Theoretical frameworks for group supervision

This section examines two main theoretical frameworks for group supervision: Proctor & Inskipp’s (2001) Russian Dolls framework and Hawkins & Shohet’s (2006) concentric rings framework. The two frameworks are compared with one another, and similarities and differences are drawn out.

Proctor & Inskipp (2001) use Russian Dolls as a framework for the interdependence of the various agreements that are needed between supervisors and supervisees if there is to be a group working alliance. This is represented as follows:

1. the largest Russian Doll contains the professional contract 2. the second Russian Doll contains the group working agreement 3. the third contains the session agenda

4. the fourth represents the uncontracted space where the supervisor balances the needs of the group members and the tasks to be supervised

5. the fifth Russian Doll contains the mini-contract for a particular piece of supervision that is brought to the group

The professional Group working Session Uncontracted Mini contract agreement agenda space contract Diagram 1: Russian Dolls representing the agreements and alliances within group supervision (Proctor & Inskipp, 2001, p.106)

Hawkins & Shohet (2006) have a similar framework containing four concentric rings to represent the supervision processes in group supervision. However, their model is taken from the perspective of the group supervisor. Hawkins & Shohet view the central inner ring as the core skills of reflective supervision that are used in supervision one-to-one. However, within a group the group supervisor has to facilitate the responses of the group. This has parallels with Proctor & Inskipp’s (2006) third and fourth Russian Dolls of the session agenda and the uncontracted space. The third contextual ring is managing the group dynamics and attending to the developmental stage of the group. This has similarities to the second Russian Doll and the group working agreement in Proctor & Inskipp’s model (2001). The outer ring has similarities to the largest Russian Doll, the professional contract in Proctor & Inskipp’s model (2001).

Space for reflective supervision

Diagram 2: The concentric rings of group supervision process (Hawkins & Shohet, p155)

Diagram 2: The concentric rings of group supervision process (Hawkins & Shohet, p155)

The key texts on group supervision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006, Proctor & Inskipp, 2001 and Scaife, 2001) all highlight the professional contract as critical within the process. Proctor & Inskipp (2001) describe the professional contract as containing the following non-negotiable parameters of the group supervision process:

The key texts on group supervision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006, Proctor & Inskipp, 2001 and Scaife, 2001) all highlight the professional contract as critical within the process. Proctor & Inskipp (2001) describe the professional contract as containing the following non-negotiable parameters of the group supervision process:

ƒ accountability of supervisor and supervisees; ƒ accountability of supervisor and supervisees; ƒ the conventions of confidentiality;

ƒ the conventions of confidentiality;

ƒ Codes of Ethics and Practice that all are working with; and ƒ Codes of Ethics and Practice that all are working with; and

Facilitating group responses Attending to group dynamics and development Managing group contract and organisational boundaries

ƒ supervisor and supervisee rights, responsibilities and communication with managers.

Proctor & Inskipp (2001) use the metaphor of the largest Russian Doll as the professional contract and suggest it should be given in writing prior to the start of the group and needs time to be digested. Similarly, Hawkins & Shohet (2006) emphasise the importance of how a group is first contracted and suggest the following questions to guide this stage:

ƒ How are the size and membership of the group to be determined? ƒ Who decides if it is an open or closed group?

ƒ What messages are given to group members about their membership and expected attendance?

These questions show similarities to Proctor & Inskipp’s non-negotiable parameters, as both create the intention of and boundaries to the group. Hawkins & Shohet (2006) emphasise that the professional contract is not a rigid set of rules to adhere to, but should be viewed as an important part of contracting the work with the group. Scaife (2001) emphasises that the professional contract underpins the establishment of a good working alliance. Similarly, Norwich & Daniels (1997) emphasised that how schools find out about Teacher Support Teams (TSTs) or are briefed on the TSTs’ significance, value and implications was critical in whether schools decided to develop a TST or not. Farouk (2004) emphasises that an essential prerequisite for effective group work is the two-part entry phase where the group supervisor must firstly develop the support of the management team through the professional contract

and then gain commitment of those who may attend the group through the group working agreement.

The group working agreement is represented by the second Russian Doll, and contains the next level of detail needed to allow a working alliance. Proctor & Inskipp (2001) suggest there are four aspects to this. These are:

ƒ the type of group (authoritative, participative, co-operative or peer); ƒ the working arrangements for the group (duration, frequency); ƒ the ground rules of the group; and

ƒ the individual responsibility of the participants.

This has similarities to Hawkins & Shohet’s second and third concentric circles which examines how the group supervisor facilitates group responses and attends to the group dynamics and development.

The ground rules of the group are an aspect of the group working agreement. Hawkins & Shohet (2006) believe the group rules play an important role in setting up a safe climate for the supervisees to open their work to others, as this can be a process that can cause anxiety and fear. They suggest that the group rules can help prevent destructive group processes, but also encourage risk-taking alongside the need for safety. It is interesting to note that they also view the ‘goodwill’ of the group as essential to making the group supervision process work and suggest this can be encouraged by a reminder that everyone present shares the same goals and is there help one another. Kearney & Turner (1987) state that the function of ground rules is to:

“…facilitate communication, trust, self-disclosure, to encourage participants to take responsibility for their own learning….” (p.20)

Newton (1995) and Evans (2005) maintain that effective group work requires clear boundaries and this is best achieved through negotiated and agreed ground rules. Similarly, Proctor (2000) asserts that ground rules can support the group in having ‘good group manners’ within the group supervision sessions and help promote an atmosphere of empathy, respect and authenticity. Proctor & Inskipp (2001) suggest that within a Type 2 or 3 group – as the group within the present study was intended to be – the ground rules should include respecting time, task and other people’s opinions, and clarifying what is meant before disagreeing, advising or suggesting. Similarly, Newton (1995) had ground rules to avoid members of the group giving advice to others that may lead them to feel deskilled or disempowered, and therefore suggests statements have to be personally owned. Hawkins & Shohet (2006) promote a useful ground rule is to ensure feedback from group members is owned, balanced and specific.

This section has compared Proctor & Inskipp’s (2001) theoretical framework with Hawkins & Shohet (2006) and illustrated the high level of similarity between them. Both emphasise the importance of the initial contracting stage for group supervision, including negotiating the professional contract, group working agreement and ground rules for the group.