Skip to main content

Asking Questions in Supervision

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Supervision of Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

Part of the book series: Focused Issues in Family Therapy ((FIFT))

Abstract

A central element in supervision is asking the supervisee questions. Questions can be asked both by the supervisor and the other participants in the group. Questions used to be considered a tool to collect relevant information, while in newer years questions are also understood as powerful interventions or as invitations. In this chapter, we take a closer look at different questions a supervisor can ask.

First, we will take a look at meta-questions, which invite to a conversation about conversation. Then we will take a closer look at four different kinds of questions which are asked about the issue, the situation or the story being told, and will keep a particular focus on with which motives the questions are asked, and place the questions in four overarching categories: to map out the situation, to influence the supervisee’s understanding, to complicate the supervisee’s understanding, to explore what works and to find solutions.

The sources we get the questions from are firstly from the Canadian family therapist Karl Tomm, the second source is the Norwegian professor Tom Andersen, who developed the reflective ream. The third source is questions developed within a solution-focused approach, where we in particular use Norwegian and Swedish authors, and the fourth source we draw questions from is the narrative tradition in general, and a Danish book about consultancy work in particular.

As you ask, you will be answered

Norwegian saying

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, T. (2005). Reflekterende processer-Samtaler og samtaler om samtalerne (3rd ed.). København: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27(4), 371–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25–39). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bible, H. (2000). King James version. Richmond, TX: National Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braten, S. (1998). Infant learning by altercentric participation: The reverse of egocentric observation in autism. Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny, 105–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, G. (2013). An approach to community mental health (Vol. 3). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronen, V. E., Chen, V., & Pearce, W. B. (1988). Coordinated management of meaning: A critical theory. Theories in Intercultural Communication, 66–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, G. (2013). The skilled helper: A problem-management and opportunity-development approach to helping. Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1994). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstrup, C., Tomm, K., & Johansen, T. (2008). Interventive interviewing revisited and expanded. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstrup, C., Tomm, K., & Johansen, T. (2009). Kunsten at stille de mest effektfulde spørgsmål i rette tid. s: MacMann Berg, Erhvervspsykologi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korman, H. (2002a). Mirakelfrågan och mirakelskalan. Retrieved from http://www.sikt.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mirakelfragan-och-Mirakelskalan.pdf

  • Korman, J. (2002b). Lösningsfokuserad handledning. In M. Søderquist (Ed.), Möjligheter: Handledning och konsultation i systemteoretiskt perspektiv. Stockholm: Studentlitteratur AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, T. (2009). Hermeneutikk. Om å forstå og fortolke. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langslet, G. J. (1999a). LØFT: løsningsfokusert tilnærming til organisasjonsutvikling, ledelsesutvikling og konfliktløsning. Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langslet, G. J. (1999b). LØFT: løsningsfokusert tilnærming til organisasjonsutvikling, ledelsesutvikling og konfliktløsning. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritzen, P. (2015). Spørgsmål. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, D., Vento, A. D., & Bavelas, J. B. (2005). An interactional model of questions as therapeutic interventions 1. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(4), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01577.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moen, T. (2016). Positive lærer-elev-relasjoner: En fortelling fra klasserommet. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongstad, S. (2004). Språk, kommunikasjon og didaktikk: Norsk som flerfaglig og fagdidaktisk resurs. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, W. B. (1994). Interpersonal communication: Making social worlds. New York: Harper Collins College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schibbye, A.-L. L. (2009). Relasjoner: Et dialektisk perspektiv på eksistensiell og psykodynamisk psykoterapi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, J. (2009). Kan deltakelse i kroppsorienterte og gruppedynamiske oppvarmingsøvelser påvirke intersubjektiv deltakelse i etterfølgende smågruppesamhandling? Master thesis, Oslo University Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjervheim, H. (1957). Deltakar og tilskodar [Participant and observer]. Deltakar og tilskodar og andre essays. Oslo: Tanum-Norli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solem, I. H., & Ulleberg, I. (2013). Hva spør lærere om? In H. Christensen & I. Ulleberg (Eds.), Klasseledelse, fag og danning. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27(1), 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (1989). Systemisk intervjumetodik: En utveckling av det terapeutiska samtalet. Stockholm: Mareld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulleberg, I. (2014). Kommunikasjon og veiledning: En innføring i Gregory Batesons kommunikasjonsteori—Med historier fra veiledningspraksis (2nd ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westmark, T., Nissen, D., Offenberg, L., & Lund-Jacobsen, D. (2012). Konsulent—Men hvordan? Narrativt konsulentarbejde i praksis. København: Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inger Ulleberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ulleberg, I., Jensen, P. (2017). Asking Questions in Supervision. In: Vetere, A., Sheehan, J. (eds) Supervision of Family Therapy and Systemic Practice. Focused Issues in Family Therapy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68591-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics