This article presents a phenomenological study that was conducted as a series of semi-structured qualitative research interviews with eight student therapists, just two months after their debut in this role. Thematically, the interviews focused on specific examples of good and bad supervisory events. Also included were the importance of peers in the supervision group and the organisational setting of the supervision. The objective was to give detailed descriptions in the form of condensed narratives of each student's preferences concerning supervision. Furthermore, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted, in order to determine what typically characterized this sample. As expected, we both found major individual differences, but also similarities within and across the sample that confirm previous findings in the literature. With respect to the latter, our findings are very close to those in the existing literature in the field. The beginning therapists prefer supervision in which advice and clear and specific instructions are given on how to do the job, where theoretical considerations are included, and the supervisor supports, affirms and structures the sessions. However, of particular interest are the major individual differences that emerged. These are conspicuous in the presented narratives of each student therapist. Thus, to some therapists, seemingly frustrating supervisory experiences turned out to be very helpful. Role modelling and the parallel process also were found to be of importance for learning. A practical implication of these differences is that supervisors should not merely follow the general directions given in the literature for supervising beginning

The aim of this study was to investigate aspects of nondisclosure in a sample of 55 student therapists, working within a group format of supervision. The study constituted one part of a larger study, with the other, parallel part addressing nondisclosure in supervisors. The participants were recruited from seven university-based training clinics in Norway and Denmark. The supervisees answered a questionnaire comprising 11 items about nondisclosure in supervision. The items were answered in a yes/no format, and the respondents were invited to provide examples and justifications for their answers to each item. The examples and justifications provided were analysed in accordance with Hill's guidelines for consensual qualitative research. The study confirmed significant nondisclosure by supervisees in a number of important areas. A high percentage found it difficult to talk about topics related to the supervisory relationship, fearing that they would hurt their supervisor or be met with criticism or interpretation. They were also reluctant to talk to their supervisors about professional matters, particularly related to the perceived incompetence of their supervisors and their expectancy of non-constructive criticism. They felt that their supervisors withheld feedback on their work, as well as advise on what to do, and would like more of this. Several of them thought of the lack of feedback as a conscious strategy helping the students to find out for themselves. A rather striking finding was that a high number of students experienced that the groups became more closed throughout the supervision, and blamed their supervisors for inadequate handling of the group process. This is an issue that needs further exploration.

The aim of this study was to investigate aspects of nondisclosure in a sample of 30 psychotherapy supervisors, working within a group format of supervision of student therapists. The study constituted one part of a larger study, with the other, parallel part addressing nondisclosure in supervisees. The participants were recruited from seven university-based training clinics in Norway and Denmark. The supervisors answered a questionnaire comprising 12 items about feedback withheld by supervisors, supervisors' assumptions about supervisee nondisclosure, supervisors' assumptions about what students think that supervisors withhold, supervisors' use of indirect feedback, and changes in group climate with regard to openness over the course of the supervision. The questionnaire items were answered in a yes/no format, and the respondents were invited to provide examples and justifications for their answers to the individual items. The examples and justifications provided were analysed in accordance with Hill's guidelines for consensual qualitative research. The study confirmed willful and significant nondisclosure by supervisors in a number of important areas, with supervisors having a conscious attitude with regard to what they disclose. To a large extent, they modify their feedback based on assumptions about what will most benefit the individual supervisee's development. Supervisors assume that students act in much the same way, so as not to interfere with the supervisory process. The findings raise the question of whether the widespread cautiousness in terms of

No abstract

In the two preceding papers in this issue of Nordic Psychology the authors report findings from studies of nondisclosure among student therapists and clinical supervisors. The findings were reported separately for each group. In this article, the two sets of findings are compared, so as to draw a picture of mutual assumptions and facts about nondisclosure among students and supervisors.