integrating reflective practice in family therapy supervision

Integrating Reflective Practice in FamilyTherapy SupervisionChristine SenediakNSW Institute of Psychiatry and Clinical Supervision Services Pty Ltd

This paper discusses how to integrate reflective practice in the family therapy supervisory relationship. Thisenables family therapists to think creatively, be insightful, and develop a range of perspectives regarding systemicformulation and practice. It encourages review of the past and promotes understanding in the present with theaim to improve therapists work with families in the future. Reflective practice encourages independent thinkingand learning and helps therapists to develop a systemic process of critical enquiry to investigate and critique theirown practice. It encourages therapists to be self-reflective and develop confidence to think hypothetically regard-ing change. This allows them to pose questions for exploration, construct a new lens to conceptualise therapyand the therapeutic relationship and develop awareness of the personal as well as the professional self.

Keywords: family therapy, supervision, reflective practice, reflectivity, professional self

Key Points

1 Reflectivity promotes independent thinking, improved self-awareness and creativity.2 Clinical supervision is a collaborative process that promotes therapist knowledge and skills and safeguardsclient care.

3 Supervisors model reflexivity encouraging analysis of clinical practice through specific reflective questions.4 Therapists develop the capacity to apply reflectivity during the session as a ‘self-supervision’ strategy.5 Family therapy supervision refines skills of observation, listening and questioning.

‘Don’t instruct me: let’s walk together. Let my riches begin where yours ends.’

(Humberto Maturana quoted in Carroll & Gilbert, 2008)

Clinical supervision has long been regarded as a distinct practice crucial to safeguard-ing client care and developing and maintaining professional practice (Barnett, Cornish,Goodyear & Lichtenberg, 2007; Carroll & Glibert, 2008; Falender & Shafranske,2007; Hawkins & Shohet, 2006). There is consensus across disciplines that it shouldbe at the forefront of training and ongoing accreditation (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006;Gilbert & Evans, 2000; O’Donovan, Halford & Walters, 2011; Mill, France &Bonner, 2005; Milne, 2007; Munson, 2002; Roche, Todd, & O’Connor, 2007;Watkins & Scaturo, 2013; White & Winstanley, 2011). Clinical supervision tran-scends discipline boundaries and remains at the forefront of professional education andskills development (Aten, Stran & Gillespie, 2008; Bernard & Goodyear, 2009).

This paper discusses supervision as a reflective and collaborative practice thatenables family therapists to think creatively and systemically in therapy and the thera-peutic relationship. After defining supervision and reflectivity, strategies to integratereflective practice in family therapy supervision and practice are discussed.

Address for correspondence: PO Box 1093, Epping 1710, NSW. [email protected]

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 2014, 34, 338–351doi: 10.1002/anzf.1035

338 ª 2014 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Defining Supervision

In its broadest definition, clinical supervision is a professional activity involving apractice-focused relationship between a designated supervisor and the therapist. Theaim of this collaborative interpersonal process is to maintain and promote standardsof care by developing theoretical knowledge, skills and confidence (Falender & Sha-franske, 2004). Supervision is a regular, facilitated meeting where the therapist is ableto discuss their work practice issues in a protected individual, peer, group or team set-ting, which allows for review of practice and learning. Models of clinical supervisiondeviate in the emphasis placed on different aspects of the supervisory context and caninclude a focus on the self as therapist, the therapy content, therapist behaviour, and/or the therapeutic process (Aten, Stran & Gillespie, 2008; Livini, Crowe & Gonsal-vez, 2012; Vandenberghe & da Silveira 2013).

Clinical supervision is an intervention with its own theory, framework and tech-niques that is increasingly recognised as requiring specialist training before compe-tence can be achieved to fulfil the role of supervisor. Typically therapists have often‘fallen into the role of supervisor,’ such as taking students on placements from univer-sity as interns in training or supervising junior colleagues (Scott, Ingram, Vitanza, &Smith, 2000). More recently, specific training programs within Australia have beendeveloped to train health professional groups to be supervisors covering knowledgeabout registration, supervision guidelines and where necessary, reporting requirements(e.g. AHPRA, 2013; HETI, 2013). Typically standardized supervision trainingprograms have focused on ensuring the acquisition of certain knowledge and skillsabiding to ethical guidelines of practice.

Much attention has been focused in the literature on the supervisory relationship(Holloway, 1995), the tasks of supervisor and supervisee (Baker, Exum & Tyler,2002; Campbell, 2000; Carroll & Gilbert, 2005; Inskipp, 1999), models of practice(Carroll & Holloway, 1999; Stotltenberg, 2005) and best practice (Accurso, Taylor &Garland, 2011) regarding how to deliver supervision in the field. Supervision is anongoing process encompassing a range of facilitative and evaluative functions involv-ing both supervisor and therapist, which enhances the therapeutic relationshiptogether with positive therapy outcomes (Bambling & King, 2001; Bambling, King,Raue, Schweitzer & Lambert, 2006; Proctor, 1997; Ramos-S�anchez et al., 2002;Watkins & Scaturo, 2013).

