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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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.
Blevins-Knabe, B. (1992). The ethics of dual relationships in higher education. Ethics & Behavior, 2, 151–163.
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.
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, Missouri
DeJulio, L. M., & Berkman, C. S. (2003). Nonsexual multiple role relationships: attitudes and behaviors of social workers. Ethics & Behavior, 13, 61–78.
Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Giarelli, E., & Tulman, L. (2003). Methodological issues in the use of published cartoon data. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 945–956.
Glass, L. L. (2003). The gray areas of boundary crossings and violations. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 57, 429–444.
Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitative dual relationships: a decision-making model. Psychotherapy, 30, 41–48.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heru, A. M., Strong, D. R., Price, M., & Recupero, P. R. (2004). Boundaries in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 58, 76–89.
Jacobs, C. (1991). Violations of the supervisory relationship: an ethical and educational blind spot. Social Worker, 36, 130–135.
Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: when supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 259–267.
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.
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.
Kitchener, K. S. (1988). Dual role relationships: what makes them so problematic? Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 217–221.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pearson, B., & Piazza, N. (1997). Classification of dual relationships in the helping professions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 89–100.
Pope, K. S. (1991). Dual relationships in psychotherapy. Ethics and Behavior, 1, 22–34.
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.
Smith, M., Freivogel, M.E., & Parrott, S. (2004). Professional status survey 2008. Available at: http://www.nsgc.org
Sonne, J. L. (1994). Multiple relationships: does the new ethics code answer the right questions? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 336–343.
Weil, J. (2000). Introduction to special issue: supervision for practicing genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9, 375–378.
Younggren, J. N., & Gottlieb, N. C. (2004). Managing risk when handling multiple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 255–260.
Acknowledgments
This study was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first author’s Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Minnesota. This study satisfied a pre-dissertation research requirement. We are grateful to the participants for taking the time to share their perceptions and experiences. We also thank the reviewers and the Action Editor for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gu, L., McCarthy Veach, P., Eubanks, S. et al. Boundary Issues and Multiple Relationships in Genetic Counseling Supervision: Supervisor, Non-supervisor, and Student Perspectives. J Genet Counsel 20, 35–48 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9318-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9318-9