Supervisor Training: A Discrimination Model

Identifying the priorities for supervision by lived experience researchers: a Q sort study

BACKGROUND

Lived experience researchers draw on their lived and living experiences to either lead on or inform research. Their personal experiences are relevant to the research topic and so they must manage the interplay of their health and healthcare experiences with the research, population, and data they work with, as well as the more general challenges of being a researcher. Lived experience researchers must navigate these dilemmas in addition to queries over their competency, due to issues relating to intersectionality and epistemic injustice. This justifies a motivation to better understand the experiences of lived experience researchers and develop appropriate and personalised supervision based on their preferences and needs.

METHODS

Q methodology was used to identify a collection of identity-related issues that impact lived experience researchers during PhD research in the context of the UK. These issues were presented in the form of 54 statements to 18 lived experience researchers to prioritise as topics to explore in supervision.

RESULT

It was found that lived experiences researchers could be grouped into three distinct factors following an inverted factor analysis: Factor 1: Strengthening my identity, skills, growth, and empowerment; Factor 2: Exploring the emotional and relational link I have with the research and Factor 3: Navigating my lived and professional experiences practically and emotionally. The findings suggest that there may be three types of lived experience researchers, each with different needs from supervision, suggesting the population is heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

The research identified a deeper understanding of the needs of lived experience researchers and highlights the importance of personalised supervision according to the individual needs of the researcher and their preferences for supervision. The findings reinforce the importance of integrating a clinical dimension into supervision to support the needs of all lived experience researchers.

How Do People Come to Judge What Is "Reasonable"? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology

How do people decide what is reasonable? People often have to make those judgments, judgments that can influence tremendously consequential decisions-such as whether to indict someone in a legal proceeding. In this article, we take a situated cognition lens to review and integrate findings from social psychology, judgment and decision-making, communication, law, and sociology to generate a new framework for conceptualizing judgments of reasonableness and their implications for how people make decisions, particularly in the context of the legal system. We theorize that differences in structural and social contexts create information asymmetries that shape people's priors about what is and is not reasonable and how they update their priors in the face of new information. We use the legal system as a context for exploring the implications of the framework for both individual and collective decision-making and for considering the practical implications of the framework for inequities in law and social policy.

Judges' experiences with mitigating jurors' implicit biases

Implicit bias can influence jury decision-making. Training judges about implicit bias is a fairly new endeavor, and not all judges are necessarily aware of these biases. Even when judges are aware that biases exist, they might not know whether or not they should alert jurors to such biases or how to appropriately do so. It is currently unknown how many judges alert jurors to implicit bias (e.g. via instructions or juror orientation). The purpose of this study is to discuss judges' beliefs and practices regarding implicit bias in the courtroom. The findings indicate that the majority of judges (72%) do not alert jurors to implicit bias. Many judges were found to have a lack of awareness or understanding about implicit bias, but many now feel that alerting jurors about bias is important and would like to do so in the future.

Supervision in Occupational Therapy, Part 3: Accommodating the Supervisor and the Supervisee

This paper, the final one in a series of three, aims to draw together the findings of the two reported studies on the experiences of supervisors and supervisees in the discipline of occupational therapy (Sweeney et al 2001a,b) and to distil recommendations for the future practice of supervision within the profession.

A paucity of empirical research on the process of supervision within the health care professions has resulted in a confusion concerning the purpose of supervision, its distinctiveness from other activities and the role and function of both supervisors and supervisees, and a lack of clarity regarding the tasks and techniques to be employed within supervision. In keeping with concerns about supervision expressed in the general literature, the findings of these studies (Sweeney et al 2001a,b) suggest that supervision as it is currently practised within occupational therapy is not a comfortable experience for either the supervisor or the supervisee.

This paper recommends steps that can be adopted by both supervisors and supervisees to facilitate the development of a more productive relationship within supervision; for example, the use of training, exposure to theories and models of supervision, and the use of agendas, contracts and feedback. Supervisor and supervisee recommendations are discussed within the wider framework of professional, cultural and organisational implications.

Psychotherapy Supervisor Ethical Practices

The overall purpose of this article is to present a review of the literature that identifies the salient ethical guidelines related to the practice of supervision and to discuss the results of a study that examined supervisor ethical practices. In terms of our investigation, we examined supervisee perceptions of their supervisors’ adherence to ethical guidelines, supervisee reactions to ethical violations, and the relationships among supervisor ethical behaviors, the supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction. The results indicated that 51% of the 151 beginning to intern-level supervisees sampled reported at least one ethical violation by their supervisors. The most frequently violated guidelines involved adequate performance evaluation, confidentiality issues relevant to supervision, and ability to work with alternative perspectives. Greater nonadherence to ethical guidelines was significantly related to a weaker supervisory alliance and lower supervisee satisfaction. Limitations and implications for psychotherapy supervision theory, research, and practice are addressed.

Perceptions of on-the-job supervision needs of drug rehabilitation center helpers in Malaysia

OBJECTIVE

In this study, 218 national drug rehabilitation center helpers in Malaysia were surveyed regarding perceptions of their on-the-job clinical supervision needs and preferred supervisor roles and emphasis areas in their supervision sessions.

METHODS

Descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that drug rehabilitation center helpers in Malaysia expressed high level of on-the-job supervision needs. In addition, professional behavior skills were found to be the most desirable supervisory area followed by process, conceptualization, and personalization skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Implications for providing clinical supervision for drug rehabilitation center helpers in Malaysia were discussed, along with suggestions for future research.