Supervisee Empowerment: Does Gender Make a Difference?
โ Scribed by DARCY HAAG GRANELLO; PATRICIA M. BEAMISH; TOM E. DAVIS
- Publisher
- American Counseling Association
- Year
- 1997
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 798 KB
- Volume
- 36
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0011-0035
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
This study used a content analysis of audiotapes of clinical supervisory sessions to examine the effect of supervisee gender on the influence strategies used in the counseling clinical supervisory dyad.
Counseling supervision has been conceptualized as an influence process in which supervisors use personal attributes and professional techniques to facilitate change in the supervisee (Robyak. Goodyear, & Range. 1987; Strong & Matross, 1973). The use of these influence strategies by supervisors may have either a facilitative or an inhibitory effect on the supervisee's personal and professional development. Supervisors have an ethical responsibility to provide an environment that will enhance supervisees' skills and allow supervisees to devise effective strategies for working with clients (American Association of Counseling and Development [AACD], 1990;. Developmental models of supervision suggest that the goal of supervision is to allow supervisees to proceed through a progression of developmental stages and tasks and to establish a therapist identity of their own, replacing an external supervisor with an internal one (Blocher. 1983; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth. 1982; Stoltenberg. 1981; Watkins. 1992). Conoley (1994) called this "supervision as empowerment" (p. 48). Hawkins and Shohet (1989) claimed that one of the aims of supervision is to
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Victorian landcare groups are increasingly seen as the key element of an emerging Australian success story. The assumptions underlying landcare are that limited funding of group activity will produce more aware, informed, skilled and adaptive resource managers with a stronger stewardship ethic, will
The group difference MMPI literature relevant to African-Americans was reexamined for major methodological issues including the criteria used for ethnichacia1 group membership and socioeconomic status. These issues are of sufficient magnitude to question the traditional scientific methods used in MM