Intersectioning Connections in Group Supervision: Negotiating Power to Create Possibility

1. Intersectioning Connections in Group Supervision:Negotiating Power to Create Possibility Catherine Butler University of Bath c.a.butler@bath.ac.uk

2. Overview / learning outcomes • To take you on a journey of considering power in group supervision • How do you currently think about this? • What might you try that is different? • What will you take away from today?

3. Systemic ideas about group supervision • The power of multiple perspectives can be both generative and oppressive(Pare, 2016) • Supervisors should not dominate discussions as the wide range of life experiences of group members is a resource Hawkins & Shohet (2012) • ‘the features of the supervisor’s role which render it distinct, including the “gatekeeping” dimension, and the assumption of liability for the practice of group members, hover in the background, but do not necessitate a form and style of participation that sets them apart from others in the room’ (Pare, 2016. pg283)

4. A collaborative approach Early feminist perspectives on collaborative supervision • Instead of supervisor power ‘over’ a supervisee, stand beside supervisees and enhance their power (Goodrich, 1991) • Relational (Surrey, 1991) or shared power (Miller, 1991) within a connected relationship

5. But… • The supervision task of evaluation and gatekeeping necessitates a judgement made by the supervisor of the supervisee that does not ‘hover in the background’ • Supervisors must balance between their own powerful position in monitoring and guiding supervisees’ learning and supporting supervisees to find their own power as therapists (Nelson, 1997) • Early (white) feminist papers were often written in a vacuum of attending to other power relationships such as race, class and sexuality

6. Arguments for being hierarchical • The supervisor is afforded power because of their greater experience, training and their evaluative role • Supervisors are clinically responsible for clients; compounded in an educational setting by assigning grades • Such evaluation involves hierarchical observation and ‘normalizing judgement … to ensure that the knowledge and practice of the therapist meet the essential norms of the profession’ (Fine & Turner, 2014; pg. 298) • Women supervisors in particular how a ‘duty’ to model the use of personal power and expertise as a feminist act (Ault-Riche, 1988; Avis, 1988; Libow, 1986; Nelson, 1991)

7. Working collaboratively and a hierarchical ‘gate-keeper’ role… Where do you position yourself? Collaborative Hierarchical Supervision Supervision

8. Both / And • ‘the supervisory relationship is shaped both by contexts of assessment – coherent with a modernist story of education, and stories of collaboration – coherent with a postmodernist story of education’ (Burnham, Palma & Whitehouse, 2008; pg. 538) • The key is to achieve collaboration within hierarchies, as these relationships cannot be removed

9. Types of power/knowledge • Fine & Turner (2014) distinguish ‘evaluative power’, of which there are tangible consequences for supervisees, from ‘knowledge power’ used when working collaboratively • ‘Knowledge power’ is awarded to those recognised as holding valued and specialised knowledge • In hierarchical supervision this power is held by the supervisor by virtue of their superior training and therapy experience; a ‘banking model’ of education (Belenky et al., 1986) • However, current supervision practices have shifted from first-order learning to second-order ‘learning how to learn’, through drawing on personal experience within and outside the supervision group (Laird, 1998) • Collaborative supervision recognises all participants bring subjective knowledge

10. Intersecting GRACES (and more!) • However, those with marginalised voices are often passed over as their knowledge holds less ‘social currency’ (Fine & Turner, 2014; pg. 300) • In group supervision, all members will have multiple lived experiences of both privilege and oppression that if seen as a resource can lead to mutual learning and transformation • Both power positions are important to explore • This develops a ‘critical consciousness’ (Freire, 1970) to acknowledge and unpack a person’s social location

11. Your intersecting positions of power • What are the positions you occupy that put you in a privileged position in supervisory relationships? • What are the positions you occupy that put you in an oppressed/silenced position in supervisory relationships? • How does the interplay between these different positions impact on your as a supervisor? – Consider this in relation to 2 different supervisees • How might this impact on the supervisee’s therapy with the client? • How was it to have this conversation?

