Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 35–48 | Cite as

Boundary Issues and Multiple Relationships in Genetic Counseling Supervision: Supervisor, Non-supervisor, and Student Perspectives

  • Lidan Gu
  • Patricia McCarthy Veach
  • Sonja Eubanks
  • Bonnie S. LeRoy
  • Nancy Callanan
Original Research

Abstract

Boundary issues and multiple relationships potentially affect all supervision interactions. Boundary crossings are departures from the strictest professional role and may or may not benefit supervisees. Boundary violations are outside common practice and may place supervisees at significant risk. Multiple relationships occur when supervisors concurrently or consecutively hold two or more roles with supervisees. Studies in other fields indicate supervisors and supervisees may be uncertain about professional conduct regarding these issues. In this study, genetic counselor supervisors (n = 126), non-supervisors (n = 72), and genetic counseling students (n = 129) completed an anonymous survey investigating four major questions: 1) Are various boundary issues and multiple relationships perceived as differentially appropriate? 2) Do supervisor, non-supervisor, and student perceptions differ? 3) What challenging situations have respondents experienced? and 4) What management strategies did they use? There was general agreement among groups in their appropriateness ratings of 56 hypothetical supervisor behaviors, although supervisor ratings tended to reflect stricter boundaries regarding the appropriateness of interactions than student ratings. A majority rated unavoidable boundary crossings and supervisor multiple relationships involving an academic relationship as most appropriate, and romantic/sexual multiple relationships and/or boundary violations as least appropriate. Analysis of respondents’ actual challenging situations revealed many involved boundary violations, placed students at risk of harm, and often resulted in student compliance.

Keywords

Clinical supervision Genetic counseling Multiple relationships Boundary issues Boundary violations Ethics 

References

  1. Barnett, J. E., Lazarus, A. A., Vasquez, M. J. T., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., & Johnson, W. B. (2007). Boundary issues and multiple relationships: fantasy and reality. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Biaggio, M., Paget, T. L., & Chenoweth, M. S. (1997). A model for ethical management of faculty-student dual relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blevins-Knabe, B. (1992). The ethics of dual relationships in higher education. Ethics & Behavior, 2, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burian, B. K., & O’Connor Slimp, A. (2000). Social dual-role relationships during internship: a decision making model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callanan, N., Eubanks, S., LeRoy, B.S., & McCarthy Veach, P. (2007). What lies beneath? Hidden dynamics in supervisor/supervisee relationships. Presented at the National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference, Kansas City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  7. DeJulio, L. M., & Berkman, C. S. (2003). Nonsexual multiple role relationships: attitudes and behaviors of social workers. Ethics & Behavior, 13, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giarelli, E., & Tulman, L. (2003). Methodological issues in the use of published cartoon data. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 945–956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Glass, L. L. (2003). The gray areas of boundary crossings and violations. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 57, 429–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitative dual relationships: a decision-making model. Psychotherapy, 30, 41–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottlieb, M. C., Robinson, K., & Younggren, J. N. (2007). Multiple relations in supervision: guidance for administrators, supervisors, and students. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 38, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 188–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1998). Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 409–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (2002). Non-sexual boundary crossings and boundary violations: the ethical dimension. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25, 585–592.Google Scholar
  16. Heru, A. M., Strong, D. R., Price, M., & Recupero, P. R. (2004). Boundaries in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 58, 76–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobs, C. (1991). Violations of the supervisory relationship: an ethical and educational blind spot. Social Worker, 36, 130–135.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: when supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keith-Spiegel, P., Whitley, B. E., Jr., Balogh, D. W., Perkins, D. V., & Wittig, A. F. (2002). The ethics of teaching: A casebook (2nd ed.). Mahweh: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Kertesz, R. (2002). Dual relationships in psychotherapy in Latin America. In A. A. Lazarus & O. Zur (Eds.), Dual relationships and psychotherapy (pp. 329–334). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Kitchener, K. S. (1988). Dual role relationships: what makes them so problematic? Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 217–221.Google Scholar
  22. Ladany, N., Lehrman-Waterman, D., Molinaro, M., & Wolgast, B. (1999). Psychotherapy supervisor ethical practices: adherence to guidelines, the supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindh, H. L., McCarthy Veach, P., Cikanek, K., & LeRoy, B. S. (2003). A survey of clinical supervision in genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarthy Veach, P., & LeRoy, B. S. (2009). Student supervision: Strategies for providing direction, guidance, and support. In W. R. Uhlmann, J. L. Schuette, & B. M. Yashar (Eds.), A guide to genetic counseling (2nd ed., pp. 401–434). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. O’Connor Slimp, P. A., & Burian, B. K. (1994). Multiple role relationships during internships: consequences and recommendations. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 25, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearson, B., & Piazza, N. (1997). Classification of dual relationships in the helping professions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 89–100.Google Scholar
  27. Pope, K. S. (1991). Dual relationships in psychotherapy. Ethics and Behavior, 1, 22–34.Google Scholar
  28. Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: a national survey. American Psychologist, 47, 397–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, M., Freivogel, M.E., & Parrott, S. (2004). Professional status survey 2008. Available at: http://www.nsgc.org
  30. Sonne, J. L. (1994). Multiple relationships: does the new ethics code answer the right questions? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weil, J. (2000). Introduction to special issue: supervision for practicing genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9, 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Younggren, J. N., & Gottlieb, N. C. (2004). Managing risk when handling multiple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lidan Gu
    • 1
  • Patricia McCarthy Veach
    • 1
  • Sonja Eubanks
    • 2
  • Bonnie S. LeRoy
    • 3
  • Nancy Callanan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  3. 3.Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, Institute of Human GeneticsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations