power in client/worker relationships. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 79, 433-442.
5. Cromwell, R. E., & Olson, D. H. (1975). Multidisciplinary perspectives of power. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.), Power in families (pp. 15-37). New York: Sage.
6. Emerson, S. (1996). Creating a safe place for growth in supervision. Contemporary Family Therapy, 18, 393-403.
7. Farmer, S. S. (1987). Conflict management and clinical supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 5, 5-28.
8. Fine, M., & Turner, J. (1997a). Collaborative supervision: Minding the power. In T. C. Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor (pp. 229-240). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Fine, M., & Turner, J. (1997b). Questions of power. In C. L. Storm & T. C. Todd (Eds.), The reasonably complete systemic supervisor resource guide (pp. 132-138). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Flemons, D. G., Green, S. K., & Rambo, A. H. (1996). Evaluating therapists' practices in a postmodern world: A discussion and a scheme. Family Process, 43, 43-56.
11. French, J. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
13. Goalstone, J. C. D. (1997). Training mental health professionals: A grounded theory study of the supervisory relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Denver.
14. Hawes, S. E. (1998). Positioning a dialogic reflexivity in the practice of feminist supervision. In B. M. Bayer & J. Shorter (Eds.), Reconstructing the psychological subject: Bodies, practices and technologies (pp. 94-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Hays, D. G., & Chang, C. Y. (2003). White privilege, oppression, and racial identity development: Implications for supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 134-145.
16. Hicks, M. W., & Cornille, T. A. (1999). Gender, power, and relationship ethics in family therapy education. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 45-56.
17. Holloway, E. L., & Wolleat, P. L. (1994). Supervision: The pragmatics of empowerment. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5, 23-43.
18. Kaiser, T. L. (1992). The supervisory relationship: An identification of the primary elements in the relationship and an application of two theories of ethical relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18, 283-296.
19. Ladany, N. (2004). Psychotherapy supervision: What lies beneath. Psychotherapy Research, 14, 1-19.
20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Martinez, L. J., Davis, K. C., & Dahl, B. (1999). Feminist ethical challenges in supervision: A trainee perspective. Women and Therapy, 22, 35-54.
22. Nelson, M. L. (1997). An interactional model for empowering women in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 125-139.
23. Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee's perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 384-395.
24. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Porter, N. (1985). New perspectives on therapy supervision. In L. B. Rosewater & L. E. A. Walker (Eds.), Handbook of feminist therapy: Women's issues in psychotherapy (pp. 332-343). New York: Springer.
26. Porter, N., & Vasquez, M. (1997). Covision: Feminist supervision, process, and collaboration. In J. Worell & N. G. Johnson (Eds.), Shaping the future of feminist psychology (pp. 155-171). Washington, DC: APA.
27. Prouty, A. (1997). A grounded theory of feminist supervision: A qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
28. Quarto, C. J. (2002). Supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of control and conflict in counseling supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 21, 21-37.
29. Rafuls, S. E., & Moon, S. M. (1996). Grounded theory methodology in family therapy research. In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 64-80). New York: Guilford Press.
30. Salvendy, J. T. (1993). Control and power in supervision. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 43, 363-376.
31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Tuckman, A. (1996). Mitigating the power imbalance in supervisee/supervisor co-leadership teams. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 46, 137-139.
33. Turner, J., & Fine, M. (1995). Postmodern evaluation in family therapy supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14, 57-69.
34. Wheeler, D., Avis, J. M., Miller, L. A., & Chaney, S. (1986). Rethinking family therapy education and supervision: A feminist model. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 1, 53-71.
35. Worthington, R. L., Tan, J. A., & Poulin, K. (2002). Ethically questionable behaviors among supervisees: An exploratory investigation. Ethics and Behavior, 12, 323-351.