As positive therapist outcome is consistently linked to the quality of therapeuticalliance (Orlinsky, Ronnestad & Willutzki, 2004; Rober, 2011), it is imperative thatsupervision play an integral role in promoting therapeutic knowledge, skills, insight,creativity and confidence (Lambert & Barley, 2001). By encouraging reflectivity thetherapist can further refine clinical skills of observation, listening and questioning thusenhancing clinical practice.

Reflectivity in Supervision

In the past few years there has been growing interest in the role of reflexivity andreflective practice in family therapy practice and supervision (Flaskas, 2012). Howeverits ‘seeds’ were sown well over half a century ago, as Dewey (1938) defined reflectionit is an ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form ofknowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which

Integration of Reflective Practice

ª 2014 Australian Association of Family Therapy 339

it tends’ (cited in Ward, 1998, p. 2). He saw reflectivity as a way to generate solutionsusing carefully considered problem solving strategies through experimentation. Theseideas were further developed by Gibbs (1988) where the focus was the influence ofreflection on action: how new understanding changes practice in the future?

Schon’s (1994) theory of reflective practice describes reflectivity as a means ofenhancing understanding through empirical knowledge based on skills learnt througheducation and training and categorised two main types of reflection: ‘reflection-on-practice’ and ‘reflection-in-action.’ This distinction provides clear delineation of thedivergent processes available in supervision. Reflection-in-action occurs while events arehappening. By observing, recognising, intervening and making adjustments to prac-tice, the therapist is able to respond in the moment, drawing from existing theoreticaland clinical knowledge to improve the situation at hand. The literature on live super-vision (Hunt & Sharpe, 2008; Lowe, Hunt & Simmons, 2008) and ‘Reflective TeamProcess’ (Anderson, 1987; Perlesz, Young, Paterson & Bridge, 1994) provides exam-ples of how therapists integrate in the process of therapy by adopting multiple posi-tions of both observer and facilitator. Reflection-on-practice occurs after the event andis retrospective. Commonly this has been the traditional approach to supervisionwhere case discussion and review of clinical processes takes place.

Both approaches to supervision are useful but what is considered most helpful iswhen a therapists’ curiosity about their interaction with clients is stimulated, bringingto awareness the feelings and thoughts of both therapist and client. Reflection pro-vides a looking glass approach to clinical practice, promoting self-awareness, harnessingself-knowledge and encouraging a deeper understanding in thought and action indeciphering the possible multiple and often conflicting responses to a situation.

Reflective practice in part parallels other established therapeutic processes. Theseinclude the countertransference relationship and examination of the therapist’s innerdialogue (Flaskas, 2004, 2010; Rober, 2011), ‘mindfulness’ when attending to reflec-tion on the interaction (Andersson, King & Lalande, 2010; Vandenberghe & daSilveira, 2013), the work of Balint to promote introspection, empathy and self-aware-ness for both therapist and client (Lichtenstein & Lustig, 2006) and ‘mentalization’in making sense of self, the other and relationships (Asen & Fonagy, 2012).

In addition there has been increasing focus on the self of the therapist in the train-ing and supervision of family therapists, which can aim to identify and reflect on fam-ily-of-origin issues that help or hinder therapeutic process (Brown, 2007; Deveaux &Lubell, 1994; Framo, 1992; Francis, 1988; Johnson, Campbell & Masters, 1992;Rhodes, Nge, Wallis & Hunt, 2011; Wells et al., 1990). Overall, reflection can pro-vide diverse perspectives of the therapists’ intuitions, feelings and theorizing related tothe client-therapist relationship increasing empathic understanding of both the thera-pist and client’s experience (Regan, 2008).

An important element of reflective practice is the depth of the reflection andunderstanding a therapist is able to undertake within and between therapist and clientsystems. The full potential of reflection is best achieved when the therapist decon-structs the therapeutic experience and is able to see the various layers of the situationat hand. Reflection is not simply, I can see that I could have done things differently butrequires deconstruction and reconstruction: I can see what happened, why it happened,and how I can change now and in the future. Reflective practice in supervision allowsnew openings for different thinking outside of what is already known and practiced.It encourages the therapist to ‘step back,’ examine the impact of self in the therapeutic

Christine Senediak


context and consider alternatives in therapy. Applied in the supervisory context reflec-tivity pays attention to feedback, ecology, circularity and language, whereby the thera-pist is able to make connections and consider self in and outside the system.

Within supervision, reflectivity happens all the time, but it is often descriptive and‘presentation specific,’ where the therapist does not extend new learning to otheraspects of their clinical work (Safran, Muran, Stevens & Rothman, 2008). As such,reflectivity in supervision can occur when a shift occurs from a behavioural focus. Itsreal value is when the therapist learns from the presentation extending this learning toother contexts, either past, present or future and there is greater awareness of patternsand interrelatedness. When this occurs independent thinking and responsibility is pro-moted in the therapy and supervision contexts.

Reflection can occur on different levels. A useful framework is Betts’ (2004) fivetier hierarchy as summarised in Table 1, which explores the progressive variations ofreflection on content, process and context.

Reflectivity and Family Therapy Supervision

Supervision is a way to investigate therapeutic work where asking reflective questionsallows the supervisee to critically consider the implications of their clinical encounters.Through a systematic process of critical enquiry the therapist can learn to pose theirown questions and further examine and refine their clinical work (Horvath, 2001). Byencouraging reflectivity a range of perspectives regarding clinical care can evolve mov-ing the therapist towards developing greater clinical competence, confidence and inde-pendent practice.

Reflectivity privileges the process of inquiry. For this to happen, the supervisormust create an environment for the therapist to focus their attention on the interac-tions within the therapeutic context, allowing a process of contemplation and reviewoften with limited direction or instruction. Whilst this process can be a challenge forboth supervisor and therapist, the aim is independent thinking and the developmentof alternative interpretations (Stotltenberg, 2005).

TABLE 1

Levels of Reflection

Level 1: Reporting focus on a recount of the situation only

;

Level 2: Responding some thoughts on what happened

;

Level 3: Relating review of the events through existing lens/frameworks of thinking (e.g. consideration

of response to feeling, action or communication between and within the therapeutic context)

;

Level 4: Deconstruction in-depth analysis (challenge to existing frameworks of thinking). Here there is a

challenge to existing frameworks of thinking an some alternative explanations are generated

;

Level 5: Reconstruction application of learning based on new frameworks of thinking which might be

embedded in hypothesizing, curiosity, reflection on self, meaning and interrelatedness.



Strategies to stimulate reflectivity

There are a number of strategies that the supervisor can adopt to facilitate reflectivepractice, which can include both inside and outside session activities. The optionsprovided below are not exhaustive but reflect some of the strategies commonlyemployed by the author in individual and group supervision.

1. Family-of-origin. The exploration of family-of-origin has for many years been con-sidered an integral part of the training of family therapists and is a requirement forsome training programs both overseas and in Australia (Mason, Gibney & Crago,2002; Rhodes et al., 2011). Personal reflection on self and family issues provides anopportunity for improved intentional awareness (Brown, 1999). Whilst not therapy initself, family-of-origin work in supervision allows for greater insight into strengthsthat might aid or blind spots which might hinder. Therapists who have opportunitiesto consider family-of-origin work in supervision are able to differentiate self fromfamily issues and be better positioned to work with stressed families where similarproblems exist.

2. Modelling reflectivity. By the supervisor modelling reflective dialogue within thesupervision session a therapist is able to learn through observation, direction and par-ticipation the process of juggling interpersonal, affective, cognitive and behaviouralresponses to the material being observed or discussed. Modelling analytical thinking,pondering, reflecting and analysing has the dual effect of teaching a therapist how toemploy reflectivity whilst simultaneously providing new information on client/familydynamics (Orchowski, Evangelista & Probst, 2010).

As an illustration, I often find myself thinking about a supervision session afterthe event, and through critical reflection new insights that might not have occurred tome at the time may come to mind. On return to supervision I will communicate withthe therapist any after-thoughts or hypotheses and where these have led in my think-ing. New dialogue may occur as a result leading to further exploration. Asking thetherapist to reflect on how this information impacts their understanding of self and/or interactions with the client and family system facilitates further analysis. In addi-tion, asking for feedback, either informally or formally about the supervisory sessioncan further enhance an open dialogue about process.

3. Journal/Diary. Journal writing and reflective diary keeping has long been a strategyused in education and clinical training (Belton, Thonrbury Gould & Scott, 2006;Epstein, 2008; Thorpe, 2004). It is a useful way to monitor progress and encouragetherapists to reflect on thoughts and actions between supervision sessions (Raelin,2002). Keeping a journal or diary helps the therapist to monitor progress, report onaspects of clinical practice, and reflect upon how thoughts about action influence cur-rent and future practice. The diary creates a process record of any issue that the therapistmight want to discuss in supervision. It promotes a space for relational thinking outsidethe supervisory context and through mindful contemplation assists in the developmentof habitual self-reflection and enhanced self-awareness (Senediak & Bowden, 2007).

4. Reflective questioning.Using reflective questions can provide a framework for prep-aration for supervision or review within or between both client and supervisionsessions. The prompts provided in Table 2 are not exhaustive but can be used as a

Christine Senediak


TABLE 2

Reflective Questions

1 What is my question?

(e.g. What am I stuck on, what do I need help with at this time)?

2 Describe the interaction/s

(e.g. What is my involvement and the inter-relatedness of those involved)?

3 What are my thoughts, assumptions and expectations about the interaction at this time?

Have they differed over time and why)?

(e.g. How do I make sense about the interaction at this time and if changed, why)?

4 What am I feeling? How do I understand those feelings then and now? What

is the emotional flavour of the interactions? Was it similar to or different

from my usual experience?

5 Consider my actions during this portion of the session. What did I want/expect to happen?

(On reflection what were my expectations/hopes)?

6 Consider the interaction/interrelationship between therapist, the client and wider system/s.

(Why do I think what happened, happened? How does the therapeutic

relationships impact what is occurring? Consider transference – countertransference)

7 To what degree do I understand this interaction as similar to the client’s interactions in other

relationships? How does this inform my experience?

(As there parallels in the way the client presented in session compared

to other contexts? What might this tell me about the client and what

I need to work on in the future)?

8 What theories do I use to understand what is going on?

(What guided my thinking and therapeutic intervention at time – should I

consider alternatives and what would I need to do differently to be able

to apply alternative ways of thinking and working

9 What past professional or personal experiences affect my understanding?

(Consider any personal/professional strengths and restraints both past and

present and how these might impact both on my theoretical knowledge

and the application of clinical skills both then and now)

10 How else might I interpret this ‘event’ and interaction in the session?

(If I were to view this situation through a different lens how might I see

things differently? What lens might that be (e.g. gender, cultural factors)

How might this influence what I do next)?

11 How might I test out the various alternatives?

(Summarize where to from here; what steps do I need to take; who/what

can help me to do this)?

12 How will the clients’ responses inform what I do next?

(What do I need to be ‘on the lookout’ for when I see the client next)?

13 How can I now and in the future use supervision reflectivity?

(What is the role of the supervision)?



launch-pad for further questioning, either alone as a way of employing self-supervi-sion or through further questioning with the supervisor. Therapists in the firstinstance are more likely to apply these questions as ‘reflection-on-action’ after theinteraction, but with practice such questioning can become automatic and be inte-grated into questioning with the family in session.

Illustrating Reflective Practice in Supervision

Here I provide some examples of reflective practice in family therapy supervisionbeginning with my own journey of self-reflection and training.

Example 1: Self-reflective practice

Let me set the context of my practice as a supervisor. I have provided clinical supervisionfor nearly 30 years, almost as long as I graduated from my clinical psychology studies. Ifell into the role of supervision for students on placement from the university where Igraduated, that is, the university needed a placement for clinical psychology studentsand as I had been a reasonably good student I was as worthy as any to embark on thisrole. This very quick initiation from clinician to supervisor was both unheralded andunmarked. It was some 10 years before I embarked on my first structured supervisorytraining which allowed me to gain a theoretical framework as a supervisor. Coupledwith post-graduate family therapy training, family-of-origin experiences, further struc-tured supervision training both here and overseas and personal therapy, I was able toincorporate this knowledge and experience into a consolidated approach of supervision.

There were three significant experiences that impacted on my development as atherapist and supervisor. The first was my initial family-of-origin experience as a trai-nee in family therapy, the second followed many years later with an overseas intensivepracticum with Professor Maurizio Andolfi at the Accademia di Psicoterapia della Fam-iglia in Rome, Italy and lastly was my undertaking of personal meditation-basedmindfulness therapy. Interestingly, none of the experiences were within the exclusivedomain of psychological practice and each provided a stepping stone for furtherexploration of self as well as clinical and supervisory practice.

My initial family-of-origin experience was at the beginning of my studies in a twoyear program of family therapy training at the Family Therapy Institute in Sydneywith Margaret Topman, Max Cornwell and Ron Perry being my initial teachers. Therawness of the exploration of family history, cultural influences and transgenerationalpatterns provided opportunities to consider how my family-related issues both helpedand hindered my early work as a developing therapist. This initial training exposedpersonal biases, emotional restraints and strengths and formed the basis for ongoingreflection on how certain family presentations touched me in different ways and influ-enced the way I approached family therapy. It occurred soon after the time I startedsupervising psychology students and the disconnect between traditional psychologytraining (mostly individualised cognitive behaviour therapy) and systemic family ther-apy was often challenging.

Many years later, the Practicum led by Professor Andolfi was a personal and pro-fessional intensive experience which involved reflection on professional handicaps.Our small group of seven family therapists of varied disciplines from around theworld took turns over the two weeks to present professional handicaps stemming fromour family-of-origin. There was no escaping personal reflection on our past and

Christine Senediak


present relationships and their impact on our practice as therapists, educators andsupervisors. This repeating exercise allowed self-learning not only in relation to mypersonal handicaps but from those of the six other therapists as well. The experiencewas profound and opened up a world of experiential learning and teaching.

In addition there was a focus on culture. The experience was intense, novel andsomething I had never experienced nor expected. Later personal therapy developedfurther insights of self and professional practice, which have continued to influencemy practice. I approach supervision with enthusiasm, guiding those that come to mefor leadership, support, direction and mentoring by using what I myself have learntboth theoretically and experientially (Deveaux & Lubell, 1994). Most importantly thisinvolves experiential learning, awareness of self in relation to family-of-origin influ-ences and ongoing reflective practice.

