Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Attachment-informed Supervision for Social Work Field Education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clinical Social Work Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supervisory relationships present a new population for the application of attachment theory, and conceptualization of attachment-informed supervision training offers a new direction for study. This paper presents an 8-month model of supervision training for social work field instructors of MSW students. The training’s design incorporates primary attachment concepts with an understanding of the supervisory working alliance and parallel process. An overview of the in-person and on-line pilot training is presented, including perceptions from the participants regarding the training’s usefulness. This training program has implications for effective social work field education, and recommendations are suggested for future attachment research on supervision.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. General and specific attachment styles in field supervision may be determined through empirical research or perceived through interaction and observation. For detailed clinical illustrations of attachment styles and attachment processes in the field supervisory relationship, see Bennett and Saks (2006).

References

  • Abbott, A., & Lyter, S. (1998). The use of constructive criticism in field supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 17, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, J., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Neurobiology for clinical social work: Theory and practice. New York: Norton and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. (2008). The interface of attachment, transference, and countertransference: Implications for the clinical supervisory relationship. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 78(2/3), in press.

  • Bennett, S., & Deal, K. (2008). Beginnings and endings in social work supervision: The interaction between attachment and developmental processes. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(3/4), in press.

  • Bennett, S., Mohr, J., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., & Saks, L. (2008). General and supervision-specific attachment styles: Relations to student perceptions of social work field supervisors. Journal of Social Work Education., in press.

  • Bennett, S., & Saks, L. (2006). A conceptual application of attachment theory and research to the social work student-field instructor supervisory relationship. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

  • Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordin, E. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In: J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, J., & Reid, W. (1998). The task-centered model for field instruction: An innovative approach. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C., Hays, D., & Shoffner, M. (2003). Cross-racial supervision: A developmental approach for white supervisors with supervisees of color. The Clinical Supervisor, 22, 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, B., Marshall, J., & Gordon, L. (2001). Racial and gender biases in supervisory evaluation and feedback. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S., & Bylsma, W. (2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creasey, G., & Ladd, A. (2005). Generalized and specific attachment representations: Unique and interactive roles in predicting conflict behaviors in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1026–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2000). Supervision of students: A map and model for decades to come. Journal of Social Work Education, 19, 437–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, K. (2002). Modifying field instructors’ supervisory approach using stage models of student development. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dettlaff, A., & Dietz, T. (2004). Making training relevant: Identifying field instructor’s perceived training needs. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagle, M. (2003). Clinical implications of attachment theory. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, B., & Collins, N. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base caregiving processes in adulthood. In: S. Rholes & J. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 300–338). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonagy, P. (2003). The development of psychopathology from infancy to adulthood: The mysterious unfolding of disturbance in time. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune, A., & Abramson, J. (1993). Predictors of satisfaction with field practicum among social work students. The Clinical Supervisor, 11, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune, A., McCarthy, M., & Abramson, J. (2001). Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and performance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. (2003). Attachment behavior and psychotherapy supervision. Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 64. (UMI No. 3082649).

  • Fraley, C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: A meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, C., & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, C., & Shaver, P. (1999). Loss and bereavement: Attachment theory and recent controversies concerning “grief work” and the nature of detachment. In: J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 735–759). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganzer, C., & Ornstein, E. (1999). Beyond parallel process: Relational perspectives on field instruction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral system. In: J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649–670). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview: Historical and current perspectives. In: J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 395–433). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, A. (1992). What’s wrong, what’s right with social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 10, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work (4th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klohnen, E., Weller, J., Luo, S., & Choe, M. (2005). Organization and predictive power of general and relationship-specific attachment models: One for all, and all for one? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1665–1682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons-Ruth, K. (1998). Implicit relational knowing: Its role in development and psychoanalytic treatment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 282–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The circle of security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-pre-school child dyads. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCluskey, U. (2005). To be met as a person: The dynamics of attachment in professional encounters. London: Karnac Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munson, C. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision. (3rd ed.). New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neswald-McCalip, R. (1995). Development of the secure counselor: Case examples supporting Pistole & Watkins’s (1995) discussion of attachment theory in counseling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, C. (2002). Using developmental processes in supervision: A psychodynamic approach. The Clinical Supervisor, 21, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogles, B., Anderson, T., & Lunnen, K. (1999). The contribution of models and techniques to therapeutic efficacy: Contradictions between professional trends and clinical research. In: M. Hubble, B. Duncan, & S. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 201–225). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Foster, R. (1998). The clinician’s cultural countertransference: The psychodynamics of culturally competent practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 26, 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistole, C., & Watkins, E. (1995). Attachment theory, counseling process, and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, B. (1942). Learning and teaching in the practice of social work. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, S., & Bretz, K. (2006). Attachment processes in the supervisory relationship: An exploratory investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 558–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. P. (1936). Supervision in social casework. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sable, P. (2000). Attachment and adult psychotherapy. Northvale: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, C. (1989). The process of learning in clinical social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 50, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schamess, G. (2006). On transference enactments in clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 34, 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schore, A. (2000). Attachment and the regulation of the right brain. Attachment & Human Development, 2(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, A. (1999). Attachment theory and research: Implications for the theory and practice of individual psychotherapy with adults. In: J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 575–594). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1993). Interactional supervision. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosone, C. (1997). Countertransference and clinical social work supervision: Contributions and considerations. The Clinical Supervisor, 16, 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J. (1994). Teaching termination to trainees through parallel process in supervision. The Clinical Supervision, 12, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, E. (1995). Pathological attachment styles in psychotherapy supervision. Psychotherapy, 32, 333–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, V., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (1997). On parallel process in social work supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25, 425–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Appreciation is given to Loretta Vitale Saks, Director of Field Education at National Catholic School of Social Service, and Gerald Schamess, Professor Emeritus at Smith College School for Social Work, for their support and suggestions in the creation of this training.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Catholic School of Social Service, The Catholic University of America, 100 Shahan Hall, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, DC, 20064, USA

    C. Susanne Bennett

Authors
  1. C. Susanne Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Susanne Bennett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bennett, C.S. Attachment-informed Supervision for Social Work Field Education. Clin Soc Work J 36, 97–107 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-007-0135-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-007-0135-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation