Asking a supervisee to co-present at a conference is a situation where the boundary of supervision is extended and may actually be helpful to the supervisee’s professional development. It becomes a concern if the supervisee feels pressured to agree to co-present or is subtly threatened with a poor evaluation if they refuse. A common situation in real-world environments is when a supervisor serves simultaneously as clinical and administrative supervisor. In the role of clinical supervisor, the supervisee’s professional development is central. In the role of administrative supervisor, however, the employer or agency’s needs are central. These competing roles have the potential for exploitation due to power issues and could also stifle the supervisee’s willingness to be open in clinical supervision out of fear of administrative reprisal. Open and frank discussion about the boundaries of each role based on ethical guidelines is critical. They further encourage the use of ethical decision-making models when considering a boundary crossing in supervision. Hooley (2019) discusses boundaries from the supervisee perspective that contribute to an effective and productive supervisory relationship. She experienced an unhealthy supervision experience that highlighted the power of a supervisor to push professional boundaries. The supervisor asked for invitations to her life events, shared details of his sexual life, and set up inappropriate expectations for them to interact at professional conferences. He arranged for supervision to take place at restaurants so that they could share meals, and he repeatedly asked to “friend” her on social media. While these behaviors may have been intended as collegial and friendly on the part of the supervisor, they created a sense of anxiety, confusion, and fear of the supervision process for the supervisee. Boundary issues are not always as clear when actively involved in the situation, which makes having detailed expectations from the onset of the supervisory relationship crucial for providing and evaluating boundaries and guidelines.
This does not mean that boundaries must be entirely rigid and unbending. For example, although supervisor self- disclosure is typically looked upon as a boundary crossing, Boyle and Kenny (2020) point out that 91% of trainees reported that their supervisor had self-disclosed during supervision. They point out that supervisor self-disclosure can normalize and validate the experience of the supervisee, and it can teach and build rapport. However, it may not be viewed as helpful when the focus shifts from the supervisee and their development on to the supervisor. The purpose, timing, and intent of the self-disclosure is important, and it can be an effective teaching tool when used appropriately. It can be used to provide feedback to the supervisee, it can strengthen the supervisory relationship, it can promote supervisee self-disclosure, and it can normalize supervisee experiences (Clevinger et al., 2019). The boundary question, therefore, is related to how much, and what type, of self- disclosure is appropriate. When considering the use of self-disclosure in the supervision relationship, reflecting on its purpose can help guide the supervisor. Is the self-disclosure for the benefit of the supervisee, or is it a way of relieving the supervisor, for example, relieving feelings of guilt over a past therapy error. Sharing a past reaction to a therapy client with a particular diagnosis or behavior, providing an example of a clinical mistake and how it was addressed, or discussion of one’s boundaries set with clients may all be appropriate use of self-disclosure and may assist in the supervisee’s professional development. Conversely, sharing one’s personal reactions to past clients when the situations are unrelated to the supervisee experience likely crosses a boundary. Ultimately, supervision is a unique type of multiple relationship that must be guided by the same boundary principles as therapy. As with all potential boundary crossings, it is important to evaluate the risks, benefits, timing, and motivations underlying any potential crossing.
CULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND BOUNDARIES
Cultural competence in therapy involves the healthcare professionals’ understanding of the beliefs, norms, and values of the client in the context of their cultural history. This understanding is a necessary component for effective therapy as it helps the therapist to be aware and sensitive to how the client’s cultural history impacts their needs and response to therapy. Cultural considerations include numerous facets such as age, race, nation of origin, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, and disability. Corey and Corey (2021) point out that to be effective in therapy, clinicians must be aware of their own assumptions, biases, and values, and they must be aware of their client’s cultural values and beliefs. Only with this knowledge can the clinician develop culturally appropriate, relevant, and sensitive strategies for interacting in the therapy relationship. Boundary decisions are complex and are only compounded when multicultural factors must be considered. The understanding of cultural differences is crucial when evaluating for boundary crossings and boundary violations. Mosher and colleagues (2017) point out that cultural competence is only the beginning since it focuses on how the client’s culture affects therapy in general terms. Cultural humility instead focuses on the process, values, and interactions between therapist and the specific client with the goal of an appreciation of how cultural values and beliefs enhance the therapy process. By understanding culture in general, and the client’s experience in that culture specifically, the therapist lowers the risk of unintentional boundary crossings or violations. Understanding of, and
attention to, culture also lowers the risk of microaggressions, situations where potentially unconscious, subtle, or prejudicial behavior occurs out of choice of words or body posture. By continuously monitoring communication style and behavior, the clinician stays mindful of their impact on clients from different cultural backgrounds. Boundary crossings can be subtle, like choice of words or body posture. Boundary crossings can also be more direct. Think about the following in terms of your understanding of ethical boundaries in therapy. Is this a boundary crossing? Is this an unethical boundary violation? Is this acceptable in the therapy relationship? 1. In some African cultures, counseling is expected to include activities outside of the office including shared meals, rituals, or singing. 2. In some cultures, self-disclosure by the therapist is customary and expected as a way of strengthening the therapy bond. 3. Some cultures use bartering as a standard practice for payment of services. 4. In some cultures that are more collectivist, the younger generation is expected to be deferent to authority figures. These examples highlight the importance of appreciating cultural context when evaluating boundary crossings and determining whether they are helpful or harmful to the therapeutic relationship.
Page 79
Book Code: PYTX1325
EliteLearning.com/Psychology
Powered by FlippingBook