Missing Cues: An Exploration of Nonverbal Communication among Dyads in Constructivist Clinical Supervision

by

Serina M.R. Tetenov

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Degree Requirements for

Doctor of Philosophy

Supervised by

Professor Douglas Guiffrida

Education

Warner School of Education

University of Rochester Rochester, New York

2019

ii

Dedication

This is dedicated to my mother, Glenda J. Ragland. To my father, Eugene R. Ragland. To

Alexei R. Tetenov, my infinite source of love and support. And, most of all, to my

children, my life forces, the absolute air that I breathe, Camden and Hayden.

iii

Table of Contents

Biographical Sketch vii

Acknowledgements ix

Abstract xi

Contributors and Funding Sources xiii

List of Tables xiv

List of Diagrams xv

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Statement of Problem 1

Nonverbal Communication 4

Purpose of Study and Research Question 7

Positionality of the Researcher 8

Theoretical Framework 9

Constructivism 10

Constructivist Epistemology. 12

Social Constructionism. 13

Kinesics Theory 14

Methods 15

Summary 17

Chapter 2: Literature Review 19

Definition of Nonverbal Communication 19

iv

A Brief History of Nonverbal Communication and its Role in Counseling 21

Perceptions of Meaning in Nonverbal Communication and Counseling 23

Making Meaning of Communicative Functions in Nonverbal Communication 24

Semantic Content 25

Adaptors 26

Symbolic Gestures 26

Conversational Gestures 26

Components of Nonverbal Communication 27

Paralanguage 27

Proxemics 29

Kinesics 31

Macro-Mediated Social Factors that Influence Nonverbal Communication in Supervision

32

Power Dynamics 33

Culture 34

Gender 35

Sexuality 37

Age 38

The Dyadic Effect 40

Summary 48

v

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 49

Rationale for Qualitative Methods 49

Research Design 53

Recruitment Procedures and Participants 55

Data Collection 56

Memos 63

Data Analysis 63

Establishing Trustworthiness 66

Summary 70

Chapter 4: Findings 71

Dyad Story 1: International Experience 72

Background 72

The Story 73

Summary 80

Dyad Story 2: Maintaining Balance 83

Background 83

The Story 84

Summary 90

Dyad Story 3: Being Unprepared 92

Background 92

vi

The Story 93

Summary 99

Dyad Story 4: Gender and LGBTQ 101

Background 101

The Story 101

Summary 110

Dyad Story 5: Wanting More 112

Background 112

The Story 113

Summary of Findings 120

Summary 124

Chapter 5: Discussion 124

Relationship Between Nonverbal Communication and Disclosure 125

An Understanding of Effective and Ineffective Uses of Silence 135

An Understanding of the Importance of High and Low Context Communication 142

Implications for Future Practice and Research 147

Limitations 149

Conclusion 151

References 152

Appendices 166

vii

Biographical Sketch

The author was born in Rochester, NY. She received an Associate of Applied Arts and

Sciences degree in Educational Sign Language Interpreting and a Bachelor of Science

degree in Psychology from Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in 1995 and 2000

respectively. She worked as a Sign Language Interpreter at RIT, specializing in Science

and Engineering, and also worked as an Educational Sign Language Interpreter through

the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) in Rochester, NY. The author

later pursued graduate education at Nazareth College of Rochester and earned a Master of

Social Work degree in 2002. She then became a Licensed Clinical Social Worker

(LCSW) and held positions as a Mental Health Therapist, Psychiatric Assignment

Officer, and Medical Social Worker. Her most recent professional role is Clinical

Evaluator in the Psychiatric Emergency Department at the University of Rochester

Medical Center. In 2011, the author began doctoral studies in Education with a

concentration in Counseling at the University of Rochester. As a doctoral student, she

took on several roles including Graduate Assistant, Clinical Coordinator, and Doctoral

Supervisor under the direction of Dr. Karen Mackie. She also worked as a Graduate

Teaching Assistant to Dr. Douglas Guiffrida and Dr. Karen Mackie in the following

courses: Counseling Practicum, Counseling Theory and Practice 1, and Counseling

Communication Skills. The author pursued her research in Counselor Education under

the direction of Dr. Douglas Guiffrida.

The following publication was a result of work conducted during doctoral study:

Duffy, J. T., Guiffrida, D. A., Araneda, M. E., Tetenov, S. M., & Fitzgibbons, S. C. (2017). A qualitative study of the experiences of counseling students who

viii

participate in mindfulness-based activities in a counseling theory and practice course. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 39(1), 28-42.

ix

Acknowledgements

I cannot fully express the amount of gratitude I have for all who have been a part

of this journey with me. There are so many people who have helped me from the very

beginning and who never gave up on me along the way. Even when I believed my dreams

were impossible, I was consistently reminded that nothing is impossible.

First and foremost, I must acknowledge my very large family. Thank you to my

late parents, my eight siblings, and my niece who is like a little sister to me, for planting

roots and allowing me to grow beside you. Thank you for watering my spirit and

shedding light on the dark days. I acknowledge your presence and, because of you, life

looks great from here. So, thank you Mom, Dad, Eugene Jr., Janet, Regina, Sheila,

Tawnya, Veronica, Vincent, my twin sister Selina, and my niece, Saunya.

Thank you, Alexei, for being the best father to our children and for your never-

ending love, support, and enduring confidence in my abilities. Thank you for seeing this

thing through with me and for keeping life running smoothly in every way imaginable. I

could have not done this without you. I am forever grateful. Thank you to my two

incredibly happy, fun, hilarious, and resilient sons, Camden and Hayden, who grew up

sharing space with my journey and who have now outgrown the limits it set upon them.

We made it guys. This is your time. Spread your wings and fly!

An astounding thank you to the members of my dissertation committee: Douglas

Guiffrida, Kathryn Douthit, and Carol Podgorski. I am grateful beyond measure for such

wonderful examples of professionalism and commitment to high academic standards. I

am especially honored and grateful to you, Doug. I could not have asked for a better

x

dissertation advisor as your encouragement, patience, wisdom, and support is what fueled

my drive to get to the beginning; not the end. In my lowest moments I heard your voice,

“don’t quit!” I am forever indebted and will pay it forward in all that I do.

I recognize that the love and support of my friends helped me to remain motivated

and, because of their unwavering support, I believed that this great accomplishment was

possible. Thank you, Monica Devine-Haley, for believing in me, for being so very

amazing since the very first day we met, and for always telling me, no matter where I was

in my journey, “You’re in the home stretch.” Thank you, Nahoko Kawakyu-O’Connor,

for those early days, generously sharing your craft with me, and for selflessly giving of

yourself to help me succeed. Thank you, Yen Verhoven, for being the absolute best

writing partner and friend to me throughout this entire process. Your enduring support

and your willingness to share all that you learned with me means more than you will ever

know. To William Turner, Shufang Dong, Marcy Berger, Farzana Hafsa, and Hennessey

Lustica, you have been there from the very beginning. It is your dear friendships that

lifted me up and continuously helped me toward reaching my goal. Thanks for always

being there. Finally, to all of my friends, family, and the University of Rochester

community, the impact you have made on my life is immeasurable. You are my tribe and

I am so very fortunate to know that our connection is infinite. Thank you.

xi

Abstract

Nonverbal communication is a natural part of the interpersonal communication process.

While senders and receivers often focus on verbal aspects of the messages they

encounter, other aspects of communication, such as body language and voice inflection,

serve to influence how messages are understood and, ultimately, how the receiver of the

message responds. In clinical supervision settings, nonverbal communication occurs

equally within the dyadic relationship between supervisor and supervisee. Often times,

scholarship in this area reports from the perspective of the established professional with

little input from the learner. As a result, a comprehensive understanding of the dyadic

relationship is lost, despite several factors that influence the way nonverbal messages are

communicated. In particular, counseling supervision dyads encounter many of the same

social factors that occur in counseling relationships among clinician and client. Such

factors are diverse and cover a wide range including gender identity, culture, and

sexuality. Without an explicit awareness as to the existence of these influences,

supervisors are not always cognizant of the ways in which their own nonverbal cues can

influence the supervisory relationship. Thus, there has been no definitive research related

to nonverbal communication in counseling supervision. Therefore, the aim of this study

was to explore nonverbal communication as it occurs in the dyadic clinical supervision

relationship. Using a qualitative design, this study collected and analyzed data using

constructivist grounded theory and Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) interviewing

techniques. The study sought to elucidate (a) experiences of nonverbal communication in

supervision sessions, (b) explore patterns of meaning based on nonverbal cues identified

xii

by the supervisor and supervisee, and (c) investigate supervisees’ perceptions of the

supervisory relationship in response to nonverbal communication cues rendered by the

supervisor. Results suggest that, during supervision sessions, both supervisors and

supervisees are affected by and react to nonverbal forms of communication, yet do not

always disclose their thoughts as it relates to their experience. This effects the

communication process and often leads to a sense of uneasiness in supervision followed

by awkward periods of silence. Results further suggested that, the use of silence by

supervisors contributed greatly in identifying effective and ineffective ways to

incorporate silence into sessions as a supervision strategy. Finally, the dyadic effect

further influenced nonverbal communication among dyads. However, when

communication practices within the supervision relationship was poor, a supervision

dyad often functioned using low context (LC) communication. Conversely, when

communication was equally productive for both supervisor and supervisee, dyads

functioned from a high context (HC) perspective, resulting in fewer missed

communication cues and an increase in complex forms of nonverbal communication.

xiii

Contributors and Funding Sources

This work was supervised by a dissertation committee consisting of Professor

Douglas Guiffrida (advisor) of Counseling and Human Development, Professor Kathryn

Douthit of Counseling and Human Development, and Professor Carol Podgorski of

Psychiatry. All work for the dissertation was conducted independently by the student

with the exception of some transcription, which was completed by Winston Scott.

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1 “Veronica and Janet” 80

Table 2 “Tawnya and Regina” 90

Table 3 “Camden and Saunya” 99

Table 4 “Sheila and Hayden” 110

Table 5 “Marcy and Selina” 118

xv

List of Diagrams

Diagram 1 Communication Process Model of Supervision 47

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

In clinical supervision sessions, face-to-face, spoken language is the primary

mode of communication between supervisors and supervisees. During these professional

interactions, nonverbal messages are subconsciously sent and received. Because the

sender and receiver are unaware of nonverbal interchanges, the way information is

understood is acutely affected and can result in reactions that often go unsaid and lead to

miscommunication. As a result, effective communication in counseling supervision

settings is crucial in order to reduce the incidence of miscommunication. Thus, as

supervision is carried out in an environment where communication is key, it is necessary

to address the importance of counseling supervision as it relates to the supervisory

relationship and nonverbal communication.

This chapter will first introduce the problem to be studied from the perspective of

missed and misunderstood nonverbal communication cues in clinical supervision. Next, a

discussion of nonverbal communication will take place and will lay the foundation for

understanding how nonverbal cues are experienced among supervisors and supervisees.

Following the above section, the purpose of this study, research question, and

positionality of the researcher will be addressed. Finally, the theoretical framework

shaping the study, as well as the methods used for conducting the study, will serve as a

roadmap for the way in which data were collected and analyzed.

Statement of Problem

Existing literature suggests that supervision in mental health settings is regarded

as “an important and beneficial activity” (Spence, Wilson, Kavanagh, Strong, Worrall,

2

2001, p. 137). The beneficial aspects of supervision are inherent in the long-lasting

effects on supervisees’, which are established “prior to, during, and after clinical

practice” (p. 138). In fact, studies that have investigated the importance of supervision

reported that employers and other professional bodies recognize that when supervision is

effective, “it contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of high-quality, clinical

practice” (p. 136).

Many of the benefits derived from effective supervision lie within the supervisory

relationship itself. When supervision is carried out from a strong working alliance, or the

mutual understanding of goals, tasks, trust, and respect, between supervisor and

supervisee, it is effective across all experience levels (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984;

Ladany, Ellis, & Friedlander, 1999; Rabinowitz, Heppner, & Roehlke, 1986). This

finding speaks, in large part, to supervisor style and skill. There has been considerable

emphasis placed on the need for supervisors to adapt their style in a way that matches up

to characteristics of the supervisee. Joshi and McAllister (1998) noted this as a

discrepancy in practice and reported that adapting styles does not tend to happen, but,

rather, supervisors typically incorporate their own, preferred style that is consistent across

their work with supervisees in various settings. When supervision is effective, this

finding supports the mutual effort found in the aforementioned strong working alliance.

It demonstrates that supervision is most effective when supervisor and supervisee have a

shared view of desired gains from the supervisory relationship.

The idea of a shared view was originally introduced by Worthington and Roehlke

(1979) who discussed the importance of supervision among counseling psychologists and

3

paid special attention to supervisor behaviors that lend to counselor development. The

researchers found that both supervisors and supervisees contribute to the experience,

which serves to indicate the overall effectiveness of supervision itself. As for supervisees,

the way in which they perceive the relationship with their supervisor was found to affect

“both their counseling performance and client outcome” (p. 64).

In keeping with Worthington and Roehlke’s (1979) findings, communication

plays a large part in supervisees’ perceptions of the supervisory relationship.

Communication patterns can serve to encourage or inhibit which and how much

information is shared within supervision sessions. That is, what is disclosed and not

disclosed reflects an internal struggle that supervisees often face.

In most psychotherapy supervision models, it is implicitly assumed that the

supervisor’s role is to facilitate and help to further develop therapeutic competence in the

supervisee (Ladany, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996). More specifically, according to Neufeldt

(2007), the general objective of clinical supervision is to “enhance supervisees’

professional functioning” (p. 3). In order for this to occur, supervisees are expected to

openly communicate and disclose various types of information that are communicated

during the training process. Varying forms of information include the therapeutic

interaction, supervisory interaction and, in some cases, personal information that pertains

specifically to the supervisee’s clinical learning experience (Ladany, et al., 1996).

However, when there is a poor alliance, negative feelings toward the supervisor, the

perception that the information to be disclosed is unimportant, or when power dynamics

are at play, supervisees have been shown to be more passive in their disclosures to the

4

extent that they have sought to discuss their thoughts and concerns with someone other

than their supervisor (Ladany et al., 1996; Hall, Coats, & Lebeau, 2005).

During supervision, the choice of what is disclosed is most often left up to the

supervisee (Bordin, 1983). Even though supervisors listen to tapes and view video-

recordings of sessions, knowing what the supervisee is thinking or feeling, their inner

experiences, can only be accessed if the supervisee volunteers this information (Ladany

et al., 1996). Recognizing this, supervisees may be strategic in their efforts to present

themselves in such a way that will manage impressions made by their supervisor (Ward,

Friedlander, Schoen, & Klein, 1985). As such, this leads us to believe that much of what

is not disclosed in supervision may be just as relevant, if not more relevant, as to what is

disclosed (Ladany, et al., 1996).

Nonverbal Communication

Although clinical supervision typically relies on information that is verbally

shared between supervisor and supervisee, one of the most critical aspects of

communication is that which occurs nonverbally. Very little is known about nonverbal

communication in counseling supervision. This is because nonverbal communication

mostly occurs on a subconscious level, which leaves both senders and receivers unaware

that essential information is being exchanged (Nguyen, Chen, Rautterberg, 2015). Even

though there may be a lack of awareness that nonverbal messages are being sent and

received, such exchanges greatly affect the supervision process.

In the counseling field, nonverbal communication has mostly been studied from

the perspective of clinician and client. It has been found to play a role in psychotherapy

5

and has been used to investigate different aspects of therapeutic communication (Dowell

& Berman, 2013). Dowell and Berman (2013) conducted a study that focused on client

perceptions of therapist empathy based on nonverbal communication. The researchers

focused on eye gaze and posture of the therapist. Research to support their study

indicated certain variables that are associated with successful therapy. For example,

increased eye contact of the therapist is perceived as positive and is linked with rapport,

respect, empathy, and genuineness (Darrow & Johnson, 2009; Kelly & True, 1980; Fretz,

Corn, Tuemmler, & Bellet, 1979; Tepper & Hasses, 1978). Postural shifts (i.e. trunk

lean), such as leaning forward, is associated with a greater sense of involvement (Kim,

Liang, & Li, 2003). In order to analyze these findings further, the researchers altered

different levels of posture and eye contact of the therapist in their study. Their analysis

revealed that forward trunk lean and high eye contact did indeed add to perceived

therapist empathy, therapeutic alliance, and treatment credibility (Dowell & Berman,

2013).

In earlier research, Jacobs (1994) looks specifically at the way nonverbal

communication is experienced in counseling and reported that data in this area are

underutilized both clinically and in supervision. He pointed out that even though

nonverbal communication is recognized as an important factor in communication, it is

often overlooked in supervision. Jacobs (1994) explained that supervisors who are often

uncomfortable with indicators of nonverbal communication tend to focus on the more

familiar, verbal, aspects of communication. As a result, “communications that are

conveyed through posture, gesture, movement, and other bodily means often go

6

unrecognized” (p. 742). Because of this, there is a lack of competence in the counseling

field in recognizing nonverbal communication patterns in supervision, which creates a

gap in the literature and supports the need for further study.

The need to investigate nonverbal communication within the context of

counseling supervision stems from, and is supported by, previous studies that identified

areas for further investigation. For instance, in Hasse and Tepper’s (1972) original work

that explored nonverbal components of empathic communication, the authors reported

that paralinguistic, nonverbal factors within communication plays a large role in the

sending and receiving of information and suggested that “more attention should be

focused on nonverbal behaviors in the training of counselors” (p. 423). More recently,

Stevenson-Won, Bailenson, and Janssen (2014) explored how automatic detection of

nonverbal behavior can predict learning in dyadic interactions. The researchers were

interested in the ways in which real-time feedback can make way for participants to

adjust nonverbal behavior with the goal of positively affecting the outcome of

interpersonal interactions. The study yielded several possibilities for application in future

study. For instance, in noting that rapport in dyadic settings can be established through

nonverbal communication, Stevenson-Won et al. (2014) reported that tracking body

movements may reveal behavior that participants may not be aware of, and this may hold

the possibility of providing future information that can assist in the communication of

nonverbal behavior. Another study reported implications for future study of nonverbal

communication in regard to social behavior and suggested that from the perspectives of

both the perceiver of information, as well as the person expressing nonverbal behavior,

7

that the area of interpersonal theory has not yet focused on understanding how dominance

and affiliation might be conveyed through covert channels of nonverbal communication

(Ethier, 2010). The perspectives discussed above provide a direct link to the many

possible manifestations of nonverbal communication in counseling supervision and lend

insight to the overall understanding of experiences had within the supervisory

relationship in subsequent chapters.

Purpose of Study and Research Question

Nonverbal communication in counseling supervision is a phenomenon that is

understudied, yet is an inherent part of counseling supervision. Because of this, there is a

need for more awareness regarding the magnitude by which nonverbal communication is

experienced in supervision. That is, while verbal communication is explicit in that the

receiver of the message is acutely aware of the linguistic components that comprise the

intended message, nonverbal communication is more implicit and is often overlooked or

misinterpreted in general conversation. It is a surreptitious process that is unwittingly

carried out by both sender and receiver.

In the literature pertaining to nonverbal communication, very little is dedicated to

counseling supervision. Although there is extensive research across disciplines that

address aspects of nonverbal communication, most studies report from the perspective of

the established professional in practice. In light of this, some studies specifically

reference the need to explore nonverbal communication in counseling supervision and

lists the benefits and, in some cases, modifications to the research process to be

considered for effective study. Because of the small pool of information surrounding

8

nonverbal communication in this area, there is no existing research that brings the

supervisee experience to the fore. Therefore, it is equally essential to examine how

nonverbal communication is perceived among counseling supervisees during clinical

supervision sessions.

The examples addressed in the context of this chapter support the need to

investigate nonverbal communication patterns in counseling supervision. My study

explored how meaning is perceived between supervisor and supervisee through nonverbal

communication. My aim was to identify internal reactions in response to nonverbal

communication that were not disclosed to the supervisor. In addition, my study explored

patterns of disclosure in nonverbal communication within the context of effective and

ineffective communication. My research was guided by the question: How do supervisors

and supervisees communicate with and make meaning of nonverbal behaviors in clinical

supervision?

Positionality of the Researcher

Moving forward, it is important for me to discuss my position and what it brings

to the research, as it plays an important role in qualitative studies (Creswell, 2012). I

became interested in nonverbal communication as a result of my background as an

interpreter of American Sign Language. My interest is in human interaction as it relates

to unspoken, non-linguistic cues that influence message comprehension. Using sign

language increases the propensity for use of nonverbal cues when verbal communication

is not present, as it can be likened to verbal inflection during spoken communication.

9

I am particularly interested in supervisees’ perceptions of nonverbal

communication in counseling supervision due to my cross-disciplinary experience as a

supervisee, as well as having worked as a counseling supervisor. In my experience as a

counseling supervisee, I found that supervision sessions had a direct effect on the clinical

decisions I made, as well as which disclosures I shared with the supervisor. While the

supervisor’s words are critical to the learner’s development, the way information is

presented renders much more meaning than the words themselves. As a result, I found

that supervision sessions would often end with an inferred sense of understanding, as

opposed to a definitive plan of action.

My background affords me the opportunity to undertake research in this study

from an informed perspective. However, my goal is to contribute to existing research

during this process, without imposing upon participant meanings during data

interpretation. Due to my comprehensive experience in counseling supervision, I also

recognize the truly complex relationship between supervisor and supervisee.

Theoretical Framework

Constructivism, with an emphasis on social constructionism and kinesics, form

the theoretical frameworks that inform this study. Constructivist theory frames the

context in which supervisee-participants experience nonverbal communication. This is an

ideal approach, as doctoral-student supervisors at the research site are trained in accord

with constructivist principles and conduct supervision sessions based on constructivist

teachings. Furthermore, as an epistemological component of constructivism, social

constructionism emphasizes the communicative relationship between supervisor and

10

supervisee. Finally, kinesics theory was used as a sensitizing concept that led to an

overall understanding of nonverbal messages that are exchanged during supervision

sessions. This compound perspective demonstrated parallels in research that were used to

understand nonverbal communication in the context of counseling supervision.

Constructivism

Constructivism can be applied and understood from many different theoretical

and scientific perspectives. It incorporates ideas from diverse disciplines and is

instrumental in capturing nuances that are unique to the human experience. Some areas of

study that constructivism draws from are anthropology, biological sciences, cognitive

neuroscience, philosophy, sociology, and various forms of spirituality (Mahoney, 2003).

As a result of incorporating multiple perspectives, constructivism is integrative in its

approach and can make way for outcomes that are both diverse and meaningful. It is

rooted in change and informs the process by which effective learning takes place.

Furthermore, constructivism offers a balanced perspective among contrasting fields

(Mahoney, 2003).

Constructivism is so named due to the inherent nature of the verb meaning “to

construct,” which implies the concept of organization or the act of creating order.

Moreover, the human experience is “complex,” to the extent that when change is

introduced, it is challenging and overwhelming and offers a framework for values, sense

of control, view of reality, and sense of self (Mahoney, 2003, p. 3). Rockmore (2005)

echoed this view of constructivism and posits that new experiences that have been

internalized are linked to past experiences and areas of knowledge. In addition, Sexton

11

and Griffin (1997) described constructivism as a “person’s active creation and building of

meaning and significance” (p. 11). Sexton and Griffin (1997) elaborated on this idea by

illustrating constructivism as being on a “continuum of beliefs” that falls within a range

of radical and socially accepted orientations (p. 11). Rockmore (2005), Mahoney (2003),

and Sexton & Griffin (1997) describe a system or type of structure that pulls from a pre-

existing foundation of knowledge and experience. They recognized that individuals

possess tools for learning, which serve to implement structural components and can be

added to the idea that one is able to build upon knowledge from that which has already

occurred.

Accordingly, connections can be made between social constructionism, discussed

in greater detail later on, and Piaget’s (1971) description of how language structures

come about and are understood. Piaget’s (1971) views differ from some schools of

thought on the social effects of language, as he argued that the structure by which one

understands and incorporates meaning is not acquired by influences imposed by another

person or the functional context of the language system where the person was reared

(Polkinghorne, 1995). In fact, he believed that the effect of language on an individual’s

understanding does not modify active “cognitive structures” that have been previously

developed (in Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 10). Yet, despite what seems to be a lack of

resonance with social constructionism, Piaget (1971) did stress that social influences can

determine the direction of cognitive development and he, at times, emphasized that

exposure to another person’s point of view can serve to refine structures of understanding

(Polkinghorne, 1995).

12

Constructivist Epistemology. In considering constructivism from an

epistemological perspective, Sexton and Griffin (1997) argued that the distinction

between knowing (epistemology) and the known (reality) is ambiguous, as are the

boundaries between subject and object and between internal and external. This suggests

that there is no single point of access as it relates to experience, and that reality can be

understood in various forms. Sexton and Griffin (1997) continued to outline their

reasoning and referred to the constructivist revolution in terms of how human thinking

supports a “dominate view of reality (ontology), a model for how one develops

knowledge within that view of reality (epistemology), and a set of accepted practices

based on those assumptions” (p. 4).

Sexton and Griffin’s (1997) view of a constructivist revolution highlights the idea

that there is a critical purpose in the “knowing” process (p.4), as reflected by Neimeyer

(1995) who explained that epistemology serves to join constructivists in the commitment

to a common theory of knowledge. It seems reasonable that a model for knowledge

comes about by way of one’s dominate view of reality when accepted practices and

assumptions serve as reinforcement for that which we believe we know. As a result,

ontological perspectives serve as fuel for evolving thoughts and beliefs and continue to

inform our behavior.

The primary assertion of constructivism is that human knowing is proactive

(Granvold, 1996). In general, the common features that link, to a greater degree,

constructivist principles and reinforce epistemological underpinnings are the ideas that

(1) humans are participants in their own experience, (2) the ordering process that

13

organize human lives are at a heightened, or tacit, level of awareness, and (3) the human

experience tends to favor the maintenance of experiential patterns and influence social

systems (Mahoney, 1995).

Social Constructionism. The views of Rockmore (2005), Sexton and Griffin

(1997), and Mahoney (2003) discussed above, align with a form of constructivism known

as social constructionism. Social constructionism holds that all meaning is derived from

“culture, history, place, and time” and that humans are shaped by such social forces, as

there is no “pure thought that is not socially mediated” (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2011, p.

4). Moreover, the words humans use to describe meaning in response to their experience

in the world reflect social constructionism in that such words have been created in human

communities under the influence of culture and the like. In this sense, there is no pure

form of knowledge, as social construction not only affects the meaning of words and

language, it also influences the way in which words are used in order to impart meaning.

In regard to nonverbal communication, Krauss, Chen, and Chawla (1996) draw a

parallel with McAuliffe and Eriksen’s (2011) position in terms of words and language by

pointing out that in the form of conversational gestures, while it is possible to influence

meaning in speech, it may be impossible to derive the same meaning if the two were

separated. That is, space and movement may offer their own representational format and

may convey emotion by way of semantics. Krauss et al. (1996) explained that when

trying to convey the same message through linguistics alone, new representations of the

message are created, and in doing so, changes the way we think about them. Similarly, in

counseling supervision, where linguistic forms of communication are the primary mode

14

of communication, nonverbal communication can influence the supervisee’s experience

with the supervisor regardless of the linguistic context in which it was presented.