Example 2: Family of origin work

I have provided supervision to a clinical psychologist for over 4 years, initially in agroup context at a specialist drug treatment service and then in individual sessions ona fortnightly basis. The psychologist works in the trauma field with complex clientswho present with family problems, poor attachment history, substance misuse andmental health problems. Sandra1 is young, enthusiastic and has been trained predomi-nately in cognitive behavioural therapy with some exposure to Dialectical BehaviouralTherapy, Acceptance Commitment Therapy and mindfulness-based therapies. She hashad little exposure to family systems work, yet most clients presented have compli-cated family histories and marked discord.

In the group supervision with Sandra, from an early stage I gently introduce theuse of genograms, systemic formulations and family interviewing techniques. Whilethe group is initially resistant to considering alternative perspectives, perseverance paysoff as introducing an alternate lens provides greater depth to their theoretical under-standing and ways of working with complex clinical presentations. This is quite for-eign to the team and service which primarily employs a case management frameworktargeting specific behavioural change. Slowly Sandra, along with her colleagues, invitesfamily members to sessions where issues other than the specific substance misuseproblems are discussed and managed. There is a shift in presentations, where the teammembers begin to think beyond the presenting problem and engage more systemicallywith the client and their wider system.

When Sandra leaves the service she seeks individual supervision and her journey intoself-reflection begins. She has already started to apply systems interpretations to present-ing problems and begins to consider her relationship to clients. She increasingly talksabout her personal responses to her clients, frustrations, anger and anxieties about theirprogress. I question Sandra on her attachment to clients as she agonizes over those whoparallel her early life story. I invite Sandra to explore her family-of-origin, to draw onthese parallels and ponder the impact of self in therapeutic relationships. Family-of-origin work provides opportunities for differentiation of self and allows clinicians tobetter handle difficult therapeutic encounters, identify possible triangulation and man-age their reactions in therapy (Kerr, 1984; Murdock & Gore, 2004; Renshall et al.,2013). Initially Sandra hesitates but as she continues to struggle, worn down by thesense of hopelessness for some of her clients, we spend two sessions undertaking family-of-origin work. This focus allows her to better differentiate ‘self’ in relation to herfamily-of-origin and in turn, set clearer boundaries in her clinical work. Sandra



develops better awareness of her emotional reactions to clients and the subtle triggersthat commonly would have previously resulted in an anxious response.

Supervision continues to employ reflective questioning where she is encouraged toconsider multiple perspectives, incorporate the use of self, consider the systemic con-text, apply theory and develop preferred ways of working with clients. In short, San-dra develops a capacity for greater choice in her reaction to clients and as such she isable to maintain improved emotional autonomy over time. The experience of beingable to reflect on family-of-origin influences coupled with routine critical reflectivequestioning outside and within supervision has helped Sandra to develop greaterconfidence and skills, to recognise and use her emotional reactions to clients and togenerate appropriate interventions.

Example 3: Reflective questioning and modelling self-reflection

‘Self-reflectiveness is critical to clinical development’ (Urdang, 1999, p. 144) and itis this premise that has guided my supervisory approach. While reflectivity does notnaturally occur for all clinicians it can be taught. Modelling reflective thinking andthe use of reflective learning journals are widely recognised as significant tools inpromoting active learning about self and clinical practice (Orchowski et al., 2010;Thorpe, 2004). By introducing concepts of reflectivity in supervision sessions, I havebeen able to promote active participation in individual and group sessions. Whenstudents are learning or are newly graduated there is a strong need for answers tocomplex problems, often at the expense of critical self-analysis, with responses suchas ‘tell me what to do.’ It is important to set the stage early for reflective practicewithin clinical supervision, as this teaches the clinician to engage in personal self-reflection.

For example, Joseph is a mature counsellor who works in an independent privatepractice with little support and high client load. He predominately works in individ-ual and couple therapy. He engages in both group and individual supervision andactively employs self-reflection. Joseph attends supervision often having completed thereflective questions provided in Table 2, he has answered many of his own questionsand is then able to discuss the outcomes of his reflections. The advantage of this isthat he can cover a greater number of clinical issues in supervision as he has alreadyundertaken a large part of the reflection in private. He draws on themes that presentand are better able to problem solve outside the supervisory context.

Where appropriate, I draw on techniques such as Kagan’s (1980) Interpersonal Pro-cess Recall (IPR) when reviewing audio/videoed sessions. I have used the technique ofIPR in counselling training for over 20 years, which I have consistently found enablestudents to actively reflect on therapeutic processes. Such a detailed analysis of a seg-ment of interview allows for meaningful discussion of affective and relational dynam-ics. This is both analysis of ‘reflection-in action’ and reflection-on-action’ (Schon,1994).

