The issue of borders in supervision process
More details
Hide details
Klinika Psychiatrii Dzieci i Młodzieży UJ CM Pracownia Psychologii i Psychoterapii Systemowej
Klinika Psychiatrii Dzieci i Młodzieży UJ CM Krakowski Instytut Psychoterapii Stowarzyszenia SIEMACHA
Klinika Psychiatrii Dzieci i Młodzieży UJ CM
Marta Agata Szwajca   

Klinika Psychiatrii Dzieci i Młodzieży UJ CM, ul. Brzozowa 17/19, 31-050 Kraków, Polska
Submission date: 2015-12-13
Acceptance date: 2016-05-19
Publication date: 2016-06-19
Psychoter 2016;176(1):59–75
The article presents a discussion of supervisors, representatives of various theoretical perspectives that took place within the Superviser Conference on October 4th 2013 in Bochnia. The point of consideration were various depictions of the supervisory relationship, with particular emphasis on the issue of boundaries between supervision and supervisee's therapy. Supervision is one of the basic forms of teaching psychotherapy, and the most personal. Its axis is the relationship between the supervisee and the supervisor. The intensity of this process, with a high level of mutual exposure and its emotional nature, with the inevitable asymmetries and inequalities, makes this relationship complex and unique. The feelings experienced by the supervisee in the process of therapy are a response to what the patient brings, but also contains the psychotherapist’s personal experience. Clarifying what is personal and what is relational, which is an important objective of supervision, can reveal very private, intimate issues. Hence the substantial question: how to maintain the proper boundary between what should be subject of reflection in light of the supervison and what is appropriate for the psychotherapeutic relationship? The question was answered in a panel discussion involving supervisors, representatives of the main psychotherapeutic approaches. In a multithreaded, personal discussion panelists spoke in favor of clear boundaries and their impermeability, or in favor for impenetrability as one of the variants, and not of any particular value. There was also talk of interactivity and processuality of supervision, it’s accountability, the need for awareness and self-restraint of the supervisor.