Kinesics Theory

As a sensitizing concept, I incorporated Birdwhistell’s (1952) theory of kinesics.

Kinesics theory focuses on the study of nonverbal communication as expressed through

the use of gestures, facial expression, and body language (Waiflein, 2013). This theory

will lend context to the phenomena in which nonverbal communication is experienced in

counseling supervision.

My study explored the notion that, within the communicative interchange

between supervisors and supervisees, there exists a significant exchange of information

through nonverbal channels of communication. Meaning derived from nonverbal

communication cannot be discerned by simply listening to audio recordings or viewing

video recordings. Only by asking participants to reflect upon their experience with

nonverbal communication can an accurate account of "meaning" be identified in sessions

among supervisors and supervisees.

Birdwhistell (1952) defined kinesics as the “the study of body-motion as related

to the non-verbal aspects of interpersonal communication” (p. 9). The researcher

explained that communication among humans uses all senses and that all body

movements incur meaning in communication settings. More specifically, human gestures

are polysemic in that such gestures can have several “different meanings depending on

the communicative context in which they are produced” (p. 10). To illustrate this,

Birdwhistell (1952) devised a code-system for interpreting body language. It is a

15

multilevel approach that incorporates physical, psychological, and cultural components of

nonverbal cues that categorizes kinesics into three distinctive parts: pre-kinesic, micro-

kinesic, and social kinesic (Jolly, 2000).

Pre-kinesics focuses on physiological aspects of nonverbal cues as it relates to

systematic body motion and is identified by the repetitive nature of nonverbal actions

(Jolly, 2000). Micro-kinesics emphasizes the transition from repetition to meaning of

nonverbal cues. Finally, social kinesics focuses on contextual meaning, which identifies

the relationship that exists between meanings and the events (i.e. culture, general

surroundings, etc.) that influence nonverbal behavior.

Birdwhistell (1955) refers to kinesiological data to support his claims and

describes it as “visual perceptible body shifts whose variations have been repetitively

observed and are subject to systemization (and which) are learned rather than

somatogenic” (p. 12). By contrast, Cooper and Glasgow (1968) add that kinesics should

be regarded “as a system which… does a number of things and is so constructed that the

world outside touches triggers for their doing. But its own internal condition has a say as

to which of those things within limits it will do, and how it will do them. Its own internal

condition is also initiator of some of its acts" (p. 22).

Methods

Working from a constructivist perspective, I used a qualitative design for this

study. Qualitative research is rooted in the field of education and relies on the views of

participants by asking broad, general questions, and by analyzing data for themes that

naturally emerge (Creswell, 2005). A qualitative approach is especially appropriate when

16

seeking a detailed description and understanding of the complexities of interactions

between people and their experiences (Creswell, 2007).

As part of qualitative design, Charmaz’s (2014) Constructivist Grounded Theory

served as the analytic framework in collecting and analyzing data. In grounded theory,

the basic idea is to isolate a general “theory of process, action, or interaction grounded in

the views of participants in a study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 14). While this approach is very

specific in its purpose, the methods used to carry it out are more flexible and provide a set

of guided principles, as opposed to a rigid set of rules. Moreover, methods in grounded

theory are tailored toward “qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data

themselves” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2).

In order to facilitate and maintain a sound study, it is also crucial to keep in mind

the goal of the researcher. As is consistent with the purpose of grounded theory, the

qualitative researcher makes use of assumptions about the nature of reality and how one

knows what is known through interpretive measures (Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark, &

Morales, 2007). Thus, the epistemology and ontology that supports the work done by the

researcher furthers the purpose of the research being conducted and substantiates and

adds meaning to the work itself. More specifically, Crotty (1998) explained that the two

concepts “emerge together” (p. 10). This is especially important because in grounded

theory, as knowledge is constructed, the researcher’s aim is to discover a theory or an

abstract analytical schema among patterns that emerge from the data (Creswell, 2007).

I conducted the data collection process using Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR)

(Kagan, Schauble, Resnikoff, Danish, & Krathworth, 1969). IPR is a qualitative

17

interview approach used most commonly to investigate counseling psychotherapy. IPR

was originally used to “access client and caregiver experiences as close to the moment of

interaction as possible” (Larsen, Flesaker, & Stege, 2008, p. 19). Its purpose is to uncover

“individuals’ conscious yet unspoken experiences as they occurred at the time of the

interpersonal interaction under investigation” (p. 19).

Participants consisted of two groups: Counseling Supervisors and Counseling

Supervisees. In order to introduce my research topic, Counseling Supervisors were

addressed as a group, at a scheduled time. I asked for their participation in video

recording three of their scheduled supervision sessions and requested an interview with

each supervisor subsequent to each session. Counseling supervisees were made up of

second year, master’s level, counseling students who were completing their practicum

requirement. In order to introduce the study, student participants were addressed as a

whole during their regularly scheduled class hours. This time was used to introduce the

study and to also ask for their participation in recording three of their supervision

sessions (the same recorded sessions as supervisors) along with follow-up interviews.

Both groups of participants were compensated for their participation.

Summary

As nonverbal communication in counseling supervision is grossly understudied,

there is a lack of awareness regarding the impact that such messages have on the

supervisory relationship. While both supervisor and supervisee render cues that often go

unnoticed or are misunderstood, the supervisee risks nondisclosure and increases the

potential for incorporating misinformation into the professional development process,

18

which can shape the supervisee’s views of the supervision experience. This qualitative

study sought information based on cues exchanged during clinical supervision sessions

and explored meanings of the many experiences shared from the perspectives of

supervisors and supervisees.

19

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This review of the literature provides a detailed overview of nonverbal

communication and its role in clinical supervision. In recalling the research question

guiding this study, I explored participant meanings of nonverbal communication in

clinical supervision by asking: How do supervisors and supervisees communicate with

and make meaning of nonverbal behaviors in clinical supervision? To illustrate this

dynamic, the chapter outlines several pertinent areas.

I will first review nonverbal communication by providing a functional definition

that can be referred to throughout this study. Next, a brief history explaining the roots of

nonverbal communication and how it is linked to counseling will be discussed. Following

the history of nonverbal communication, the chapter will focus on perceptions of

meaning and the ways in which meaning is made through specific forms of nonverbal

communication. This chapter will then shift to the main components that comprise

nonverbal communication, as well as social factors that contribute to and influence

nonverbal communication in counseling supervision. Finally, the dyadic effect will be

introduced and will explain the communication process that takes place among

communication dyads during interpersonal interactions. This will be followed by a

diagram depicting the process by which nonverbal communication is experienced in

clinical supervision.

Definition of Nonverbal Communication

In order to maintain a consistent perspective, this study will work from

Marcinowicz, Konstantynowicz, and Godlewski’s (2010) earlier definition that nonverbal

20

communication is defined as “communication without linguistic content” (p. 83). So as to

gain a functional understanding of this concept, it is important to note that in this context,

the term nonverbal consists of vocal cues (i.e. tone of voice, and verbal inflection), facial

expression such as eye gaze, interpersonal spacing, touch, and gesture. In considering the

idea of communication, it is understood as an interchange of thoughts and feelings that

are sent and received (Depaulo & Friedman, 1998). When the two concepts, nonverbal

and communication, are merged, it should be understood that due to its non-linguistic

roots and subconscious expression, nonverbal information is often exchanged

inadvertently between sender and receiver. Thus, during communication, both the sender

and the receiver of information are concurrently affected by the interchange of

communication. Studies that have focused on the concurrent interaction between verbal

and nonverbal messages have repeatedly shown that “nonverbal behaviors contribute

significantly to the impact of the verbal message” (Graves & Robinson, 1976, p. 334). In

keeping with this, it has also been shown that nonverbal behaviors can “enhance or

detract from a verbal message” (p. 334).

The many ways in which spoken communication can be received is greatly

determined by the amount of agreement or congruence between verbal and nonverbal

messages (Shapiro, 1966; Hasse & Tepper, 1972). That is, when verbal and nonverbal

messages are identical in the message conveyed, the level of intensity and degree to

which the message is credible is enhanced (Graves & Robinson, 1976). Similarly, when

there are disparities in the way information is being conveyed, the intensity and

credibility of the verbal message is, to some extent, weakened. This perspective supports

21

the understanding that nonverbal behavior can communicate information as it relates to

the feelings and attitudes of individuals. This idea is directly related to Mehrabian’s

(1968) claims upon examining nonverbal behaviors and their effect on message

credibility, perceptions of affect, trustworthiness, and interpersonal attraction. The

researcher suggested that speech is not needed in order to communicate and contends that

information is transmitted continually through facial expression, body movements, and

spacing.

A Brief History of Nonverbal Communication and its Role in Counseling

Current conceptions of nonverbal communication are understood in terms of

behaviors that were proposed as far back as the late 19th century in Charles Darwin’s

(1872) book entitled, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Krauss, Chen,

& Chawla, 1996). Darwin (1872) mainly questioned why facial expressions accompanied

emotional responses and wondered why humans wrinkle their noses when disgusted, why

teeth are bared and eyes are narrowed when angry, or why we stare with a wide-eyed

expression when in fear (Krauss et al., 1996). Darwin (1872) identified these behaviors as

functional indicators of strong emotion that have evolved in humans over time.

Functional indicators add communicative value by providing recipients of the

message with external evidence of the sender’s internal state. This understanding was

further supported in findings by Shariff and Tracy (2011). The researchers referred to

Darwin’s (1872) emotional indicators as “emotion expressions,” which was said to

prepare the organism to respond by adapting to recurring stimuli in one’s environment, as

well as communicating critical social information (p. 395). The authors went on to cite

22

later works from researchers such as Chapman, Kim, Susskind, and Anderson (2009),

Ekman (1992), and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989) who further developed Darwin’s (1872) ideas

and argued that emotion expressions, adapted from internal physiological regulations,

later evolved to serve communicative functions (Shariff & Tracey, 2011).

In the counseling field, nonverbal communication has mostly been studied from

the perspective of clinician and client. It has been found to play a role in psychotherapy

and has been used to investigate different aspects of therapeutic communication (Dowell

& Berman, 2013). For example, Dowell and Berman (2013) conducted a study that

focused on client perceptions of therapist empathy based on nonverbal communication.

The researchers focused on eye gaze and posture of the therapist, as this was based on

existing research indicating certain variables that are associated with successful therapy.

They concluded that increased eye contact of the therapist is perceived as positive and is

linked with rapport, respect, empathy, and genuineness. Moreover, postural shifts (i.e.

trunk lean), such as leaning forward, is associated with a greater sense of involvement. In

order to analyze these findings further, the researchers altered different levels of posture

and eye contact of the therapists in their study. Their analysis revealed that forward trunk

lean and high eye contact did indeed add to perceived therapist empathy, therapeutic

alliance, and treatment credibility (Dowell & Berman, 2013).

In counseling supervision, it is important for supervisors to note variations in

speech and body language. As these factors lend to the overall message being conveyed,

the benefits of effective communication in supervision is paramount to the supervisory

relationship. According to Ha, Anat and Longnecker (2010), communication is a “central

23

clinical function” (p. 38). When carried out effectively, communication skills are among

several components that comprise “good clinical practice” (Marcinowicz, et al., 2010, p.

83). In addition, Henry et al. (2011), looked at the association between nonverbal

communication and clinical interactions and reported that nonverbal communication

plays a central role in face-to-face human interaction and that it is crucial for “conveying

emotional and relational information” (p. 298).

Perceptions of Meaning in Nonverbal Communication and Counseling

Many theorists and counseling practitioners have affirmed that an integral part of

the counseling process is the complex interplay of verbal and nonverbal messages

between client and counselor (Graves & Robinson, 1976). Other researchers, such as

Ekman and Friesen (1969), Hasse (1970), and Hall (1966), whose studies took place near

the time of Mehrabian’s (1968) work made claims that support his findings. These

researchers suggested that nonverbal channels of behavior are generally less-frequently

distorted and manipulated by those expressing them. However, other researchers,

specifically in areas of counseling and psychotherapy, “have demonstrated that

counselors are often capable of manipulating their own nonverbal behaviors in order to

‘induce’ desirable changes in the behavior of their clients” (Graves & Robinson, 1976, p.

333).

Counselors communicate information to the client about the clinical relationship

both verbally and nonverbally and convey information that indicate how the counselor’s

feelings and perceptions are affected (Graves & Robinson, 1976). So, when the counselor

does speak, any simultaneous nonverbal behavior can either reinforce or discredit the

24

verbal message. It is easy for this to happen because, as mentioned earlier, information

that is conveyed nonverbally is less-frequently distorted and is therefore accepted as more

reliable and truthful than verbal information (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Mehrabian 1968,

1969; Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967; Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967). As this is an example of

incongruence or disagreement in the rendering of the verbal message, it can be expected

that the client’s, or, in this case, the supervisee’s, perceptions of the clinician would be

altered, and therefore influence perceptions of meaning and alter the effectiveness of the

supervisory relationship.

Making Meaning of Communicative Functions in Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal communication can be distinguished based on interpersonal or

intrapersonal functioning. Krauss et al. (1996) contends that information is largely

derived through the messages conveyed by way of these two primary functions.

Interpersonal functions are comprised of nonverbal behaviors that aid in relaying

information; whether intentional or unintentional. For example, interpersonal

communication cues can be manifested in terms of the listener’s facial expression or eye

gaze, based on inferences the listener makes about the speaker. In this instance, the

speaker may note the listener’s reaction and may very well modify their presentation

based on the information inferred.

Intrapersonal functions are expressed with seemingly no specific communicative

cues and can be, for example, in the form of conversational hand gestures (i.e. unplanned

hand movements that are used in conjunction with speech). While intrapersonal cues may

emphasize language, or aid in the formulation of speech, the listener does not incur

25

meaning as one might in an interpersonal encounter. That is, for instance, while all hand

gestures are hand movements, not all hand movements are hand gestures. Moreover,

according to Krauss et al. (1996), if gestures suggest semantic content related to

accompanying speech, the expectation is that both gesture and semantics should coincide

in meaning in order for the message to be clear. In addition, the authors developed a

distinctive typology of hand gestures that were used in this study when seeking to

understand some of the ways meaning is made through nonverbal communication. The

typology of hand gestures to be used are: adapters, symbolic gestures, and conversational

gestures.

Semantic Content

For the purposes of this discussion, semantic information follows an

understanding that is in line with Krauss et al.’s (1996) description taken from Grice

(1969) and Searle (1969), who explain it as information that contributes to the

“utterance’s intended meaning” (pg. 6). Recognizing that speech conveys semantic

information on a large scale, the idea is that speech also conveys information about the

speaker’s emotional state and familiarity with the topic through variations in voice

quality, fluency, and other vocal properties that are not always part of the speaker’s

intended meaning, but is still quite informative. Semantics in speech can also convey

information about the speaker’s attitude toward “the addressee that can make an

important contribution to the interaction” (pg. 6).

26

Adaptors

Adaptors consist of hand movements that serve to manipulate the person or object

(Krauss et al., 1996). Adaptors are recognizable when scratching, fidgeting, touching

microphones, etc. They are not considered gestures because, when carried out, they serve

no communicative intent that would add meaning to the speech they accompany.

However, it has been suggested that adapters may indicate unconscious thoughts or

feelings that the speaker is making a conscious effort to conceal (Krauss et al., 1996).

Symbolic Gestures

Symbolic gestures are, in fact, gestures, as they are intentional, signify meaning,

and serve a clear communicative function (Krauss et al., 1996). Familiar symbolic

gestures include a “thumbs-up,” a “raised fist,” or the “bye-bye” hand gesture (p. 5).

These gestures are often used in the absence of speech but may accompany speech for

emphasis or as a substitute for something that was not said.

Conversational Gestures

Finally, conversational gestures are movements that accompany speech. They fall

into two extremes and are indicated in three ways. Conversational gestures are expressed

in (1) motor movements, or repetitive, rhythmic movements that do not appear to coincide

with semantics of speech, versus (2) lexical movements that vary in length, are non-

repetitive, changing in form, and appear to be related to semantics of the speech they

accompany (p. 6). Thus, indicators of conversational gestures are made only by the

person who is speaking, they are coordinated with speech, and some are related to the

semantic content of the speech they accompany (Krauss, et al., 1996).

27

Components of Nonverbal Communication

Because nonverbal components have a direct effect on verbal messages relayed

during clinical sessions, it is important to understand how nonverbal communication is

carried out during interpersonal interactions. For the purposes of this study, three

components of nonverbal communication were recognized upon observing interactions

during counseling supervision sessions. The three components are: paralanguage,

proxemics, and kinesics. These three areas are most commonly discussed when analyzing

effects of nonverbal communication.

Paralanguage

According to Yeh and Inman (2007), communication goes beyond “verbal speech

and writing,” and point out that paralanguage can have an effect on what people say and

do (p. 381). Paralanguage consists of vocal cues used in communication such as loudness

of voice, silences, pauses, hesitations, rate of speech, inflection, etc. Paralanguage

accounts for at least 60% of what is communicated when talking directly to others. This

nuance of nonverbal communication “provides a depth to emotions underlying one’s

experience and is often more important than what is being said orally” (p. 380).

Moreover, Key (1975) quoted linguist Abercrombie who said, “…we speak with our

vocal organs, but we converse with our entire bodies…the conventional use of spoken

language cannot be properly understood unless paralinguistic elements are taken into

account” (Qiang, 2013, p. 223). This quote underscores the importance of paralanguage

in human interaction. Qiang (2013) refers to paralanguage as the “essential middle link”

28

of words that can transmit different semantic information while expressing word-

significance with special communicative functions and value (p. 222).

Paralanguage is systemic. That is, paralanguage is fixed and is unique to the

culture in which it is expressed; it is a non-linguistic accompaniment to language

communication (Qiang, 2013). So, taken out of context and culture, paralanguage is no

longer a system. An example of paralanguage is the North American use of the sound

“er…”. This sound is often used when there is hesitation in speech. Taken out of context,

or using another verbalized sound, would not be understood in the same way (Qiang,

2013). As paralanguage is an integral part of spoken communication, it can transmit

different semantic information.

In regard to counseling, Duncan, Rice, and Butler (1968) investigated how

patterns of paralanguage, as it relates to voice quality, in psychotherapy appears to be an

important channel for communicating the emotional tone between two people. The study

was designed to provide information that would ultimately contribute to information

pertaining to function and influence of voice quality behaviors in interpersonal

interactions. The goal was to yield data relevant to the speculation that voice quality is an

important factor that impacts therapy during and after clinical sessions and that it also

influences the therapist’s evaluation of the therapeutic process. Using Trager’s (1958)

taxonomy for describing voice quality behaviors, Duncan et al. (1968) found that

paralinguistic behaviors yielded a “differentiated and meaningful picture of the therapy

process,” as results demonstrated the effectiveness of the paralinguistic communication

channel (p. 566).

29

Duncan et al. (1968) distinguished between peak and poor interviews among 1-

hour sessions that took place among nine therapists and eighteen clients. Criteria for peak

and poor interviews were at the individual therapist’s discretion and was based on

degrees of excellence and inferiority of the sessions. Some peak criteria were reported by

therapists as “emotional expressiveness” of the client or disclosure of an “unusually

dramatic or critical experience” (p. 567). Poor criteria were often found in sessions where

therapists felt that a useful therapeutic relationship had not yet been established or sensed

difficulty in establishing one. Ultimately, the researchers suggested that in the

paralinguistic context, there is little benefit to studying single nonverbal behaviors, as

information sought could be misleading. Instead, the study suggested that the specific

configuration of behaviors, those that occur together, is significant in understanding the

intended message. The findings of Duncan et al. (1968) emphasize the idea that

paralanguage plays a prominent role in understanding the spoken message in its entirety,

and that by considering the context of the information being sent, the receiver is further

informed of the sender’s intention.

Proxemics

Proxemics is the physical distance and orientation between two or more

individuals who are interacting (Anderson, Guerrero, & Jones, 2006). It is the perception

of personal and interpersonal space (Sue & Sue, 1999). Some of the ways that proxemics

is measured is by the amount of physical space or distance between participants, postural

expansion (i.e. open or closed posture) and lean (e.g. leaning toward or away from

participants) (Ethier, 2010). For example, in North American society, individuals often

30

become uncomfortable when it is perceived that others are standing too close, as there is

a felt sense that personal space is being violated. Such individuals may have a reaction of

flight, withdrawal, anger, or conflict (Sue & Sue, 1999). However, when individuals are

familiar with one another, or when there is an interpersonal attraction, the tendency is to

interact in closer proximity.

In considering proxemics in relation to counseling, Hasse and Tepper (1972)

explored nonverbal components of empathic communication among 26 counselors.

Research on nonverbal communication in counseling tends to focus mainly on the ability

to ascertain the degree to which people “engage in or show preference for nonverbal

components of communication” (p. 418). The researchers chose to study the way in

which empathy is perceived nonverbally because (a) it is one of the most widely accepted

behaviors associated with and expected from counselors; (b) a great deal of research has

been conducted from the standpoint of counselor empathy; (c) it is supported

theoretically; and (d) empathy is “presumed to be one of several core conditions which

pervade positive therapeutic relationships” (p. 418).

In their study, Hasse and Tepper (1972) focused on verbal communication (i.e.

paralanguage) of counselors combined with (a) trunk lean; (b) distance from

conversational partner; and (c) eye contact. The researchers found that during verbal

interaction, eye contact and forward trunk lean produced high ratings of empathy from

judges. However, averting one’s eye gaze or leaning backward during the verbal

interaction yielded lower ratings. When incorporating distance with forward trunk lean

during the verbal interaction, the researchers found that ratings were higher at a closer

31

distance. Yet, when there was greater distance between counselor and client, as well as a

backward trunk lean, judges’ ratings were lower. Overall, the lowest ratings for empathy

showed that counselors are least effective when conditions were controlled by far

distance, backward trunk lean, no eye contact, and low verbal message.

Hasse and Tepper’s (1972) findings suggests that empathy in counseling is

communicated across several channels. Their work demonstrated, and was in line with

Mehrabian’s (1967) findings, that to rely solely on the verbal content of the message

“reduces the accuracy of the judgement by 66%” (in Hasse & Tepper, 1972, p. 421).

Moreover, their study revealed that “facial expressions accounted for approximately one

and one-half times as much variance in the communication of positive attitude than did a

vocal component” (p. 421).

Kinesics

Kinesics is the study of body movements. Bodily movements associated with

kinesics include hand gestures, head nods, facial expressions, eye gaze, and posture

(Lunenberg, 2010). Kinesics is especially relevant in counseling supervision for several

reasons. For instance, gestures reveal how an individual is feeling. When people feel

demoralized, nervous, or concerned about the impression they are making, they tend to

gesture less. However, when enthusiastic, excited, or energetic, gestures are made more

frequently. Moreover, kinesics behavior based on facial expression can provide a wealth

of information. That is, during supervision sessions, face-to-face interaction can be quite

telling, as reliable information that indicates approval, disapproval, or disbelief can be

derived from messages inferred by a particular look on a person’s face or by the

32

movements of their head (Lunenberg, 2010). Knowing this, it is important to note six

universal facial expressions that most cultures recognize. The six facial expressions are

“happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust” (p. 2). This especially holds true

when pleased or displeased. For example, smiling generally infers warmth or happiness,

yet a frown can indicate dissatisfaction or anger.

Eye gaze is a strong nonverbal cue that functions in four ways (Hickson, 2010).

First, eye contact can regulate the flow of communication by serving as a signal for the

beginning or end of a conversation (Lunenberg, 2010). Second, eye contact “facilitates

and monitors feedback” during interpersonal interactions because it demonstrates interest

and attention (p. 2). Third, eye contact conveys emotion and, finally, it indicates the type

of relationship had between communicators. So, depending on how long in duration

direct eye contact or eye gaze is held, one can infer meaning. Length of a held gaze

implies one’s willingness to listen, acknowledgement of a person’s worth, or can indicate

feelings of hostility or romantic interest (Lunenberg, 2010). In this way, when nonverbal

information is expressed, the receivers of messages infer meaning based on the context

and feedback received during the communication process.

Macro-Mediated Social Factors that Influence Nonverbal Communication in

Supervision

As counseling supervision takes place in a variety of clinical settings, supervisors

and supervisees encounter many of the same social differences that clinicians and clients

experience. In any given clinical encounter, the professional relationship often contends

with power dynamics, culture, gender, sexuality, and age. This section will discuss the

33

many factors that influence nonverbal communication and will draw parallels to

counseling supervision.

Power Dynamics

As in most clinical interactions, a hierarchical relationship exists between novice

and professional that, when coupled with individual disparities regarding perceptions of

personal space and body language, the receiver’s experience is compounded by these

factors. Hernandez and McDowell (2010) elaborated on the existence of power dynamics

in counseling supervision and argued from the perspective of the supervisee as to the way

in which perceptions of power affect the dyadic relationship. The authors pointed out that

“power is embedded in the supervision relationship,” and that supervision goes beyond

dyadic, or even small group dynamics, in such a way that it “occurs in broader social and

institutional contexts that shape relationships and delineate what is possible” (p. 33). In

fact, Hall, Coats, and Lebeau, (2005) studied nonverbal communication as it relates to

vertical dimensions (i.e. power, dominance, and status) of interpersonal relationships and

found that beliefs and perceptions are “stronger and much more prevalent” than actual

vertical effects of the relationship itself.

Hoshmund (2005) discussed the ways in which power dynamics can influence

nonverbal communication between researcher and participant in an effort to bring

awareness to the potential for marginalization of the participant voice. Hoshmund (2005)

argued that because supervision settings are historically hierarchical this may affect the

way nonverbal cues are sent and received. For instance, in medical settings, while

patients have more recently recognized that they are not passive recipients of care, and

34

that they are able to resist perceptions of power and authority that is traditionally

associated with doctors, the fact remains that the doctor-patient relationship is founded on

the “doctor knows best” line of thinking (Holmstrom & Roing, 2010; Ha, Anat, &

Longnecker, 2010). Because of this, patients are regularly discouraged from voicing their

thoughts to their provider and are often left feeling disempowered when responding to

nonverbal cues of the physician (Ha et al., 2010). Thus, as physicians are not always fully

aware of how their presence affects patients, supervisors in counseling supervision are, in

turn, not always aware of the way in which their nonverbal cues can influence the

supervisory relationship (Hall et al., 2005).

Culture

Gatmon et al. (2001) studied cultural variables in counseling supervision and their

influence on the supervisory working alliance based on awareness across important

elements of culture, gender, and sexual orientation in terms of the therapeutic relationship

and essential components of therapeutic competence. As clinical supervision has been

described as a process of intercultural communication, supervision literature recognizes

the importance of cultural variables within the supervisory relationship. Various authors

in the counseling field have reported that, to disregard the impact of cultural variables on

the supervisory relationship can “heighten conflict in the process of supervision” (p. 103).

According to Sue and Sue (1999), in order for effective counseling to occur, the

clinician and client must be able to send and receive both verbal and nonverbal messages

“accurately and appropriately” (p. 58). However, when culture is a factor, both client and

clinician may find that rendering an accurate message is challenging. During

35

interpersonal interactions, even individuals who identify with the same cultural group can

experience breakdowns in communication (Sue & Sue, 1999). Such breakdowns can be

exacerbated when racial or ethnic backgrounds differ. As a result, misunderstandings that

come about from variations in communication due to culture may inhibit the building of

trust and rapport in the clinical or supervisory relationship.

