Ipr: Recalling Thoughts and Feelings in Supervision. Readings for Child and Youth Care Workers, 33.
Mind to this
supervision
IPR: Recalling thoughts and feelings in supervision
Craig Due south. Cashwell
Some recent models of counseling supervision have tended to exist task oriented, emphasizing such competencies every bit case conceptualization and the attending skills of the counselor. Nevertheless, attending is also needed to increase counselor cocky-awareness regarding the therapeutic relationship. Interpersonal Process Retrieve (IPR) is a supervision strategy adult past Norman Kagan and colleagues that empowers counselors to understand and act upon perceptions to which they may otherwise not attend. The goals of IPR are to increase counselor sensation of covert thoughts and feelings of customer and self, practice expressing covert thoughts and feelings in the here and now without negative consequences, and, consequently, to deepen the advisor/customer relationship.
Discussion
IPR is congenital around the notion that counselors' selective perceptions of surface problems block their therapeutic efforts more than whatsoever other variable (Bernard, 1989). IPR is based on two elements of homo beliefs: that people need each other and that people learn to fear each other. Kagan (1980) proposed that people can be the greatest source of joy for 1 another. However, because a person's earliest imprinted experiences are every bit a small being in a large person'southward world, inexplicit feelings of fear and helplessness may persist throughout one's life. These fears are virtually oft unlabeled and uncommunicated. This combination of needing but fearing others results in an approach-avoidance syndrome as persons search for a �safe" psychological altitude from others. As a result, people oft behave diplomatically.
Kagan (1980) believed the �diplomatic" behavior of counselors is expressed in two ways: �feigning of clinical naivete" and tuning out client messages. Feigning clinical naivete, most often an indication that counselors are unwilling to become involved with clients at a certain level, occurs when counselors act as if they did not empathise the pregnant behind client statements. Tuning out occurs almost often among inexperienced counselors who are engrossed in their own thought process, trying to determine what to do next. The event is that the counselor misses messages from the client, some of which may seem obvious to the supervisor. Thus, a wealth of textile in counseling sessions is acknowledged past neither the customer nor the counselor. Interactions occur on many levels, simply clients and counselors label simply a express range of these interactions (Kagan, 1980). IPR is designed to assist counselors become more attuned to dynamics of the advisor/client relationship that they may be missing due to their tendency toward diplomatic behavior.
In IPR, counselors (and sometimes clients) reexperience the counseling session via videotape or audiotape in a supervision session that can exist characterized by a supportive and nonthreatening environment. The supervisor functions as a consultant, taking on the office of inquirer during the IPR session. Because the supervisee is considered to be the highest potency almost the experiences in the counseling session, the inquirer does non attempt to teach the counselor or ask leading questions (Bernard, 1989), only rather adopts a learning-past-discovery philosophy and functions in an believing and even confrontive, merely nonjudgemental, capacity (Kagan, 1980).
Steps in conducting IPR
IPR is most often conducted with the counselor alone, just in some instances the inquirer may come across with the advisor and his/her customer or with the client lone. Mutual recall sessions often help counselors acquire to communicate with clients about the hither-and-now of their interaction for future counseling sessions.
The following steps are intended as a guideline for conducting a call back session:
1. Review the tape (sound or video) prior to the supervision session. Equally it is not typically possible to review the unabridged tape during the call up session, information technology is important to preselect sections of tape that are the most interpersonally weighted (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). If it is not possible to preview the record, ask the supervisee to preselect a section of tape for the recall session.
2. Introduce the call up session to the supervisee and create a nonthreatening surroundings, emphasizing that there is more cloth in any counseling session than a counselor can perchance attend to, and that the purpose of the session is to reflect on thoughts and feelings of the customer and the counselor during the session that will be reviewed.
3. Begin playing the tape; at advisable points, either person stops the tape and asks a relevant lead (see below) to influence the discovery process. If the supervisee stops the tape, he/she will speak first about thoughts or feelings that were occurring AT THAT TIME in the counseling session. The supervisor facilitates the discovery process by asking relevant open-ended questions (run into beneath). During this menses of inquiry, attend to supervisee'south nonverbal responses and process any incongruence between nonverbal and verbal responses.
4. During the recall session, practise not prefer a instruction style and teach the supervisee about what they could have done differently. Rather, let the supervisee to explore thoughts and feelings to some resolution (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). This is often more difficult than information technology seems.
Inquirer leads
Questions can exist worded to enhance supervisees' awareness of their blind spots at their own level of readiness and capability (Borders & Leddick, 1987)(due east.thousand., focus on client nonverbals versus advisor's internal reaction to the customer). To farther an understanding of the inquirer role, the following inquirer leads are provided from various sources (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Borders & Leddick, 1987; Kagan, 1980):
1. What do you wish y'all had said to him/her?
ii. How practice yous remember he/she would take reacted if you had said that?
3. What would have been the risk in maxim what you wanted to say?
4. If y'all had the risk now, how might you tell him/her what you are thinking and feeling?
five. Were in that location any other thoughts going through your mind?
6. How did you want the other person to perceive you lot?
7. Were those feelings located physically in some part of your body?
8. Were yous aware of any feelings? Does that feeling accept whatever special meaning for you?
9. What did y'all want him/her to tell you lot?
10. What do you think he/she wanted from you?
11. Did he/she remind you of anyone in your life?
Conclusion
IPR, then, provides supervisees with a safe place to examine internal reactions through reexperiencing the encounter with the customer in a process recall supervision session. IPR also has been shown to be useful in supervisor-supervisee relationships (Bernard, 1989), group supervision (Gimmestad and Greenwood, 1974), and peer supervision (Kagan, 1980).
Inquiry has consistently supported the use of IPR as an constructive medium for supervision. For case, Kagan and Krathwohl (1967) and Kingdon (1975) institute that clients of counselors existence supervised with an IPR format fared meliorate than clients of counselors supervised past other methods. The model has been demonstrated to exist effective with experienced counselors, entry-level counselors and paraprofessionals (Bernard, 1989). It is possible, yet, to magnify the interpersonal dynamics between the advisor and client to the point of distortion (Bernard and Goodyear, 1992). Thus, IPR is non recommended equally the sole approach to supervision. Used finer and in conjunction with other supervision approaches, IPR provides counselors with the opportunity to confront their interpersonal fears, empathize circuitous counselor/client dynamics, and maximize the interpersonal run across with their clients (Kagan, 1980).
References
Bernard, J. M. (1989). Training supervisors to examine relationship issues using IPR. The Clinical Supervisor, 7, 103-112.
Bernard, J. 1000., & Goodyear,R. Thousand. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borders, 50. D., & Leddick, G. R. (1987). Handbook of counseling supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
Gimmestad, M. J., & Greenwood, J. D. (1974). A new twist on IPR: Concurrent recall past supervisory group. Counselor Educational activity and Supervision, 14, 71-73.
Kagan, Due north. (1980). Influencing human interaction--Eighteen years with IPR. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and do (pp. 262-283). New York: Wiley.
Kingdon, Grand. A. (1975). A price/do good analysis of the Interpersonal Process Recall technique. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 353-357.
This is an ERIC Digest
Source: https://cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-1001-supervision.html