In supervision I comment on my role as supervisor, guiding discussion and pro-moting within-session reflectivity and self-reflection outside sessions by supervisees.Also how the exploration of interpersonal, affective and behavioural events better posi-tions supervisees to apply new knowledge in current and future clinical encounters.My reflection on these reflections models ‘reflection-in-action’ highlighting for supervi-sees the importance of exploring these interpersonal experiences.

Christine Senediak


Example 4: Supervision diaries and learning journals

I encourage supervisees to keep a separate supervision journal or diary as a way to aidreflective analysis of themes and progress in their professional journey. This is not anew concept but one that is often overlooked if not made explicit. Most come tosupervision with their books and use this as a way to track progress with clinical prac-tice and self-reflection. Bernadette approached me for supervision some two years agoafter attending my supervision workshop. Having heard about how to structure super-vision sessions she came well prepared for her first meeting. Following our first sessionshe used her diary to plan sessions, write questions over the course of each month in-between sessions and to reflect on themes both in and outside of session and trackher progress. Interestingly for Bernadette the use of her diary has provided opportuni-ties for self-supervision, where she often answers her own questions prior to the super-vision session and we explore her reflective process towards better understanding ofself, clients and family systems. Bernadette works in a hospital setting with distressedfamilies where quick answers are needed within her team and self-supervision acts as apreventative procedure providing her with a framework to consider options and alter-natives (Morrissette, 1999).

Within the postgraduate Family Therapy program at the NSW Institute of Psychia-try trainees combine distance education learning materials with face-to-face intensiveworkshops, and as such rely heavily on independent learning and reflective practiceboth ‘in-and on-action’ (Hickson, 2011). They are required to keep learning journals,engage in reflective discussion with teachers, supervisors and peers on learning materi-als and complete assignment work that requires the application of critical reflectionon course material and the application of theory on clinical practice. Trainees beginthe course with family-of-origin exercises and are encouraged to continue their cri-tique on the impact of assumptions, challenging the ways they work with families indistress. This reflective process in supervision is encouraged through the use of diariesand online forums throughout the program and by year 3, when trainees undertakemandatory supervisor training the course relies solely on critical reflection tasks in theform of analyses of learning journals and supervisory practice. By this stage traineeshave not only learnt self-supervision and a routine practice of critical reflection, butthrough their experiential learning, how to apply reflective practice in supervisionencounters with others (Moffett, 2009; Senediak, 2013).

Conclusion

Supervision is a complex process and entails a number of roles and responsibilities forboth supervisor and supervisee to ensure an effective and rewarding relationship isestablished and maintained. Supervision in family therapy, more so than for individ-ual therapy, requires the supervisor to be alert to possible emotional alliances. Thepush and pull of often opposing family members in the therapy room requires spe-cialist skills in family work by a therapist with the capacity to de-triangulate whennecessary. The role of the family therapy supervisor to facilitate both skills develop-ment and self-awareness in the therapist is an integral part of family therapy supervi-sion.

Supervisors embracing a stance of reflectivity and independent learning are posi-tioned to assist therapist critical thinking and should resist ‘feeding answers’ in direc-tive discussions. Supervisors who initiate reflectivity in supervision and model and



teach these skills invite therapists from an early stage of their career to develop acapacity to understand, connect, problem solve and work creatively with families.Reflectivity can enhance the supervisory alliance, which in turn can facilitate thetherapeutic alliance where those involved often exhibit greater compassion, awarenessand connectivity with families.

A supervisory relationship based on reflective practice facilitates both a containingand generative space. This paper has illustrated integrating reflective practice in familytherapy supervision, which can reap rewarding supervisory relationships and encourageindependent, mature and enthusiastic therapists.

Endnote1 In this section pseudonyms have been used for each supervisee and permission granted for use of super-

visory encounters for this paper.

ReferencesAccurso, E., Taylor, R., & Garland, A. (2011). Evidence-based practices addressed in commu-

nity-based children’s mental health clinical supervision. Training and Education in Profes-sional Psychology, 5, 88–96.

AHPRA (2013). http://www.psychologyboard.gov.au/ (accessed 1 August 2013).

Anderson, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clincial Work. Fam-ily Process, 26, 415–428.

Andersson, L., King, R., & Lalande, L. (2010). Dialogical mindfulness in supervision role-play. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10, 287–294.

Asen, E., & Fonagy, P. (2012). Mentalization-based therapeutic interventions for families.Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 347–370.

Aten, J., Stran, J., & Gillespie, R. (2008). A Transtheoretical model of clinical supervision.Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2, 1–9.

Baker, S., Exum, H., & Tyler, R. (2002). The developmental process of clinical supervisors intraining: An investigation of the supervisor complexity model. Counselor Education andSupervision, 42, 15–30.

Bambling, M., & King, R. (2000). The effect of clinical supervision on the development ofcounsellor competency. Psychotherapy in Australia, 6, 58–63.

Bambling, M., & King, R. (2001). Therapeutic alliance and clinical practice. Psychotherapy inAustralia, 8, 38–43.

Bambling, M., King, R., Raue, P., Schweitzer, R., & Lambert, W. (2006). Clinical supervi-sion: Its influence on client-rated working alliance and client symptom reduction in thebrief treatment of major depression. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 317–331.

Barnett, J., Cornish, J. A., Goodyear, R., & Lichtenberg, J. (2007). Commentaries on the ethi-cal and effective practice of clinical supervision. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,and Training, 38, 268–275.

Belton, V., Thonrbury Gould, H., & Scott, J. (2006). Developing the Reflective Practitioner –Designing an Undergradute Class, Interfaces, 36, 150–164.

Bernard, J., & Goodyear, R. (2009). Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision (3rd ed.). Boston,MA: Pearson.

Betts, J. (2004). Theology, therapy or picket line? What’s the ‘good’ of reflective practice inmanagement education?. Reflective Practice, 5, 239–251.

Christine Senediak


Brown, J. (1999). Bowen family systems theory and practice: Illustration and critique. Austra-lian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 94–103.

Brown, J. (2007). Going home again: a family of origin approach to individual therapy. Psy-chotherapy in Australia, 14, 8–12.

Campbell, J. (2000). Becoming an Effective Supervisor: A Workbook for Counselors and Psycho-therapists. Philadelphia, PA: Accelerated Development.

Carroll, M., & Gilbert, M. (2005). On Being a Supervisee: Creating learning partnerships.London: Vukani Publishing.

Carroll, M., & Gilbert, M. (2008). Becoming an Executive Coachee: Creating Learning Partner-ships. London: Vukani Publishing.

Carroll, M., & Holloway, E. (1999). Counselling Supervision in Context. London, UK: SAGE.

Deveaux, F., & Lubell, I. (1994). Training the supervisor: Integrating a family of originapproach. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16, 291–299.

Epstein, R. (2008). Reflection, perception and the acquisition of wisdom. Medical Education,42, 1048–1050.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004) (Eds.), A Competency-based Approach. WashingtonDC: American Psychological Association.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2007). Competence in competency-based supervisionpractice: Construct and application. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 38, 232–240.

Flaskas, C. (2004). Thinking about the therapeutic relationship: Emerging themes in familytherapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 13–20.

Flaskas, C. (2010). Frameworks for practice in the systemic field: Part 1: Continuities andtransitions in family therapy knowledge. Australian and New Zealand Journal of FamilyTherapy, 31, 232–247.

Flaskas, C. (2012). The space of reflection: Thirdness and triadic relationships in family ther-apy. Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 138–156.

Framo, J. (1992). Family-of-Origin Therapy An Intergenerational Approach. New York, NY:Routledge.

Francis, M. (1988). The skeleton in the cupboard: Experiential genogram work for familytherapy trainees. Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 135–152.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. London,UK: Further Education Unit.

Gilbert, M., & Evans, K. (2000) – Psychotherapy Supervision – An Integrative RelationalApproach to Psychotherapy Supervision. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the Helping Professions: An Organisational,Group and Organisational Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

HETI (2013) http://www.heti.nsw.gov.au/programs/cssp/ (accessed 1 August 2013).

Hickson, H. (2013). Critical reflection: Reflecting on learning to be reflective. Reflective Prac-tice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12, 829–839.

Holloway, E. (1995). Clinical Supervision: A Systems Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Horvath, A. (2001). The therapeutic alliance: Concepts, research and training. Australian Psy-chologist, 36, 170–176.

Hunt, C., & Sharpe, L. (2008). Within-session supervision communication in the training ofclinical psychologists. Australian Psychologist, 43, 121–126.

Inskipp, F. (1999). Training Supervisees to use supervision, in E. Holloway & M. Carroll(Eds.), Training Counseling Supervisors: Strategies, Methods and Techniques. London, UK:Sage.



Johnson, M., Campbell, J., & Masters, M. (1992). Relationship between family-of-origindynamics and a psychologist’s theoretical orientation. Professional Psychology: Research andpractice, 23, 119–122.

Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction – 18 years with IPR, in A. K. Hess (Ed.),Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 262–283). NewYork, NY:Wiley.

Kerr, M. (1984). Theoretical base for differentiation of self in one’s family of origin. The Clin-ical Supervisor, 2, 3–36.

Lambert, M., & Barley, D. (2001). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psy-chotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38, 357–361.

Lichtenstein, A., & Lustig, M. (2006). Integrating intuition and reasoning: How Balint groupscan help medical decision making. Family Physician, 35, 987–989.

Livini, D., Crowe, T., & Gonsalvez, C. (2012). Effects of supervision modality and intensityon alliance and outcomes for the supervisee. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57, 178–186.

Lowe, R., Hunt, C., & Simmons, P. (2008). Towards multi-positioned live supervision infamily therapy: Combining treatment and observation teams with first and second orderperspectives. Contemporary Family Therapy, 30, 3–14.