When trust and rapport are inhibited, disclosures during sessions are made at a

minimum. Counselors expect a certain degree of openness from their clients, as most

theories associated with helping “place a high premium on verbal, emotional, and

behavioral expressiveness” as a means to gain insight (Sue & Sue, 1999, p. 59). Also, just

like supervision, therapy is (a) traditionally conducted in a dyadic format that encourages

clients to discuss details of their experiences and lives, which are often intimate, and (b)

clients and supervisees are encouraged to discuss problems or challenges while the

clinician listens and responds. Often times, those who avoid self-disclosure are seen as

resistant, defensive, or superficial (Sue & Sue, 1999). This is an ambiguous process, as

it can be difficult for clients and supervisees alike to readily disclose their thoughts.

Gender

Singh and Singh (2011) reported on nonverbal communication as it relates to

gender and suggest that nonverbal communication may be perceived and expressed

differently among men and women. The authors went on to discuss that understandings

of gender, and roles related to gender, are heavily influenced by social factors and are,

more broadly, related to issues of power and status in society. Thus, “the significance of

36

communication in shaping our lives is no less important in the arena of gender

communication” (p. 99).

In considering gender as it relates to counseling, men’s and women’s experiences

do, in fact, differ. In Good, Gilbert, and Scher’s (1990) examination of gender aware

therapy (GAT) the researchers discussed how gender differences can manifest in

counseling sessions. GAT was originally developed in order to combat sexist ideas in

counseling that have been applied to women seeking therapy. The researchers found that

both female and male groups are susceptible to societal influences, which can have an

effect on perceptions made during therapy.

For female clients seeking therapy, a task force for the American Psychological

Association (1975) identified four areas of gender bias that women encounter in

counseling. It was reported that women: (1) face bias in counseling due to the fostering of

traditional gender roles; (2) experience bias in expectations of women, which leads to

devaluation of women; (3) contend with sexist use of psychoanalytic concepts; and (4)

are responded to as sex objects, including seduction of female clients (Good et al., 1990).

In a study by Werner-Wilson, Price, Zimmerman, & Murphy (1997), it was observed

during family sessions that women are interrupted more often than men (Sue & Sue,

1999). In this example, therapists were sending subtle nonverbal messages, and even

though they were doing so without always being aware of their behavior, gender-role

expectations were being conveyed during the clinical session.

Among men seeking therapy, it was reported that those who ascribe to traditional

ideas of maleness tie in with views of men’s reluctance to seek assistance. In this

37

instance, men would be less likely to seek assistance for psychological concerns. Because

of this way of thinking, men are then prohibited from “giving voice” to what may go

against traditional views of masculinity such as fears, vulnerabilities, and insecurities (p.

379). When this is the case, that which is considered “normal life reactions” are denied

expression, and possibly blocked from self-awareness, to men who consider counseling

(p. 379). If counselors adhere to such standards of gender bias, whether consciously or

unconsciously, these attitudes can be conveyed nonverbally in the counseling session

(Sue & Sue, 1999).

Sexuality

While the counseling and psychotherapy arenas have undergone dramatic

changes, which have resulted in improved attitudes toward clients who identify with the

LGBTQ community, practitioners’ responses are mixed toward LGBTQ clients and

issues (Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2011). This is demonstrated by the continued reports

of discrimination and hostility during the therapeutic process, including bias and

ignorance that are present in many aspects of psychotherapy. Members of the LGBTQ

community have picked up on “subtle and covert” forms of heterosexism within the

therapeutic environment (p. 210). These subtle messages, or microaggressions, are often

expressed nonverbally.

Microaggressions are “communications of prejudice and discriminations

expressed through seemingly meaningless and unharmful acts” (Shelton & Delgado-

Romero, 2011, p. 210). In counseling and psychotherapy, nonverbal microaggressions are

communicated by the therapist toward the LGBTQ client through nonverbal messages of

38

silence (i.e. refusing to discuss same-sex relationships) or body language, such as

changes in physical demeanor or posture when sexual orientation is disclosed. As

nonverbal communication is often subconscious, clients have overwhelmingly reported

that nonverbal microaggressions did not appear to be malicious or with ill-intent (Shelton

& Delgado-Romero, 2011). Yet, the fact remains that clients are adversely affected by

nonverbal behaviors of their counselors and such microaggressions can be quite

pervasive.

Age

Age has been given little attention in reviewing nonverbal communication in

counseling. However, as individuals age, the social roles, structures, and interpersonal

relationships that influence their interactions are continually being negotiated (Ryan,

Hummert, & Boich, 1995). The success of communication is often threatened later in life

because intergenerational communication interchanges are based on stereotypical

expectations related to age.

As people age, their younger counterparts begin to use patronizing forms of

communication. Ryan et al. (1995) defines patronizing communication with older adults

as the “over accommodation of communication with older adults based on stereotyped

expectations of incompetence and dependence” (p. 145). This definition is in line with

Ryan et al. (1986) Communication Predicament of Aging Model (Ryan et al., 1995). This

model is derived from communication accommodation theory, which points out that

“communicators modify their speech and nonverbal behavior…with the goal of achieving

satisfactory interactions” (p. 146). Hence, the communication predicament comes into

39

play upon recognizing “old-age” cues from one or both participants in communication (p.

146).

The patronizing message comes about through a combination of verbal and

nonverbal communication (Ryan et al., 1995). When the two messages conflict, the

nonverbal message tends to carry greater significance during communication and

influences interpretation of the verbal message. For example, if, in clinical settings, the

counselor refers to an older adult client by Mr. or Mrs., the paralanguage (i.e. tone of

voice, inflection, etc.) associated with how the client is addressed can convey either

respect, feigned deference, or disrespect. These behaviors can be coupled with

undermining nonverbal cues such as “raising the eyebrows or winking” (p. 151).

Ryan et al. (1995) explored several clinical studies that investigated the effects of

verbal and nonverbal behaviors found in patronizing communication towards adults in

residential settings. It was reported that patronizing communication is often an

institutional feature that is associated with negative stereotypes of aging. The researchers

explained that there are behavioral and psychological consequences. Behaviorally,

patronizing verbal and nonverbal communication reinforce age-related stereotyped

thinking and can lead to dependent behaviors in institutionalized older adults that yields

positive social reinforcement from staff. Psychologically, observers, as well as those who

engage in verbal and nonverbal patronizing communication, are more likely to form

impressions of older adults as less capable or incompetent (Ryan et al., 1995).

40

The Dyadic Effect

Clinical supervision is most often conducted in pairs, yet nonverbal

communication differences are usually reported from that of the individual. Elfenbein,

Foo, Boldry, and Tan (2006) studied this discrepancy and addressed nonverbal

communication at the dyadic level. The author pointed out that, although the ability to

accurately recognize emotion through nonverbal communication is often seen as an

individual skill, it is possible that pairs of individuals, in testing for accuracy in emotion

recognition found in nonverbal communication, could be comparatively accurate through

what is known as the dyadic effect (Elfenbein, et al., 2006, p. 151).

The dyadic effect is an estimate of the degree to which accuracy in understanding

is a function of communication between two individuals. It is taken from factors that

comprise Kenny and La Voie (1984) Social Relations Model (SRM) (Back & Kenny,

2010). SRM is a tool that is used to conceptualize and analyze dyadic processes and “is

one way to model the complexity of social phenomena between two people such as

attraction…helping, persuasion…and cooperation which make up most of our everyday

interactions” (p. 855). As part of SRM, the dyadic effect describes the relationship or

interaction between perceiver of information and expressor of information. That is, when

there is a dyadic effect, emotion recognition through nonverbal communication between a

pair of individuals is, with some controls in place, relatively accurate to the extent that

there is clarity in meaning concerning the communication process between two people.

This does not ring true for those simply observing nonverbal communication among

dyads. The understanding here is that during the interpersonal interchange, nonverbal

41

messages are unique to that particular interaction, and in order to yield an accurate

understanding of the message, feedback, as it relates to meaning, should come from both

communicators.

The importance of nonverbal communication on the dyadic level has been

assessed in a variety of settings including those between, physician and patient, teacher

and student, parent and child, clinician and client, and so on. As a result, nonverbal

communication cues are recognized as a central feature of interpersonal communication

that elicit judgments and behaviors (Dowell & Berman, 2013). To illustrate this,

Elfenbein, et al. (2006) explored nonverbal communication among dyads based on

gender and cultural background in Singapore. The primary goal was to record and

document nonverbal communication accuracy among selected pairs. The study consisted

of 24 participants. Each participant served as the receiver and perceiver of information

and judged 14 facial expressions from each of their fellow participants (Elfenbein, et al.

2006). Accuracy was measured using a “round robin” design that included a large

number of participants in a single round including multiple replications per dyad, which

the researchers reported as optimal to test dyadic effects (p. 152).

The researchers found that effects of dyadic interactions can in fact affect

communication accuracy. Elfenbein et al. (2006) reported that communication between

the dyads were both, at times, “especially accurate” and “especially inaccurate” (p. 155).

They found that because communication of emotion involves an exchange of information

between two people as opposed to any one person alone, “accuracy may incorporate

phenomena that are emergent only at the dyadic level” (p. 155). Their findings seem to

42

suggest that when messages are exchanged between two people, and meaning is incurred,

the information presented and received is done so through a nonverbal process that can

only take place within the dyadic exchange. That is, among dyads, participants

accurately infer the same meaning based on a mutual understanding of information

presented during the interpersonal exchange.

In other areas of research, Marcinowicz, et al. (2010) assessed responses to

nonverbal communication among dyads in healthcare settings. The researchers conducted

a qualitative study that explored nonverbal communication as it was carried out during

medical visits among general practitioners (GP) and their patients. They found that

patients are sensitive to several nonverbal behaviors of the GP that can be interpreted

either positively or negatively. Among the many forms of nonverbal communication

identified in the study, it was noted that communication is “an important domain” from

the patient’s perspective and that expression of emotion during medical visits is directly

related to nonverbal communication (p. 83).

Marcinowicz, et al. (2010) reported that patients responded favorably to

nonverbal body language that indicated an unhurried attitude and a relaxed demeanor,

while some patients reported a poor experience with interpersonal distance and lack of

intimacy between themselves and the GP (Marcinowicz, et al., 2010). The study

emphasized that not only should GP’s be aware of their own non-verbal cues and

behaviors, but that they should monitor them with special emphasis on tone of voice, eye

contact, and facial expressions. Such meanings taken from nonverbal cues cannot be

accurately assessed by an outside observer. So, the researchers compared their results

43

with existing literature for accuracy and found that eye contact is perceived prominently

by patients and serves as an indication that the provider is listening to them. In addition,

facial expressions, with particular emphasis on smiling, was confirmed with previous

findings that they are an important component of the doctor-patient interaction. The

researchers further tested for accuracy against Haskard, Williams, and DiMatteo’s (2008)

work, which looked at patient satisfaction among their interactions with nurses and

physicians. Haskard, et al. (2008) quantitative study controlled for accuracy based on

correlational analysis among dyads of patients and providers. Their results showed that,

in healthcare settings, providers and their patients reflect the emotional experiences of the

other in their tone of voice. Their work yielded a positive correlation with patient

satisfaction of care and positive tone-of-voice.

Perhaps the more commonly studied of dyadic relationships is that of teacher and

student. The teacher-student dyad is especially relevant when it comes to nonverbal

communication in supervision because it represents an almost identical dynamic between

the supervisor and supervisee. Attending to nonverbal behavior is a crucial component to

teaching and learning as both share several similar aspects with other interpersonal

relationships. Researchers such as DeVito (1986) pointed out that teaching is a relational

process that follows the developmental pattern of stages beginning with initial contact,

intimacy, and ending with dissolution. Additionally, Graham, West, and Schaller (1992)

reported that “teaching involves a process of relational development and requires

effective interpersonal communication skills to achieve satisfying outcomes” (p. 11).

44

An example as to the way in which nonverbal accuracy can be measured in

teaching relationships among students is the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy

Scale (DANVA). This scale was designed to measure differences in the accurate sending

and receiving of nonverbal social information (Nowicki & Duke, 1994). It is intended for

school-aged children between the ages of 6-10, as individual differences in processing

nonverbal information may be linked to indicators of personal and social adjustment.

This is so because “skill in nonverbal communication is assumed to be a necessary ability

for effective social interaction” (Nowicki & Duke, 1994, p. 10). In some cases, teachers

have administered DANVA. However, accuracy scores increase with age due to the fact

that perceptual and informational processing skills tend to improve, resulting in more

accurate sending and receiving of nonverbal information and, while useful early in life, is

a more accurate measure for older school-aged students.

As Stevenson-Won, Bailenson, and Janssen’s (2014) work was referenced in

chapter 1, special attention was paid to the dyadic effects of teacher and student and

focused on the exchange of body gestures. The authors reasoned that successful

communication is a key component to the learning process and that body gestures and

movements have been used in other studies to predict affect. Stevenson-Won et al. (2014)

conducted a quantitative study using an automated affective computing system that

tracked naturalistic body movements of teacher-student dyads from a West Coast

university. The researchers also measured synchrony (i.e. students mirroring and copying

teacher movements) among the dyads. Body movements were tracked by recording

participants’ gestures and postures in an effort to assess the qualities of teaching and

45

learning interactions. The goal was to predict high and low success of the interactions in

order to assess which features were more prominent in determining affective responses as

well as the predictability of successful (i.e. accurate) instructional outcomes among

dyads. The researchers found that nonverbal behavior of both teacher and student body

movements can effectively and accurately predict success of the dyadic interpersonal

interaction.

Similar to supervision, teacher and student dyads undergo a process that includes

initial contact when “meeting one another, exchanging information, and adjusting and

developing expectations similar to what any two individuals would go through in

developing a relationship” (Frymier & Houser, 2000, p. 208). To illustrate this, Frymier

and Houser (2000) studied communication skills between teacher and student. Part of

their investigation focused on immediacy behaviors to describe and understand the

teacher-student relationship. Immediacy, or the perception of closeness between people,

was further advanced by Mehrabian (1971) and can be communicated through a number

of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Verbal immediacy consists of engaging with students

when calling them by name, asking the students questions about themselves, or eliciting

their opinion. Nonverbal immediacy takes place when teachers smile at students, make

eye contact, change their voice patterns, or when moving about the classroom (Frymier &

Houser, 2000). Ultimately, the researchers found that, among teachers and students,

verbal and nonverbal immediacy supports the conclusion that teaching involves a

relational component that reduces perceptions of distance, which then serves to facilitate

communication between teachers and students.

46

Knowing that nonverbal communication can be understood differently from the

perspective of the dyadic relationship underlies the need to recognize the fact that several

layers of information takes place simultaneously. Because of this, meaning is comprised

of complexities that can be better identified by those engaging in the interchange. That is,

when information is shared, observers have access to only part of the information

presented whereas individual senders and receivers of messages, through verbal and

nonverbal exchanges, develop a shared understanding that leads to congruency in

meanings that can only be fully understood by each other. Hence, when assessing for

accuracy and meaning, conclusions are made based on those congruencies, and thereby

yielding evidence-based outcomes that can be used for future study.

For a visual representation of the way in which this study promotes an

understanding of nonverbal communication in clinical supervision, please refer to the

following diagram:

47

Diagram 1: Tetenov Communication Process Model of Clinical Supervision

Clinical Supervision

Social Factors

Supervisor: Sender of Information

Verbal Nonverbal

Congruence

Semantics Paralanguage / Kinesics / Proxemics

Supervisee: Receiver of Information

Matching Disclosures

Meaning

Dyadic Effect

& Immediacy

48

Summary

While nonverbal communication is not a new concept, it is new to counseling

supervision. Nonverbal communication is multifaceted and can be expressed in various

ways. Knowing that spoken messages carry deeper meaning than what is visible on the

surface helps to further ameliorate the complexities of counseling supervision.

As the literature demonstrates connections between nonverbal communication and

social institutions, the understanding that communication is multidimensional is reflected

throughout. In counseling supervision, supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of their

experience is unique to the dyadic relationship. The nonverbal messages that are

exchanged throughout the interpersonal interaction lends to the broader, lived

experiences of supervisees, including culture and power dynamics. Because supervisors

are in a teaching role, it is important to be aware of the way nonverbal communication is

sent and, perhaps even more importantly, how it is received and perceived by

supervisees.

49

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter addresses the qualitative research methods that were used to conduct

my research study. As discussed throughout this document, there are several nonverbal

factors that add to the many messages that are sent and received during the

communication process. While senders and receivers often focus on the verbal aspects of

the messages they encounter, other aspects of communication, such as body language and

voice inflection, serve to influence how messages are understood and, ultimately, how the

receiver of the message responds. Qualitative methods allowed me to understand this

phenomenon from the perspectives of the participants to answer my research question:

How do supervisors and supervisees communicate with and make meaning of nonverbal

behaviors in clinical supervision?

I begin this chapter by providing a more detailed explanation of my use of

qualitative methods for this study. Specifically, I will describe why I chose to use

constructivist grounded theory (CGT; Charmaz, 2014) as my analytic framework. I will

then describe the methods in more detail, including information about participants as well

as my data collection and analysis procedures.

Rationale for Qualitative Methods

I chose a qualitative approach for this study in order to derive meaning from the

experiences of supervisees in counseling supervision and to foster awareness among

counseling supervisors as it relates to nonverbal communication. Qualitative research is

shaped by the recognition that (1) as researchers, it is important to “listen to the views of

participants in our studies;” (2) it is necessary to “ask general, open questions and to

50

collect data where people live and work;” and (3) “research has a role in advocating for

change and bettering the lives of individuals” (Creswell, 2005, p. 43).

Mcleod (2003) elaborated on the many characteristics of qualitative work and

pointed out that an expression of qualitative research must be constructive in nature and

encompass the main characteristics and objectives. The author went on to explain that the

key to qualitative research is meaning, as it is “a process of systematic inquiry into the

meanings which people employ to make sense of their experience and guide their

actions” (p. 73). In keeping with this, Charmaz (2004) explained that meanings render

action and intention comprehensible and that one’s actions can then make implicit

meanings visible. The main idea is that qualitative researchers aim to describe

understandings based on espoused meanings inherent in the data.

My study was informed using building techniques of qualitative teaching and

learning, which Crotty (1998) has referred to as scaffolding. Similar to a construction

project, scaffolding lays the foundation by providing the initial framework and allowing

the learner to develop and establish structures over the long term. This approach provides

a sense of stability and direction to researchers as they begin to understand and expound

upon the research process in such a way that meets their personal needs and desires.

To begin the scaffolding process, I first thought about the methods and

methodologies to be used and the way in which I planned to justify their use. This linked

directly to my being able to discuss the purpose of the research project. Once this was

established, measures were then taken to address the four elements that are required for

any research project: methods, methodology, theoretical perspective, and epistemology,

51

which all inform each other and are the building blocks by which research projects are

established. They work together to provide the “soundness of our research and make its

outcomes convincing” (Crotty, 1998, p. 6).

Research methods consists of “the techniques or procedures used to gather and

analyze data related to some research question or hypothesis” (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). In

contrast to research methods, research methodology describes the strategy or the plan of

action in the design of the project, how it will be used, and serves to link the plan with the

outlined methods toward desired outcomes (Crotty, 1998). Next, theoretical perspective

is the philosophical stance that informs methodology and provides a context for the

research process by grounding its logic and conditions (Crotty, 1998). Thus, in qualitative

research, meaning is derived from our assumptions based on the philosophical stance we

enact. Epistemology is the final building block within the scaffolding process. It is the

knowing or the understanding of “how we know what we know” (Crotty, p. 8). According

to Maynard (1994), epistemology is “concerned with providing philosophical grounding

for deciding what kinds of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are

both adequate and legitimate” (in Crotty, 1998, p. 8).

In continuing to lay the foundation for understanding, it is important to know that

qualitative research is conducted from a set of principles that shape how the researcher

sees and behaves in the world. The principles are a combination of beliefs that include

ontology, epistemology, and methodology, which comprise the mechanism by which

qualitative research is premised. This mechanism is interpretive in nature and is referred

to as a paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Research is interpretive when it is directed

52

by the researcher’s “feelings and beliefs about the world and how it should be understood

and studied” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 22). A paradigm is a “basic set of beliefs that

guide action” (Guba, 1990, p. 17).

Maintaining qualitative authenticity is crucial to the interpretivist perspective and

the constructivist paradigm approach. Slife and Gantt (1999) discussed the importance of,

and general framework used in, maintaining the authenticity of qualitative research. The

framework focuses on the interpersonal exchanges between the participants and the

researchers and includes lived experience, the use of ordinary language, contextualism,

and meaning.

Lived experience in qualitative research is the idea of being open to all

experiences, some of which are emotional, mental, and spiritual (Slife & Gantt, 1999).

Qualitative research recognizes that sensory experiences are just as subjective and free to

be validated, as other lived encounters, with the understanding that “we never get outside

of our experience” (p. 1458). By contrast, ordinary language consists of the language

used by study participants themselves and can be in the form of verbal and non-verbal

communication. As qualitative researchers are committed to working with data in this

way, the objective is to isolate patterns in linguistic data. Moreover, researchers are

expected to be able to justify their conclusions with support of the data.

Contextualism is the assumption within qualitative research that some knowledge

is relative to the context in which it comes about (Slife & Gantt, 1999). It is expected that

this knowledge is unique and singular while being completely cultural and historical.

When applying this concept to counseling supervision, contextualism would support the

53

notion that some of the meanings of supervisees and some of the practices of counselors

are the outcomes of particular cultural and historical meanings. Similarly, meaning

assumes that humans possess some meaning in their lives that is not dictated by natural

laws serving to inhibit thoughts and behavior. That is, humans are subject to the

possibility of various meanings, which is vital to a researcher’s own understanding.

In the next section, I will discuss research design and outline the specific method I

used for data collection and analysis. The approach provided a step-by-step approach for

the ways in which meaning was derived from the data.

Research Design

For this study I used Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2014) as the

primary method of data collection and analysis. Constructivist grounded theory follows

Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) original approach that is “inductive, comparative, and

emergent” in its construct (Charmaz, 2014, p. 12). In the original development of

grounded theory, epistemological critique was combined with practical guidelines for

action and it was proposed that qualitative analysis could generate theory by way of its

own logic (Charmaz, 2006). Building from that concept, constructivist grounded theory

emphasizes flexibility of methods and avoids mechanical forms of it. In doing this,

Charmaz (2014) identified several defining components of constructivist grounded theory

practice. The defining components are very specific and include the understanding that

data collection and analysis are conducted simultaneously in an iterative process. In

doing this, participants’ very actions and processes are analyzed as opposed to focusing

exclusively on themes and structures. Comparative methods are also incorporated, as this

54

allows the researcher to compare existing data together in the research process making it

possible to draw on data in developing new conceptual categories. Finally, defining

components also make use of systematic data analysis to develop inductive analytic

categories. This leads to an emphasis of theory construction through a search for variation

in the studied categories, which aids in further developing the category as opposed to

covering a specific empirical topic.

In keeping with the several components of grounded theory, I attempted to isolate

a general “theory of process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants

in a study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 14). Within this process, there are multiple stages of data

collection, refinement, and interrelationship of information categories. In keeping with

this, methods within grounded theory consist of systematic guidelines for collecting and

analyzing data, and are tailored toward “qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’

in the data themselves” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2).

During the methodological process of collecting data, I attempted to establish the

foundation of theory and analysis related to the study, which in turn generated the

concepts that I constructed (Charmaz, 2006). As a result, theoretical analysis took place

from the very beginning of the project. The goal was to learn what occurs in the

supervision settings, while also focusing on the participants perspectives about what I

observed. Below, I provide additional details about my research design, including how I

implemented constructivist grounded theory into the data collection and analysis process.

55

Recruitment Procedures and Participants

The study was conducted at a CACREP accredited master’s counseling program

at a research University located in the northeastern United States. The program offers

master’s degree programs in both school and mental health counseling as well as doctoral

programs in counseling and counselor education. I recruited participants from existing

dyads of master’s students (supervisees) and doctoral students (supervisors).

I began the recruitment process by negotiating access to participants. All doctoral

student supervisors at the site are required to take a counseling supervision course, and

masters counseling students are required to take a counseling practice course. I met with

each group during their scheduled class times in order to request participation in the

study. During these meeting times I explained my study and secured consent to

participate. Once supervision dyads were established through a pairing process that is

overseen by faculty, I followed up with doctoral supervisors as to when the first

supervision session would take place.

In order to acknowledge the time and effort that participants spent in being available

for the study, I provided each supervisor and supervisee with one $50 gift card. Part of my

motivation for including tangible acknowledgements was due to Lather’s (1986) report that

reciprocity “has long been recognized as a valuable condition of research…” (p. 263). The

author reasons that reciprocity can bring about conditions that produce rich data. The belief

is that the researcher bridges a gap between strangers to that which is friendlier, thereby

making it easier to gather personal knowledge. Lather (1986) elaborated that reciprocity is

based on both intent and degree. In this way, my ability as a researcher to find a balance

56

between the acknowledgement of personal time spent by participants, along with an

appropriate monetary representation of gratitude, was intended to put me in a better

position to join with participants, thereby allowing me to move ever closer to a more

accurate understanding of the researched phenomenon.

Participants consisted of five master’s students who were supervisees at the time

data were collected, as well as five doctoral students who served as their supervisors.

Both supervisors and supervisees were asked to self-identify race and gender. Participants

identified gender as male or female and identified race as Asian American, Caucasian or

White, and Chinese (international student). Among supervisors, four participants

identified as Caucasian or White and self-identified their gender as female. One

supervisor identified as Caucasian or White and self-identified gender as male. Among

supervisees, one participant self-identified as Asian American and female. Two

supervisees identified as Caucasian or White and self-identified their gender as female.

One supervisee self-identified as Chinese and female. One supervisee identified as

Caucasian or White and self-identified as male.

Data Collection

In grounded theory, data collection is ongoing and involves an exchange of data

collected in “the naturalistic environment,” including codes, categories, and rationale

developed along the way (Egan, 2002, p. 283). The researcher adapts to the process by

engaging, responding, and adjusting to the research process, as the direction of the data

will become more focused as time goes on. Initially, data are collected through

approaches that are broad in nature, but are then narrowed down as the study becomes

57

more focused. Data collection often consists of semi-structured interviewing, participant

observation, focus groups, and even diaries or other existing text documents.

In collecting data, I used video recordings, interviews, transcripts, and memos.

Using these four sources to gather data helped not only to triangulate the data more

effectively, but added different perspectives that more fully informed the data that were

collected. I began by recording supervision sessions as they occurred at varying times

throughout the semester. Next, I identified sections of each session that demonstrated

what I believed to be salient aspects of nonverbal communication that occurred during

sessions. Finally, I interviewed each participant (supervisors and supervisees) separately

using IPR interviewing techniques to understand their unique perspectives regarding the

nonverbal communication that occurred during each session. Below I provide more

details about each step of the data collection process.

Part 1: Video-recorded Supervision Sessions. I started out by video-recording

each supervision session prior to its subsequent interview. I did this because session

recordings were needed in advance so to isolate nonverbal behaviors that were to be

addressed during interviews. All supervision sessions and subsequent interviews were

recorded using one or more recording devices including a laptop computer camera,

iPhone memo application, or video camera.

Video recordings are especially useful in qualitative research because they

provide opportunities in social science that aid in analysis, as well as distinctive ways to

present insights and observations (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010). Before each

recording, I arrived to the session early to set up the recording devices. I asked

58

supervisors to start and stop the recording process at the beginning and end of each

session. I video-recorded supervision sessions of five supervision dyads and recorded

three scheduled sessions of each dyad for a total of 15 recorded sessions. As my findings

were based on the progression of nonverbal expression within the supervision

relationship, I recorded the introductory supervision session, a midpoint session that

incorporated discussion and review of supervisees’ work as counselor, and a final session

leading toward termination.

Next, I analyzed supervision sessions to identify key non-verbal interactions

between supervisors and supervisees as outlined in the previous chapter. This was often

identified through proxemics and kinesics behaviors that appeared to deviate from the

natural rhythm of general conversation. I first reviewed the session without sound and

took note when participants appeared to shift nervously in their chair, held a fixed stare,

averted eye contact away from their dyad partner, or engaged in adaptor behaviors (i.e.

hand movements used to manipulate the person or object; Krauss et al., 1999). I marked

these instances as noteworthy and indicated the timestamp for each event for precise

recall. Once these were collected, I went back and reviewed the session again with sound.

Listening to the supervision session with sound allowed me to recognize the nonverbal

dynamic that occurred through conversation during the interpersonal exchange. When

adding sound, paralanguage and semantics were the main contributing factors in how I

selected sections of video for participants to review.

Part 2: Preparing for the Interview: Following each recorded supervision session,

individual participants (i.e. supervisor and supervisee) were subsequently interviewed,

59

separately, within 48 hours. Larsen et al. (2008) suggests scheduling the interviews

within 48 hours so as to have time to review the session prior to the interview and while

the session is still fresh in the participant’s mind. Interviews were conducted in a pre-

reserved, quiet, private, office-like space at the research university. Thus, in order to

ensure a level of comfort and confidentiality when disclosing thoughts and feelings

derived from each recorded session, I chose to interview participants separately.

Moreover, conducting interviews separately created an environment for each participant

that was conducive to generating authentic meaning from differing perspectives. More

specifically, assessing both supervisor and supervisee perspectives during the supervision

session separately was important because, as each participant comes away from the same

interaction, each might have “vastly differing experiences” (Larsen, et al., 2008, p. 21).

Prior to each interview, I reviewed supervision recordings in an effort to become

familiar with the content and to establish more informed interview questions as needed.

Participant interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, bringing the number of

transcribed interviews to 30. Supervision sessions were video recorded but not

transcribed because I was most interested in analyzing supervisors’ and supervisees’

recall of and perspectives about their experience with nonverbal communication in their

sessions.

Each recorded interview started out with a five-minute discussion intended to lead

in to the conversation by first eliciting from participants their thoughts about the

supervision session to be discussed at that time. Both supervisor and supervisee watched

the same segment of video in subsequent interviews and were aware that time was

60

allotted, if they chose to use it, at the beginning of each interview to recapture the

supervision experience prior to reviewing the tape. My decision to allow five minutes at

the beginning of each interview was intended to help put the participant at ease by

building rapport, which coincides with DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree’s (2006) rationale

for developing a rapport in qualitative interviews. After the initial discussion lasting no

more than five minutes, I indicated, usually during a natural pause in conversation, that

the viewing of video segments would soon get underway. Interviews lasted 60 minutes.

I framed interview questions and prompts by using two specific interview

approaches. First, I prepared questions in the past tense and used words like, was, did,

and then in an effort to continuously bring participant memories back to the time of the

original session. Framing questions in this way allowed me to focus the interview on

“there-and-then thoughts, feelings, and sensations” of the interaction being investigated

(Larsen et al., 2008, p.23). Second, I deemphasized content. According to Larsen et al.

(2008), participants are often drawn in by discussion of the video-recorded content and

will sometimes need to be redirected. In order to do this, I used empathic language and

validated the participant’s experience before gently redirecting the discussion back to the

inner processes of the participant. While short, succinct, questions are easily understood,

it is better for the interviewer to focus on a flexible interview conversation that lends to

the natural unfolding of the interviewee’s experience (Larsen et al., 2008).

Part 3: IPR Interviews. After identifying several noteworthy clips based on the

criteria described above, I then interviewed both supervisors and supervisees separately

using Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) as my interview method. IPR is a qualitative

61

interview approach used most commonly to investigate processes and experiences during

psychotherapy. IPR was originally used to “access client and caregiver experiences as

close to the moment of interaction as possible” (Larsen, Flesaker, & Stege, 2008, p. 19).

Its purpose is to uncover “individuals’ conscious yet unspoken experiences as they

occurred at the time of the interpersonal interaction under investigation” (p. 19).

IPR research uses video-recordings of clinical sessions that are played back to

participants during research interviews. The interview takes place while the interviewer

and participant watch pre-selected recordings together (Polkinghorne, 2005). I

interviewed supervisees first, as I wanted to elicit, in their own words, personal

reflections and experiences with nonverbal communication. Supervisors were

interviewed second and were shown the same pre-selected video clip as supervisees in

order to compare and contrast perceived meanings of nonverbal communication

expressed during the supervision session. When a recorded event was identified as

significant, the recording was stopped, at which time “the interviewee is asked to reflect

on the event by recalling the experience that occurred at that time” (p. 142). I assisted in

the interviewee’s efforts to explore the experience by asking open-ended questions. Thus,

the IPR technique of using video to stimulate recall is a specialized qualitative interview

procedure that focuses on the participant’s internal experiences that take place during the

session (Larsen et al., 2008).

I conducted IPR interviews using an in-depth approach. In-depth interviews take

place between two or more people and are “a construction of knowledge” to discuss a

“theme of mutual interest” (Kvale, 1996, p. 2). According to Marshall and Rossman

62

(2011), in-depth interviews are used to capture the “deep meaning of experience in the

participants’ own words” and are relied on extensively by qualitative researchers (p. 93).

I informed participants of the research focus prior to being recorded, as

participants in my study were encouraged to discuss any instances that evoked emotion or

that they found particularly noteworthy in their sessions. I also noted any questionable

instances that came about in the recorded session and used time in the interview to

specifically ask about those instances. During this time, I gave participants equal control

over pausing the recorded session in order to comment on specific segments and to

identify areas of meaning for them. This was especially useful, as participants would

sometimes indicate an experience that was not always apparent on the video recording.

When the recording was paused, participants elaborated more fully on nuances of the

interaction. Likewise, I asked participants to discuss what was happening for them in

those moments, as they regularly recalled unspoken, internal, experiences that I did not

have immediate access to.

At the end of each interview, I debriefed with participants as needed to gauge

individual comfort level with the interview. This is necessary because, as IPR can elicit

private, inner, experiences, the interviewee is often put into a very vulnerable position

(Larsen et al., 2008). In keeping with this, I used care in incorporating interpersonal

techniques such as emotional validation and empathic tone of voice to effectively close

the interview.

Finally, I personally transcribed all video recordings with the exception of one

interview that was transcribed by a master’s level graduate student who was a part of my

63

peer debriefing group. It was important to me to personally carry out most transcription as

the literature indicates that doing this adds a layer of understanding to the process that

cannot be fully attained by using outside sources, or by simply recalling the information

from memory (Ochs, 1979).

Memos

I wrote memos throughout the data collection process, including after each video

recording and interview. According to Marshall & Rossman (2011), memos often take

place between data collection and writing drafts of papers, as they are useful for writing

down thoughts and capturing “comparisons and connections” that are made (p. 162).

Moreover, memos helped me to crystallize questions I had and clarified directions I

wanted to pursue. According to Charmaz (2006), memo-writing is a crucial method in

grounded theory “because it prompts you to analyze your data and codes early in the

research process” (p. 72). I used memo-writing early and throughout my analysis of data

to capture my thoughts, as well as to make comparisons and connections in addressing

my research question.

Data Analysis

I used a combination of sources to manage my data including Nvivo

programming, Microsoft Office applications, and manual data management using

handwritten documents and notes. I analyzed data as it was collected and engaged in a

back-and-forth approach that allowed me to make comparisons as I went along. Data

analysis was applied throughout the data collection process and was constantly evaluated.

This is consistent with Charmaz’s (2014) recommendation to begin data analysis by using

64

the constant comparative method (CCM). CCM is used when coding the first unit of data

in order to make comparisons and to establish analytic distinctions at each level of the

coding process (Charmaz, 2014). I did this by comparing “data with data” in an effort to

find similarities and differences (p. 54). I also identified sequential comparisons through

evaluation of earlier and later observations and interviews of the same people and events.

CCM is especially useful in this case due to the possibility that what the researcher sees

differs from the participant’s view. When this happens, it is important to recognize both

perspectives, as disparities in viewpoint is one among several and “may rest on covert

meanings and actions that have not entirely surfaced yet” (p. 132).

In grounded theory, there are two main phases of coding. First, I started with open

coding. Open coding is a strategy that looks closely at the data and allows the researcher

to begin to conceptualize their ideas by analyzing the data (Charmaz, 2006). I did this by

using word-by-word, line-by-line, and in vivo (participant meanings) codes of transcribed

data. Line-by-line and word-by-word coding helped me when looking for links in verbal

communication. I started out by isolating ideas that I deemed noteworthy, yet whose

connection did not appear to be linked to any particular idea. Moreover, open coding is a

process that breaks down the data into a series of activities. This was quite useful in

helping me to identify the different physical behaviors that participants exhibited during

data collection. I used open coding to develop gerunds and to further isolate actions

exhibited as nonverbal cues by participants. The use of open coding was effective in

examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing the data (Strauss & Corbin,

1998).

65

The second phase of coding is focused coding. Focused coding is used to

“separate, sort, and synthesize large amounts of data” (p. 11). I carried out focused

coding by isolating the most significant codes in terms of frequency to sort through the

data. In doing this, it was necessary for me to decide which initial codes made the most

sense, analytically, in order to categorize the data. I did this by looking at the bigger

picture in terms of seeing trends and themes that emerged from the data.

While open and focused coding are the two primary forms of coding in grounded

theory, axial and theoretical coding techniques are common to grounded theory as well.

Creswell (1998) explained that similar to focused coding, the purpose of axial coding

goes a step further where the data are then reassembled new ways after open coding. In

this way, axial coding guided me in reconfiguring the data in order to make connections

between categories and sub-categories (Pandit, 1996). I did this by looking among the

broader themes that I already developed. I then grouped them based on similarity. From

these groupings the process yielded primary categories and the connecting subcategory.

Finally, I used theoretical coding. Theoretical coding is a continuation of focused

coding. It follows the codes that have been selected during the initial coding process. I

used this approach to specify the relationships between the categories that were

developed. Theoretical codes are integrative in that they helped me to bring participant

experiences together in a coherent way and move the analytic story into a more

theoretical direction (Charmaz, 2014). This approach tied together much of the data from

the coding process as the themes emerged and worked in unison towards the final results.

In theoretical coding, pertinent data are sought in order to develop the emerging theory,

66

as the main purpose is to elaborate and refine the analytic process (Charmaz, 2014). The

intention is to develop the properties of data categories until no new properties emerge.

Establishing Trustworthiness

When conducting research, it is important to be able to demonstrate that the work

performed is trustworthy. Trustworthiness is the degree to which outcomes can be

applied to other contexts and settings or with other groups (Krefting, 1991). I followed

Guba’s (1981) model of trustworthiness, which is used to increase the worth of

qualitative projects. The model incorporates credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability. When carried out effectively, these strategies are said to increase the

trustworthiness of qualitative research.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) explained that credibility, or truth value, refers to the

degree to which a study’s findings embody the meanings of research participants (in

Lietz & Zayas, 2010). Meaning is typically discovered through human experiences as

they are lived and perceived by informants. The goal is to represent multiple realities as

adequately as possible, as this ensures credibility. Establishing credibility in qualitative

interpretations must yield authenticity and be accurate when describing participants. In

doing this, I engaged the use of triangulation by using data from different sources to

“corroborate, elaborate, or illuminate” the research being pursued (Marshall & Rossman,

2011). Triangulation enhances the quality of the research by considering multiple

perspectives for mutual confirmability of the data in order to “ensure that all aspects of a

phenomenon have been investigated,” (Krefting, 1991, p. 218). I collected data and

incorporated feedback from different sources including observation, interviews, and

67

recordings of supervision sessions. This is in line with Patton’s (2002) position that

triangulation is an effective process that “strengthens a study by combining methods” (p.

247).

Transferability, or applicability, offers another layer of insight to trustworthiness.

Transferability is present when findings can be generalized across groups and can fit into

certain contexts outside of the study (Krefting, 1991). The findings in my study can be

applied in multiple areas including workplace dynamics, social contexts, and general

human interactions. Moreover, my study offered descriptive data that are sufficient to

allow comparisons between contexts, as supported by various scenarios outlined in the

literature review section of this study.

Dependability gauges stability and equivalence of the study (Krefting, 1991). In

order to yield a sound document that lends to the plausibility and trustworthiness of a

study, it is necessary to implement an audit trail, which enables the reader to determine

whether or not the analytical comments or claims by the researcher appear justifiable

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Audit trails are useful because they provide a clear way to

show how data were collected and managed. They account for all data and design

decisions in the field allowing anyone to trace the logic (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). My

audit trail consists of the ‘what and how’ of my data, as I have retained all documents,

schedules, receipts, and correspondence throughout my study. Documents consist of

memos, interview questions, and approved RSRB information sheets, including email

scripts and classroom presentation scripts. As part of the audit trail, reflexivity is central.

