This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 05 October 2014, At: 13:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The American Journal of Family TherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

Authors, Artists, and SocialConstructionism: A Case Study ofNarrative SupervisionJason B. Whiting aa University of Kentucky , Lexington, Kentucky, USAPublished online: 26 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Jason B. Whiting (2007) Authors, Artists, and Social Constructionism: A CaseStudy of Narrative Supervision, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35:2, 139-150, DOI:10.1080/01926180600698434

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180600698434

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35:139–150, 2007

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online

DOI: 10.1080/01926180600698434

Authors, Artists, and Social Constructionism:A Case Study of Narrative Supervision

JASON B. WHITINGUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Many family therapists have incorporated social constructionistand narrative ideas into their work with clients. These ideas em-phasize postmodern tenets of collaboration, non-directiveness, andmultiple perspectives. Although these approaches have become com-mon in therapy, they are also useful in supervision. This article dis-cusses how social constructionism can be applied in supervision,both as content to be taught and as a philosophy to be applied. Acase study is presented that offers examples of using social construc-tionist philosophy and techniques in family therapy supervision.Suggestions for supervisors and therapists are offered.

A distinguishing aspect of marriage and family therapy (MFT) clinical trainingis its emphasis on interactive supervision. Considerable time is spent helpingtherapists develop under the guidance of live and consulting supervisors.Nevertheless, supervision is not often discussed explicitly in the family ther-apy journals (Hawley, Bailey, & Pennick, 2000). This is unfortunate, as thesupervision process is complex and merits thoughtful discussion. There arenumerous ways of doing supervision, but few concrete guidelines on what“good” supervision consists of (Anderson, Schlossberg, & Rigazio-DiGilio,2000). The complexity of the process is evident in that some therapists re-port more difficulties understanding their supervisor’s expectations than theirclients’ problems (Tyler & Tyler, 1985).

SUPERVISION, STORIES, AND SYSTEMS

One of the challenging aspects of supervision is the number of individuals in-volved. Each person in the supervisory room, as well as the clients discussed,

Address correspondence to Jason B. Whiting, 315 Funkhouser Building, Lexington, KY

40506. E-mail: jason.whiting@uky.edu

139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

140 J. B. Whiting

have a unique background, personality, and worldview. Creating somethinguseful out of this process can feel haphazard. To illustrate, consider the play-ers in a standard supervisory setting. A couple, Josh and Becky enter therapyto address their marital problems with a therapist, Sally. Sally hears selec-tions and stories from Josh and Becky’s lives and relationships, and makessense of their situation according to her understanding. She then selectivelychooses what aspects of the couple’s story to tell her supervisor, Arnie. WhatSally tells Arnie will be influenced by many things: the content of Josh andBecky’s story, Sally’s theoretical understandings, her personal values, per-spectives, and background. Another influence of Sally’s presentation will bethe questions Arnie asks, as well as her understanding of what he wants.Arnie hears Sally’s take on Josh and Becky’s situation, and from this “story ofa story” he attempts to engage her in a meaningful conversation that will helpher be a more effective therapist (according to Arnie’s understanding of whatthat means). This interaction takes place within a context influenced not onlyby personal differences, but also gender, religion, culture, and power. Giventhese multiple levels of complexity, it is not surprising that supervision is notalways a clear-cut endeavor.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the dialogue of familytherapy supervision. Specifically, the paper will discuss how social construc-tionist philosophy can be a helpful framework for supervision. Theoreticalbenefits and challenges in applying this philosophy will be discussed, bothin terms of understanding isomorphism and regarding the role of expertise.Applications of social constructionist supervision will be listed and describedin a case study.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND SUPERVISION

The multifaceted nature of supervisory interactions is not easily describedby traditional modernist frameworks that explain in linear, causal terms(Neufeldt, 1997). Systems theory, with its focus on interactions, roles, andprocess may at first seem to be a better fit for describing supervision. How-ever, systems theory is also limited in its ability to explain the richer con-textual and interpersonal factors that occur in the training endeavor, andit shares many of the causal assumptions that modernism does, althoughit sometimes explains them differently (e.g., Freedman & Combs, 1996;Slife, 1993). Supervision involves multi-leveled dialogue, consensually nego-tiated understandings, and efforts to create meaningful interaction. For thesereasons social constructionism is a good fit for describing the supervisoryprocess.

Social constructionism is a branch of postmodernism, and as such, sharesmany of the tenets of this framework, including a rejection of science as atool to understand a “reality” that is external to the observer (Williams, 1992).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Social Constructionist Supervision 141

Instead, social constructionism asserts that the realities we construct are sub-jective and anchored in the language systems in which we exist. Since be-liefs are created in a social context, they may change with that context. Socialconstructionism suggests that meanings arise in conversation and are sociallynegotiated (Gergen, 1999). Knowledge is not only shared in interaction, it iscreated in interaction. Stories that emerge through interaction influence indi-vidual and relational behavior and help people create meaning. Goncalves(1997) says,

Narratives . . . operate in a dialogical context and are located in the space

of interindividuality. That is, they are neither within nor outside the indi-

vidual; they are a continuous flux between individuals. Narratives bring

meaning to existence by making experiences communal (p. xv).

Social constructionism has been described as an attitude rather than aset of interventions (Gergen, 1999). Social constructionist supervision is nota “one-size-fits-all” endeavor where an erudite knowledge-dispenser fills asupervisee’s empty vessel. A climate for growth is emphasized because eachrelationship is unique and evolves in its own way. Techniques will havevarying results because each individual makes different meanings out of them(Maturana, 1988). Nevertheless, there are therapy interventions that derivefrom social constructionist thought, including reflecting teams, solution-focusquestioning, and re-authoring of stories. One social constructionist approachthat has been highly influential is narrative therapy (MacCormack & Tomm,1998). Narrative approaches were primarily pioneered by therapists MichaelWhite and David Epston (1990), and have subsequently been adapted byothers who have used the ideas of language, story, and authoring in theirwork (e.g., Freedman & Combs; Andersen, 1996).

The narrative metaphor is not only helpful for therapy, but for super-vision, where multiple stories—both spoken and unspoken—are brought tobear on the process. The social constructionist value of collaboration is agood fit in supervision, where the atmosphere is more collegial than it maybe in therapy. Social constructionist emphasis on patience and curiosity arealso helpful in supervision, where the complexity of the process inevitablyresults in misunderstandings and “misreadings” that require time and open-ness to disentangle.

APPLICATION OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST SUPERVISION

Some applications of social constructionism in supervision may involve estab-lishing mutual understandings, goals, and an atmosphere that is conduciveto growth. When the values or expectations of a supervisor and a super-visee are different, more time and energy will be needed to work on thisprocess. This conversation of working towards consensual meaning can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

142 J. B. Whiting

understood by the term structural coupling (Maturana, 1988). Structural cou-pling occurs when individuals interact and influence each other to createmore congruent views. Like a shoe adapts to a foot, people influence oneanother as they share time and conversation. Agreement of the purpose ofsupervision helps to prevent boundary and power problems, and improvessupervision outcomes (Lee, 1999; Russell & Peterson, 1998).

Isomorphism and Challenges to Social Constructionist Supervision

The process of supervision is isomorphic, suggesting that if a supervisor iswarm, encouraging, and fosters an atmosphere of discovery with the thera-pist, it is likely that this pattern will continue in the therapist-client relation-ship, and then extend to the family relationships (White & Russell, 1997).Conversely, if the supervisor is punitive and directive, the therapist is morelikely to be this way with his or her clients. Isomorphism also explains howthe supervisor is vulnerable to getting recruited into believing constraining ornegative stories of the family. A therapist may present a case as hopeless andthe clients as pathological, and the supervisor could accept this. A supervisorseeking to expand this story could resist the despair-laden presentation andexplore other positive possibilities with the therapist. This attitude of discov-ery could then ripple back through the system and encourage the therapistto re-story his or her version of the family.

Another issue to be aware of in applying social constructionist thoughtin supervision is the tendency that many supervisors have to practicewith modernist underpinnings. It is quite possible to teach social con-structionist ideas in a way that is incongruent with them (Slife, 2004). Forexample, there is irony in a supervisor who expertly dispenses knowl-edge about how to be collaborative and non-directive. Also, the powerdifference of supervision makes it tempting for supervisors to becomerecruited into trying to sound smart, or dazzle underlings with elegantpostmodern philosophical pronouncements about the family. More com-monly, supervisors may inadvertently recruit the therapist to one “rightway” of seeing. Again, the power difference (and insecurities of supervi-sors) may invite traditional, diagnosis-like statements (Whiting, Nebeker, &Fife, 2005). The twice-filtered narrative of the family that the supervisorreceives can also limit the tendency to explore possibilities and multipleviewpoints.

These examples illustrate the two levels of social constructionist super-vision that may take place. The first occurs when a supervisor teaches atherapist how to use a social constructionist approach with clients. A sec-ond approach would be where the supervisor acts in accordance with socialconstructionist ideas in his or her interaction with the therapist. The firstsupervisor is talking about it the philosophy, and the second is demonstrat-ing it in action and conversation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Social Constructionist Supervision 143

A congruent social constructionist supervisor would be cautious in mak-ing pronouncements, and would invite the therapist to be an active, resource-ful part of the relationship. Recognizing the limits of the presented client storymay also help the supervisor remain tentative and collaborative and seekrichness rather than reduction (White & Epston, 1990). When the supervisoravoids getting recruited into the quick-diagnose mentality, the therapist mayalso resist it with the family.

Retaining a tentative and collaborative approach does not suggest thatthe social constructionist supervisor can not challenge the therapist’s concep-tions of the family. It is useful to ask thought-provoking questions about dom-inant stories about the family that the therapist may have been buying into,either from the family’s portrayal, or from other professionals. Gardner, Bo-bele, and Biever (1997) try to expand supervisees’ stories with questions suchas: “What is the diagnostic rumor that is being spread about this client?” Thiscan help therapists and families loosen the grip of previously pronouncedlabels that may result in people seeing themselves with immutable flaws,rather than fluid descriptors that vary by situation.

The Role of Expertise

Even though social constructionism values collaborative work, it is impor-tant to recognize that a social constructionist supervisor is in a position ofinfluence (Crenshaw, 2004). The manner of expressing this expertise, how-ever, would look different than it would from a modernist philosophy. Amodernist style of supervision is the most common type, and includes a top-down approach with the ideal of passing on knowledge, skills, or proceduresthat have been validated by science (Neufeldt, 1997). But, some research hasshown that therapists who were trained to conform to these types of manu-alized treatments were perceived to be less warm and more hostile than theyhad been prior to training (Henry, Strupp, Butler, Schacht, & Binder, 1993).Expertise in this sense is not congruent with social constructionist supervi-sion. Social constructionist “supervisory expertise . . . is understood to lie inthe manner in which the supervisory conversation is managed” (Neufeldt,1997, p. 218).

Social constructionist philosophy does not preclude supervisor direc-tion or practical discussions but it does require thoughtfulness about choicesmade. Thus, the social constructionist supervisor has expertise in facilitat-ing discussions, exploring possibilities, and in acting in congruence witha chosen philosophy. Questioning one’s own actions as well as the ther-apist’s helps supervisors teach the reflective process rather than “correct”techniques. For example, a supervisor would not comment “on how thetherapist has conformed to specified therapeutic procedures, however, thesupervisor [would inquire] about the therapist’s intentions and expectations”(Neufeldt, 1997, p. 200). This curious stance, (rather than a pronouncing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

144 J. B. Whiting

stance) is intended to provoke thinking rather than insecurity or defensive-ness in therapists. It may be helpful to offer supervisory comments with aquestion mark instead of a period (Parry & Doan, 1994).

Methods of Social Constructionist Supervision

Social constructionist supervision can include a variety of standard trainingtechniques, such as case consultation, video observation, reflecting teams,or live observation (Wetchler & McCollum, 1999). In fact, using multiplemethods may help supervisors and therapists see many perspectives. Othertechniques that have been used in social constructionist therapy, such asnarrative or collaborative language approaches can be helpful with supervi-sion as well. As Parry and Doan (1994) suggest: “Therapists are very muchlike their clients. They too, have old stories and . . . influences that havecontributed to their . . . personhood and view of the world. Just like theirclients, they are influenced by fear, uncertainty, self-depreciation, and anger. . .” (p. 187). The following case study is an example of using some socialconstructionist ideas in a supervisory setting. Although the case is based onactual events, some information has been changed for purposes of clarityand anonymity.

CASE STUDY

“Joan” was finishing her first year in a Marriage and Family Therapy grad-uate program at a large university. Previously she had worked in a clinicfor the past twenty years focused primarily on crisis-intervention work withmental health cases in an outpatient setting. Her setting emphasized short-term work with clients, often including medication and collaboration withmedical and community professionals. Joan had a master’s degree in so-cial work, and was interested in pursuing MFT training. We discussed initialcontextual issues, including that I was younger than she, a male, and in aposition of power over her. We discussed potential strengths and limitationsthat our respective backgrounds would bring to the process. For example,my family therapy training and academic background exceeded hers, butshe had more clinical and community experience than I did. This was oc-casionally awkward to process, but it was important in setting the stage foropenness and trust. Undoubtedly there were many other contextual factorsthat we did not process, either due to lack of awareness or time. For exam-ple, we were both from the dominant culture ethnically and therefore mayhave overlooked relevant issues because of assuming similarity (Kostelnik,1999).

As supervision commenced, we discussed our respective expectationsfor the process, which is particularly helpful for new therapists (Liddle,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Social Constructionist Supervision 145

1988). This facilitated an atmosphere of negotiation, which moved us towardcongruence between what she wanted and what I was planning (White,1989/1990). Joan was familiar with postmodern models of therapy, and wediscussed whether using this framework was acceptable for supervision,which it was.

Our efforts to be mindful of multiple perspectives were tested as webegan discussing one of Joan’s clients. “Luis” was a 23-year-old Hispanicmale with a history of gang involvement and violence. Luis had been ina relationship with a woman for several years, but she had recently leftwith their daughter because of Luis’s explosiveness, which at times be-came verbally abusive. We discussed how we could pursue a conversationthat would both be respectful of his challenging historical and ecologicalfactors (e.g., Luis’s own abusive history, immigration influence, poverty,etc.), while still inviting him to be responsible for his abusive actions(Jory, 2004).

This seemed fruitful and Joan began to use externalizing language withLuis about his anger. Luis was an active participant in this conversation, andthey were able to personify “The Rage” and discuss what sorts of things “fed”and strengthened it. They discussed times when Luis was more susceptible toThe Rage, and Joan invited Luis to reflect on how his story either excused hisbehavior, or promoted self responsibility in owning it (Whiting, 2007). Joanwas able to help Luis see how some of his own beliefs about gender andpower were being used as an excuse to behave in relationally destructiveways, and she invited Luis to show greater strength by “standing up” toThe Rage. Joan also found times that Luis was a caring, responsive, andresponsible partner and these events were explored to see what types ofexplanations and choices were being made to facilitate them. At this point,supervision began to shift. I was teaching social constructionist ideas, butwas not fully using them as a supervisor.

To do so, I took inspiration from the narrative technique of internal-ized other questioning (Epston, 1993) and posed the following scenario: Iasked Joan to imagine herself in several years as she was completing herdoctoral training and feeling confident about herself as a therapist. I askedher to picture a conversation between me and some of her future clientswho had been very pleased with therapy. I wondered what sort of thingsthese clients would tell me about Joan and what she had done to help them.This allowed Joan to picture herself in an ideal way and to make her ther-apeutic goals more vivid. We then engaged in a fruitful conversation withme interviewing one of “her future clients” as portrayed by Joan. This clientdescribed Joan in caring, fun, and spontaneous terms. She told me howJoan helped her family not only get through the crisis and pain, but alsomove beyond it and make changes and find new directions. Our new chap-ter thickened as we generated specific things that Joan did to create theseopportunities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

146 J. B. Whiting

To tie this future story to past evidence, I asked Joan unique outcomequestions (White & Epston, 1990). I wondered what she had done in herprevious clinical work that would predict this future development. Initially,the only times Joan remembered herself as being more free and creative asa therapist was in her work with children. We discussed what it was abouther work with children that allowed her artistic, creative side to emerge.I wondered what sort of voices or influences were persuading her to beless free in her clinical work with adults. She identified a feeling of higherexpectations (the clients were paying, they were adults) with adults, andwe examined these beliefs and explored how they might be constrictive orfacilitative. We then externalized these voices by naming them the “seriousexpectations” and discussed what was giving them life.