12. Discomfort warning! • Such conversations in group supervision are not comfortable, Nixon (2004) suggests that the initial response is often fear, silence and anger • hooks (1994) warns that classrooms [and supervision groups] will echo wider oppressive social discourses, and so it should be expected that discord and discomfort will occur • Our challenge as supervisors is to create an environment of respect and safety so that this can be unpacked and explored

13. Safety • Group supervision can elicit stronger feelings than individual supervision: highlights the need for safety Hawkins & Shohet (2012) • How safe the group feels depends in part on what participants predict will happen if they take a risk and how tensions between group members will be held and resolved = Supervisor needs to hold their powerTurner & Avis (2003) • A safe space is thus not about feeling comfortable; paradoxically unless there is some risk-taking the group will feel unsafeHawkins & Shohet (2012) • Importance of relational safety, which builds over time as participants demonstrate that they care for each otherHernandez & Rankin (2008)

14. Safety in group supervision • It is not possible for everyone to feel safe all the time (Turner & Avis, 2003), but is the group ‘safe enough’? • hooks (1994) suggests that rather than focus on safety, focus instead on developing ‘a feeling of community creates a sense that there is shared commitment and a common good that binds us’ (pg. 40) • A collaborative endeavour is thus vital Nixon et al. (2010) • This is helped by the group’s sense of working together towards clearly defined shared goals that could not be achieved by the supervisor alone - that everyone is ‘mutually accountable’ Hawkins & Shohet (2012)

15. Possible outcomes for the group • If we can encourage supervisees to share their subjective knowledge and for the group to honour this, creates a sense of community and a ‘laboratory of diversity’ (Nixon et al., 2010; pg. 203) • In being able to openly discuss oppression and discrimination, supervisees have reported greater satisfaction with supervision and feel more equipped to work with their clients facing these issues (Green & Dekkers, 2010; Inman, 2005) • There is a commitment to the developing relationship with a view to maintaining this when the going gets tough (Prouty, 2001) and for all those involved to be open to being transformed through the process

16. Possible outcomes for the supervisor • Fine & Turner (2014) describe this experience as to find oneself ‘disrupted – feeling challenged and stretched’ (pg. 311) • However, they welcome this unsettling feeling, taking it as an ‘indication of mutual, intense learning and … a sign of effective collaborative supervision’ (pg. 311)

17. So where are you now? Collaborative Hierarchical Supervision Supervision • Have you moved? Why yes, why no?

18. Self-reflexivity as a key to creating collaborative group supervision • Allows supervisees to tap into their ‘emotional understanding of the dynamics of power’ (Divac & Heaphy, 2005; pg. 281) and in sharing this learn about others’ lived experience • Avoids positioning those from minority groups as experts or ‘the native informant’ (hooks, 1994), which can make them ‘prisoners of identity’Radovanovic (1993) • The position described above continues the lack of initiative by those in power to initiate these conversations (Burnham & Harris, 2002) and places those within the minority in a vulnerable position of having to ‘explain themselves’ to those with more power (Akamatsu, 1998)

19. Being a transparent supervisor • Models doing this for the group • Cultural Context Model of working with difference (Almeida, 2004), three core elements: intersectionality, ethics and the use of self VS (?) • ‘withholding, with-holding’ (Burnham & Harris, 2002; pg. 31) - the supervisor does not immediately voice their views, but instead supports the group to sit with their discomfort and deconstruct what is behind privilege and oppression and use self-reflexivity regarding participants’ own positions in relation to this • Are these oppositional positions?

20. Self as a supervisor exercise Supervisors should use self-reflexivity to examine how their ‘preferred ideas and beliefs impact the supervision conversation … to what extent do they constrain and to what extent do they illuminate?’ (Fine & Turner, 2014; pg. 301) • What are your preferred ideas/models/beliefs? • When might you be transparent about these? • When might you ‘withhold’ these? • When might these be a constraining rather than illuminating influence in supervision? • What can you do about it?

21. Thank you for coming c.a.butler@bath.ac.uk