Active-interactional cotherapy

Hoffman, Seymour; Gafni, Sarah

doi:10.1007/bf00924365

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supervisors intervene through phone‐ins to provide direction, validation, and encouragement (Minuchin, ). Although this method has many advantages over case consultation, possible limitations exist, such as the supervisor remaining in a somewhat removed and hierarchical position, over or microemphasis on a single session (Hoffman & Gafni, ), and minimal discussion that fails to situate “quick pace” phone‐in suggestions within the “context of the session as a whole or of the larger therapeutic process” (McCollum & Wetchler, , p. 157).…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Participant Supervision: Supervisor and Supervisee Experiences of Cotherapy

Falke

Lawson

Pandit

et al. 2013

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participant supervision is a unique application of live supervision in which a supervisor and supervisee see clients conjointly. Although minimally discussed in the family therapy literature, it has notable advantages, chief among them being a shared clinical experience that increases attunement to supervisee skill and development, the modeling of skillful intervention, and a higher degree of collegiality. However, it is not without its challenges, including supervisee vulnerability and anxiety, diffusion of responsibility, and limited time for case discussion. This article highlights the experience of one supervisor and three doctoral-level supervisees engaging in participant supervision over the course of a 2-year period. Using illustrative examples, we discuss our experience of the advantages and challenges of participant supervision, and provide recommendations for establishing a collaborative relational context within which supervisory benefits can be maximized.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Participant Supervision: Supervisor and Supervisee Experiences of Cotherapy

Falke

Lawson

Pandit

et al. 2013

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If transference is not acknowledged and managed, the coleaders may be vulnerable to ineffective interactional patterns (Alpher & Kobos, 1988). Masters and Johnson (1966) adopted dual-gender dyads as a standard coleadership mode, similar to the technique proposed by the Milan group (Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1990); that technique was based on the assumption that multiple perspectives complement each other for greater therapeutic benefit (Bowers & Gauron, 1981;S. Hoffman & Gafni, 1984).…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Group-member benefits from co-led groups include being able to observe and learn from interactions between leaders, finding safety in one or the other leader, and having options for relating to different leadership styles (Fall & Menendez, 2002;Gallogly & Levine, 1979;Roller & Nelson, 1991). Dual-gender dyads can also provide group members with insights into family-of-origin dynamics and modeling of cross-gender communication processes and power dynamics (Brent & Marine, 1982;S. Hoffman & Gafni, 1984;Schopler & Galinsky, 1980).…”

Section: Coleadership Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hoffman & Gafni, 1984;Schopler & Galinsky, 1980). Providing diversity within coleader pairings can also enrich both the group-member experience and the group process (S. Hoffman & Gafni, 1984;Kottler, 1994). These advantages might also be reinforced in counselor preparation courses by the notion that shared leadership responsibility diminishes the potential for unanticipated difficulties in the training experience.…”

Section: Coleadership Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Group Coleadership: A Critical Review

Luke

Hackney

2007

Couns Edu & Supervision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of group literature, much of which is anecdotal or theoretical, revealed that coleadership has been a common practice in training and therapeutic settings for well over 50 years. Careful examination of group practice reveals a surprisingly small amount of empirical evidence to support what apparently is a widely practiced method for the training of group leaders. However, the anecdotal support of group coleader practice is impressive if not convincing. That scholarly work is summarized in this article, and research implications for coleader practice are discussed as they relate to counselor preparation.

show abstract

“…From a pragmatic viewpoint, they represent ways in which a therapist can draw on personal resources to fulfil functions which would otherwise be executed by a co-therapist or team (e.g. Ferrier, 1983;Hoffman and Gafni, 1984). In this respect, they fall into the same category as Simon's (1985) mythical consultant technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three techniques for the solo family therapist

Carr¹

1986

Journal of Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three techniques are described which may be used by family therapists working without the aid of a co‐therapist or team. These are: (1 )the use of a ‘ghost co‐therapist’, (2) the use of the Gestalt therapy ‘empty chair’ technique in developing a systemic hypothesis, and (3) the use of self, the opinions of significant others and research findings to allow conflicting views of the family's dilemma to be presented.

show abstract

Active-interactional cotherapy

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Participant Supervision: Supervisor and Supervisee Experiences of Cotherapy

Participant Supervision: Supervisor and Supervisee Experiences of Cotherapy

Group Coleadership: A Critical Review

Three techniques for the solo family therapist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About