We identified when the serious expectations were powerful (with certainclients and when Joan had more fear) and when they had less influence(when she was feeling good, and when she was more involved in a session).Further externalizing of the serious expectations seemed to be liberatingfor Joan and she identified current beliefs and past experiences that hadsupported them.

I wanted to help Joan dismiss the expectations and focus on Luis’s lifestory. I asked more questions to address this, including: “How do former di-agnoses and clinical conceptions influence your current view of Luis?” “Howis your theoretical model constraining or facilitating your work with Luis?”“Is your interest in his progress influenced by your need to be validated, orby some personal agenda that you may have?”

We processed this evidence and then I asked when Joan had felt morecreative—more of an “artist” in her clinical work with adults. At first shestruggled to identify times when she felt spontaneous and creative with herclients. As she pondered that question, I identified a time when she had beenplayful in her sessions with Luis as they had fun with the anger metaphorand thought of creative ways of describing its personality. Joan brightenedat this and then identified other times when she felt like an artist in session.She also remembered that other people had commented on her creativity intimes past. To make the metaphor of an artist more concrete, I wonderedaloud what would help invite Joan to don her white smock and beret andfeel the freedom to be a creative, risk-taking artist with her clients. I alsowondered what these past experiences told Joan about her future story ofherself. She decided that her artist would become more of a presence in hertherapy as her fear and serious expectations were dying out.

We also discussed how Joan’s former experience in an outpatient settingcarried authority with her storying of her clients’ lives. We considered ques-tions such as: “How would your story of Luis change if you were looking athis experiences from his perspective?” “What strengths of Luis do you thinkhave been pushed aside in his story?” “How do you resist other’s dominantstories of Luis?” “How can you help Luis broaden his own story of himself

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Social Constructionist Supervision 147

and more clearly see his relationship with his rage?” “What about you as atherapist, do you think Luis has valued or appreciated during this difficulttime?” “What stories of discouragement about yourself as an inexperiencedtherapist do you hear?” “How do you combat these negative stories?” “Whatevidence do we have that would counteract these naysaying stories?” “Doyou have beliefs that keep you from acknowledging and appreciating yourown strengths with clients?” “Are you trying to become a therapist accordingto someone else’s ideas of how you should be?”

Despite the fact that Joan was familiar with social constructionism andunderstood that I was using specific narrative applications in our supervision,she confirmed that the conversation was relevant and applicable for her. Sev-eral times she remarked, “that is a good question,” or, “I hadn’t thought of itlike that.” Perhaps my own serious expectations of the process of supervisionhad inhibited me at first, until I felt freer to try new ways of applying socialconstructionist ideas as a supervisor.

DISCUSSION

This example is one rendition, and many meanings could potentially begleaned from it. Some possible implications for supervisors will be discussed,including challenges encountered and lessons learned.

One difficulty about the process was remaining aware of all levels of thesupervisory relationship as it progressed. In our case, this involved regularlychallenging both of our assumptions about the participants involved. If I,as supervisor, were to impose my more “correct” view of the case, I wouldlikely be doing what clients often do to each other—assuming that my wayis more correct and that their understanding is inferior. Also, by seeking mul-tiple perspectives we took less for granted and worked harder to understandone another, which itself was therapeutic (Whiting et al., 2005). When a su-pervisor shows respect by seeking feedback from the therapist, he or she ismodeling one of the most effective things that therapists can do with theirclients—namely, continually engaging in a process of feedback regarding thetherapeutic progress (Lambert et al., 2001).

Quinn (1996) has found that the three things clients most appreciateabout the therapeutic relationship are: (1) an affirming and positive relation-ship, (2) an atmosphere of discovery, and (3) congruence between client’sand therapist’s direction. Assuming this applies isomorphically for thesupervisory relationship, these characteristics fit well for the social construc-tionist supervisor, who elicits therapist resources and expertise, generatesmultiple points of view, and works collaboratively. This type of supportiveenvironment can reduce the anxiety that is common and detrimental intherapists. I was concerned that Joan’s fears and serious expectations ofherself would result in her attempting to inappropriately control or influenceher client. Therapists in a fearful position are often tempted to move from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

148 J. B. Whiting

a subjunctive, “might be” mode to an indicative “this is the way it is” modewith their clients (Parry & Doan, 1994). When therapists are not constrainedby fears and are open to the personhood of the other, they are better ableto change in the moment to respond to them (Whiting et al., 2005).

I also tried to avoid giving advice, except in tentative language (Gardneret al., 1997) and would solicit Joan’s suggestions in practical matters, suchas creating treatment plans. Although social constructionist supervision doesnot place much weight upon developmental distinctions between beginningand experienced therapists, I would offer concrete ideas when they wererequested (Gardner et al., 1997). This was done with a respect for the idea thatbehavior cannot be forced; only invited. This fits with the social constructionview of agency, which asserts that each person is able to author their storyrather than be determined by external or internal forces.

Despite the encouragement of open mindedness and the valuing ofmany perspectives, the philosophy of social constructionism is not value-free,and adherents to its tenets promote certain things above others. For instance,the goals of obtaining multiple perspectives, changing meanings, flatteninghierarchy, and nurturing strengths all are valued (see Fife & Whiting, 2005;Williams, 1992 for further discussion of this issue). Additionally, postmodernphilosophies run into the conundrum of how to avoid moral relativismwhile still valuing multiple perspectives. In other words, if each reality is aslegitimate as another, who decides what is the best or most moral action totake? Although this philosophical debate is beyond the scope of this article,it is important to consider these implications in evaluating how to adopttheoretical frameworks for use in supervision (e.g., Slife & Williams, 1995).

Certainly there were many things that occurred in this supervisory ex-perience that were not helpful to Joan or her clients. Like therapy, the super-visory relationship is a sloppy, dynamic process (Stern, 2003). From a socialconstructionist perspective this is not only acceptable, but an opportunityfor growth. Unexpected results, surprises, and mistakes are also opportu-nities to clarify and strengthen the therapist-supervisor relationship (Schon,1987; Whiting et al., 2005). The supervisor who is nurturing does not shametherapist “errors” but welcomes the ambiguity and misfires that occur in theprocess of relationship progression. Supervision can provide a safe and nur-turing environment that encourages therapists to be open to new possibilitiesand take risks (Emerson, 1999). This can lead to unexpected and new growthin the therapist, clients, and supervisor.

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. (1996). Conversation language and possibilities: A postmodern ap-proach to therapy. New York: Basic Books.

Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical

work. Family Process, 26, 414–428.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Social Constructionist Supervision 149

Anderson, S. A., Schlossberg, M., & Rigazio-DiGilio, S. (2000). Family therapy

trainees’ evaluations of their best and worst supervision experiences. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 26(1), 79–91.

Crenshaw, W. (2004). Treating families and children in the child protective sys-tem: Strategies for systemic advocacy and family healing. New York: Brunner-

Routledge.

Emerson, S. (1999). Creating a safe place for growth in supervision. In R. E. Lee &

S. Emerson (Eds.), The eclectic trainer (pp. 3–12). Galena, IL: Geist & Russell.

Epston, D. (1993). Internalized other questioning with couples: The New Zealand

version. In Gilligan & Price (Eds.), Therapeutic conversations. New York: Norton.

Fife, S. T., & Whiting, J. B. (2005). Values in family therapy research and practice:

An invitation for reflection. Manuscript in submission.

Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction ofpreferred realities. New York: Norton.