Mason, B., Gibney, P., & Crago, H. (2002). Family of origin work in training: Essential ordangerous. Australian and New Zeeland Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 45–50.

Mills, J., Francis, K., & Bonner, A. (2005). Mentoring, clinical supervision and preceptoring:clarifying the conceptual definitions for Australian rural nurses. A review of the literature.Rural and Remote Health, 5, 1–10.

Milne, D. (2007). An empirical definition of supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,46, 437–447.

Moffett, L. (2009). Directed self-reflection protocols in supervision. Training and Education inProfessional Psychology, 3, 78–83.

Morrissette, P. (1999). Family therapist self-supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 18, 165–183.Munson, C. (2002). Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision (3rd ed.). Binghamton, NY:

Haworth Press.

Murdock, N., & Gore, P. (2004). Stress, coping, and differentiation of self: A test of Bowentheory. Contemporary Family Therapy, 26, 319–335.

O’Donovan, A., Halford, W., & Walters, B. (2011). Towards best practice supervision of clin-ical psychology trainees. Australian Psychologist, 46, 101–112.

Orchowski, L., Evangelista, N., & Probst, D. (2010). Enhancing supervisee reflectivity in clini-cal supervision: A case study illustration. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training,47, 51–67.

Orlinsky, D., Ronnestad, M., & Willutzki, U. (2004) Fifty years of psychotherapy process-out-come research: continuity and change, in M. J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s Hand-book of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (5th ed., pp. 307–389). New York, NY: Wiley.

Perlesz, A., Young, J., Paterson, R., & Bridge, S. (1994). The reflecting team as a reflection ofsecond order therapeutic ideals. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 15,117–127.

Proctor, B. (1997). Contracting in supervision, in C. Sills (Ed.), Contracts in Counselling (pp.190–206). London, UK: Sage.

Raelin, J. (2002). “I don’t have time to think! versus the art of reflective practice. Reflections,4, 66–75.

Ramos-S�anchez, L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Touster, L, Wright, L., Ratanasiripong,P., & Rodolfa, E. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision and supervi-sory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 197–202.

Christine Senediak


Regan, P. (2008). Reflective practice: How far, how deep?. Reflective Practice, 9, 219–229.Renshall, K., Rhodes, P., Brown, J., Donnelly, M., Donnelly, H., Gosbee, M., Mence, M.,

Milic, M., Treanor, K., & Wainer, D. (2013). Family of origin coaching for clinicians in achild and adolescent mental health service. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35, 684–697.

Rhodes, P., Nge, C., Wallis, A., & Hunt, C. (2011). Learning and living systemic: Exploringthe personal effects of family therapy training. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33(4), 335–347.

Rober, P. (2011). The therapist’s experiencing in family therapy practice. Journal of FamilyTherapy, 33, 233–255.

Roche, A. M., Todd, C., & O’Connor, J. (2007). Clinical supervision in the alcohol and otherdrugs field: An imperative or an option?. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 313–321.

Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., Stevens, C., & Rothman, M. (2008). A Relational approach tosupervision: Addressing ruptures in the alliance, in C. A. Falender & E. P. Shafranske(Eds.), Casebook for Clinical Supervision: A Competency-based Approach (pp. 137–157).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schon, D. (1994). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York,NY: Basic Books.

Scott, K., Ingram, K. M., Vitanza, S., & Smith, N. (2000). Training in supervision: A surveyof current practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 403–422.

Senediak, C. (2013). A reflective practice model of clinical supervision, advances in clinicalsupervision. Advances in Clinical Supervision Monograph, NSW Institute of Psychiatry, 55–62.

Senediak, C., & Bowden, M. (2007). Clinical supervision in advanced training in child andadolescent psychiatry: A reflective practice model. Australasian Psychiatry, 15, 276–280.

Stotltenberg, C. (2005). Enhancing professional competence through developmentalapproaches to supervision. Enhancing professional competence through developmentalapproaches to supervision. American Psychologist, 60, 857–864.

Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5,327–343.

Urdang, E. (1999). The video lab: Mirroring reflections of self and the other, The ClinicalSupervisor. 18, 143–164.

Vandenberghe, L., & da Silveira, J. (2013). Therapist self-as-context and the curative relation-ship. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 43, 159–167.

Ward, C. (1998). Counseling supervision: A reflective model. Counselor Education and Supervi-sion, 38, 23–33.

Watkins, C., & Scaturo, D. (2013). Toward an integrative, learning-based model of psycho-therapy supervision: Supervisory alliance, educational interventions, and supervisee learning/relearning. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 75–95.

Wells, V., Scott, M., Schmeller, L., Hilmann, J., & Searight, R. (1990). The Family-of-originframework: A model for clinical training. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 20, 223–235.

White, E., & Winstanley, J. (2011). Clinical supervision for mental health professionals: Theevidence base. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 14, 73–90.



integrating reflective practice in family therapy supervision

Documents