Gardner, G. T., Bobele, M., & Biever, J. L. (1997). Postmodern models of family

therapy supervision. In T. C. Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemicsupervisor (pp. 217–228). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goncalves, (1997). Constructivism and the deconstruction of clinical practice. In

T. L. Sexton & B. L. Griffen (Eds.). (pp. xi–xvii). Constructivist thinkingin counseling practice, research and training. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Hawley, D. R., Bailey, C. E., & Pennick, K. A. (2000). A content analysis of research

in family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(1), 9–16.

Henry, W. P., Strupp, H. H., Butler, S. F., Schacht, T. E., & Binder, J. L.

(1993). Effects of training in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy: Changes

in therapist behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61,

434–440.

Jory, B. (2004). The intimate justice scale: An instrument to screen for psychological

abuse and physical violence in clinical practice. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 30, 29–44.

Kostelnik, M. J. (1999). Everyone has a culture. In R. E. Lee & S. Emerson (Eds.), Theeclectic trainer (pp. 147–163). Galena, IL: Geist & Russell.

Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Smart, D. W., Vermeersh, D. A., & Nielsen, S. L. (2001).

The effects of providing therapists with feedback on patient progress during

psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychotherapy Research, 11, 49–68.

Lee, R. E. (1999). Getting started. In R. E. Lee & S. Emerson (Eds.), The eclectic trainer(pp. 33–44). Galena, IL: Geist & Russell.

Liddle, H. A. (1988). Systemic supervision: conceptual overlays and pragmatic

guidelines. In H. A. Liddle, D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Hand-book of family therapy training and supervision (pp. 153–171). New York:

Guilford.

MacCormack, T., & Tomm, K. (1998). Social constructionist/narrative couple therapy.

In F. M. Dattilio (Ed.), Case studies in couple and family therapy: Systemic andcognitive perspectives (pp. 303–330). New York: Guilford.

Maturana, H. R. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a com-

pelling argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

150 J. B. Whiting

Neufeldt, S. A. (1997). A social constructivist approach to counseling supervision.

In T. L. Sexton & B. L. Griffen (Eds.). (pp. 191–210). Constructivist thinking incounseling practice, research and training. New York: Teachers College Press.

Parry, A., & Doan. R. E. (1994). Story re-visions: Narrative therapy in the postmodern

world. New York: Guilford.

Quinn, W. H. (1996). The client speaks out: Three domains of meaning. Journal ofFamily Psychotherapy, 7, 71–93.

Russell, C. S., & Peterson, C. M. (1998). The management of personal and professional

boundaries in marriage and family therapy training programs. ContemporaryFamily Therapy, 20(4). 457–469.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating a reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Slife, B. D. (1993). Time and psychological explanation. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Slife, B. D. (2004). Theoretical challenges to therapy practice and research: The

constraint of naturalism. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbookof psychotherapy and behavior change. (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hiddenassumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stern, D. S. (2003, November/December). The present moment. Psychotherapy Net-worker, 52–57.

Tyler, M. G., & Tyler, S. A. (1985). The sorcerer’s apprentice: The discourse of training

in family therapy. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University, Houston, TX.

Wetchler, J. L., & McCollum, E. E. (1999). Case consultation: The cornerstone of

supervision. In R. E. Lee & S. Emerson (Eds.), The Eclectic Trainer (pp. 62–75).

Galena, IL: Geist & Russell.

White, M. (1989/1990). Family therapy training and supervision in a world of expe-

rience and narrative. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Summer, 27–38.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends, New York: W.

W. Norton.

White, M. B., & Russell, C. S. (1997). Examining the multifaceted notion of isomor-

phism in marriage and family therapy supervision: A quest for conceptual clarity.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 315–333.

Whiting, J. B. (2007). The role of appraisal distortion, contempt and morality in

couple conflict: A grounded theory. Manuscript in review.

Whiting, J. B., Nebeker, R. S., & Fife, S. T. (2005). Moral responsiveness and discon-

tinuity in therapy: A qualitative study. Counseling and Values, 50, 20–37.

Williams, R. N. (1992). The human context of agency. American Psychologist, 47(6),

752–760.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

3:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4