It is another part of the triangulation process and helped me to understand and

68

acknowledge that my own actions and decisions will have an impact on the meaning and

context of the experiences I investigated (Horsburgh, 2003). I acknowledged reflexivity

by keeping a “self-critical account of the research process” that included my internal and

external dialogue (Tobin & Begley, 2004, p.392).

In seeking confirmability, Guba’s (1981) neutrality provides a measure against

bias. Krefting (1991) explained that it is the degree to which findings are a function of the

informants and conditions of research, motivations, and perspectives. In order to do this,

qualitative researchers must consider the potential for research reactivity and bias (Lietz

& Zayas, 2010). Research reactivity is the potential for the researcher or the procedures

in the study to impact the participants to the extent that it changes the findings of the

study. Bias comes about depending on how the socio-political locations and preconceived

ideas of the researcher shapes the way the study is designed and analyzed, and thereby

leading to possible misinterpretation of the data.

I ensured confirmability by way of member checking and peer debriefing

sessions. I started by “checking-in” with participants during interviews and at other times

of contact (i.e. before or after supervision session recordings) to ask whether the

information being presented was correct. I often prepared summaries of my observations

and used them as a guide when asking participants about my ideas. I wanted to know

their reactions, including where any corrections could be made, and to welcome further

insights. At the end of my study, I also followed up with some participants via email to

further check that information used to indicate findings was accurate. In this way, my

participants were able to “correct the researcher’s representation of their world”

69

(Marshall &Rossman, 2011, p. 42). Peer debrief sessions allowed me to obtain reactions

from knowledgeable colleagues who offered input on coding, analytic memos, and final

drafts of written work (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). I regularly met with a peer

debriefing group at scheduled intervals, as the group’s input guarded against bias and

offered a diverse lens to my work while I collected and analyzed data.

Finally, I relied heavily on negative case data to add richness to my findings.

Negative case data consists of contradictions in the data that can lead to unexpected

findings. Such findings can strengthen theory and serve to support arguments. In

research, a negative case is when participants’ experiences or viewpoints do not align

with the main body of evidence (Emigh, 1997). For instance, during member checking, I

regularly asked participants to share their insights into personal experiences shared in

supervision. Often times, based on nonverbal behaviors captured on video, coupled with

findings in the literature intended to interpret nonverbal behaviors, I believed certain

expressions of body language yielded specific participant meanings. However, when

going back and asking participants to elaborate on my observations, I was corrected.

While many characteristics of nonverbal body language in this study clearly indicated

much of what the literature suggests, I did not always have access to or understand

various nuances and other unique factors that affected participants’ individual

experiences. As result, visual aspects of nonverbal communication that did not align with

the literature ultimately added more complex meaning that was further developed and

made clear by participants themselves and thereby yielding a more advanced finding. So,

70

when a negative case can be elucidated, the general explanation for typical findings of the

case is strengthened (Emigh, 1997).

Summary

In this chapter I outlined the qualitative methods I used to understand the ways in

which nonverbal communication is experienced during clinical supervision.

Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) and Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) allowed

me to discover internal and external processes that occur among supervisor and

supervisee. In the following chapters I provide details of the findings, which include how

participants chose to share or avoid disclosure of thoughts and feelings, as well as the

conditions that influenced their decision. I also discuss the findings relative to the clinical

supervision literature. The discussion of the findings elaborates on specific outcomes of

the clinical interaction and lends an understanding to the progression of the supervision

relationship.

71

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the ways in which meaning is

derived through the exchange of nonverbal communication cues in clinical supervision

settings. The study’s aim was to understand and to explore the main research question:

How do supervisors and supervisees communicate with and make meaning of nonverbal

behaviors in clinical supervision? In order to address the research question, this chapter

presents the experiences of each supervision dyad and tells their unique stories through a

more informed lens by stripping away the veneer of propriety and challenging

participants to disclose that which was not shared verbally during their supervision

sessions.

Results indicate that nonverbal behaviors are important factors within

interpersonal relationships, as individuals communicate and process information in

different ways. Moreover, as nonverbal communication is constantly sent and received, it

often goes unnoticed. Each dyad story demonstrated how nonverbal cues can be both

prominent and elusive, but rarely understood fully by the receiver.

It is important to note that each supervisor was trained in using the constructive

supervision approach. Supervisors were required to take a 3-credit, doctoral level,

supervision course that focused on theory and clinical practice. Constructive supervision

is meant to encourage supervisees to critically reflect in their sessions and assists

supervisees in developing their own answers as they navigate the internship experience.

While supervisors implemented constructive supervision techniques to varying degrees,

72

they often referred to this approach when discussing their rationale for adhering to its

tenets.

Of the five dyads featured in this study, some included participants who were

aware of their nonverbal behaviors and discussed with great insight the nature of their

thoughts during supervision sessions. However, other participants were less in tune with

the subtext of the nonverbal exchange and were unable to effectively articulate their

experiences. Still others, while aware of the existence of nonverbal cues, had difficulty

processing and making a connection with the information presented.

In the next section, more detail regarding the findings from each dyad is provided.

Dyads one and two effectively demonstrated what it is like when supervisors are in tune

with supervisees and can recognize some of the ways in which nonverbal communication

plays out in supervision sessions. Dyads three, four, and five demonstrated what happens

when nonverbal communication cues are not recognized and go unaddressed in

supervision sessions. Each dyad story incorporates unique insights from supervisors and

supervisees in order to render a richer account of the events they encountered. Dyad

stories were shaped by a combination of individual experiences as well as intellectually

based inferences made by participants in the context of nonverbal communication.

Dyad Story 1: International Experience

Background

Veronica, the supervisor, is a full-time female doctoral counseling student. Janet,

the supervisee, is a second year, international female masters counseling student. Janet

73

was interning at a college-based site while completing the final semester of her internship

year.

Veronica and Janet worked together as supervisor and supervisee in the fall of

Janet’s internship year and had completed sessions one, two, and three during that time.

Sessions four, five, and six, which were recorded and analyzed for this study, were

conducted in the spring. Veronica and Janet were paired among different supervision

dyads during the previous practicum year and had only met for Janet’s internship year.

The Story

Janet was interviewed first. I started out by asking her to discuss the dynamic

between herself and Veronica. Janet described how she felt immediately upon walking

into the first session of the semester and said, “I felt nervous.” I was struck by the candor

in Janet’s disclosure, so I asked her if she had shared feelings of nervousness with

Veronica during previous sessions. Surprisingly, she had not discussed her feelings about

nervousness in supervision. She said, “I didn’t tell her but she understands that. She can

feel it.”

As the interviews progressed, Janet’s feelings of nervousness would paint a much

bigger picture. We would frequently go off-script and become more conversational as we

deviated from the structured question-and-answer style of interviewing. Through our

conversations, I learned a lot about Janet’s background and became more familiar with

different aspects of her personality.

I learned that Janet was an international student from China. When assigned to her

practicum site, prior to starting her internship, she was placed in a setting where she was

74

initially given more administrative tasks with clients due to challenges with

communication. Because of this, Janet felt unprepared for her internship. Janet’s feeling

of being unprepared set the tone for her supervision experience from that point forward.

On video-recorded moments of supervision, Janet was regularly observed

becoming tearful. She often attempted to prevent tears from being obvious as she would

look away from Veronica, shift her glasses, or tilt her head back in an effort to prevent

tears from streaming down her face. I asked Janet to help me to understand what she was

feeling during these very emotional times. Janet explained that she believed she lacked

adequate clinical skills and that she was not “professional enough.” Janet did not believe

she was prepared for her counseling internship because the practicum did not expose her

to counseling practice. Instead Janet took part in career counseling and helped with

college applications due to the language disparity. Upon sharing this, Janet said, “I feel

like I’m not that professional. I think there are a lot of things I need to improve. I want to

know her [supervisor’s] perception or feeling about this because this is my first time

working with emotional counseling aspects.”

Veronica was aware that Janet felt unprepared for her internship and was often

observed in the recordings reassuring Janet. During an interview with Veronica, she

explained that after one of the recorded sessions, they spoke privately and she explained

to Janet that she also knows what it feels like to lack confidence. Veronica self-disclosed

to Janet that, “I struggle with confidence too. I too struggle with ‘am I doing enough’ or

‘am I doing a good job’.” Veronica hoped that her disclosure would put Janet more at

ease, but instead, Veronica reported that Janet did not believe her. Veronica added, “She

75

flat out told me she didn’t believe me.” Veronica took Janet’s misgivings in stride and

reported that Janet thinks supervisors are infallible. Veronica explained that she had seen

this way of thinking in her client population as well and added that this way of thinking

was not a new task for her to tackle.

In response to Janet’s feelings of insecurity, Veronica chose to tread carefully.

She found that Janet’s insecurity could be further exacerbated when drawing attention to

it, so Veronica often modified her role as supervisor. When this change took place,

Veronica continued to use reassuring language in supervision and would sometimes

discuss various possible meanings behind specific encounters that Janet indicated as

uncomfortable.

Janet’s observed nonverbal behaviors in her recorded supervision sessions

consisted of crying, nodding responses, little eye contact, low speaking tone (almost to a

whisper), laughing out of context, and engaging in adaptors such as adjusting her glasses

or scratching her head. These nonverbal behaviors were prevalent throughout all of

Janet’s interviews. I asked Janet to discuss her thoughts and feelings at selected moments

and, in each instance, Janet reported that she was responding to the idea of seeing

Veronica as an authority. When observed crying on the recording, Janet explained that

she “felt a little embarrassed” and that she felt “pressure” to figure out what Veronica

wanted from her because she had a desire to “satisfy” Veronica by answering all of her

questions properly. She said, “I feel like I want to know the answer she is satisfied with. I

want to satisfy with my answer.” Janet believed Veronica had a desired response in mind

for each of the questions she asked, however Veronica stated that questions were in

76

keeping with the constructive approach and were meant to encourage Janet to develop her

own answers. Janet went on to explain that she feels “uncomfortable with the authority

part” of the supervision relationship and added that, “I feel like she is going to judge me

whether I am good enough.”

Janet’s disclosure was interesting in that her reasons for feeling nervous were

different from other participants’ views of authority and supervision. In one interview

encounter, a nonverbal moment had just been identified when the recording showed Janet

looking away and speaking in a low whisper after Veronica asked her to share what her

intentions were upon asking a client a particular question. Janet was unsure how to

answer Veronica. She found that she was puzzled during this time and she said, “It was

like I was doing a test where she was the teacher and I was the student.” Janet went on to

say that, “I always feel this way.”

I asked Veronica to offer her thoughts about Janet’s desire to “satisfy” and her

feelings of being “tested.” Veronica believed that Janet felt exactly as stated but then

went on to unpack Janet’s statements a little further. When Veronica could sense that

Janet was feeling vulnerable in the ways described above, she explained that Janet is

often “looking to her for guidance.” Veronica believed that Janet needed encouragement

during these times and said, “She often looks to me for guidance and ‘what is the right

move’ and ‘what do I do next.’ I almost want to rescue her. [So], I just jump between

[helping] her develop personally and her being able to develop herself while also having

somebody to motivate her and say ‘you got this’.” Here, Veronica uses a constructive

approach, as she encourages Janet to expound upon the strengths she has and does not

77

give Janet instruction as to what she must do. Veronica effectively carries this out despite

Janet’s visible struggle, yet remained available to Janet as needed throughout the process.

As the interview continued, I wondered if Janet’s thoughts about satisfying

Veronica and the idea of being tested were directly related to culture and how that might

have played a role in Janet’s perceptions of the supervision relationship. I asked Janet if

she believed her ideas of authority could be associated with any cultural values she might

hold. Janet denied this to be the case and explained that she always feels challenged when

questions are asked of her by anyone in authority. She said, “I’m not sure it is about

culture. I have a teacher issue, so I am nervous when I am talking to a teacher or with an

authority figure.” Janet went on to explain that she places great value on Veronica’s

opinions and that she had an ongoing fear of being judged by her. When asked why, Janet

said, “I just feel like I need to use better English and cross check the host without any

mistake (sic) and that I need to express myself as clear as possible. I think maybe she

would think I am not as good at speaking English.”

As we continued to explore Janet’s reactions to questions Veronica asked in

supervision, I noticed that Janet experienced persistent feelings of insecurity with

language and culture. The feelings Janet disclosed appeared to consume her and were

constantly present in supervision recordings. Veronica commented on Janet’s concerns

over language accuracy and agreed that “it is difficult.” She went on to say that, “the

language barrier has been a challenge and [it] has been a hindrance in the supervision

process.” However, Veronica followed up by explaining that she takes great care in her

attempts to help Janet understand that “mistakes are not bad,” referring to the

78

constructivist notion of helping supervisees to normalize, reflect, and learn from mistakes

rather than being consumed with avoiding mistakes. This process was challenging to

Veronica as she stated, “It has taken a lot of patience.”

When Janet elaborated on what she referred to as “teacher issues,” she said, “I

want her to like me. I just feel like is she going to like me? Since I have teacher issues, I

just always wonder if a teacher is going to like me.” I took this as an opportunity to ask

Janet what she might have done to address her feelings of wanting to be liked in previous

supervision sessions with Veronica. Janet said that she has never addressed her feelings

in this way and added, “I kept it inside.” When asked why, Janet explained that she

would typically not disclose what she was thinking or feeling because, “Maybe I

misunderstood something. She didn’t mean to make me uncomfortable. And second, I

just feel like because she is an authority figure to me and I have that difficulty too.” Other

reasons and strategies Janet offered for not sharing her feelings in supervisions were, “I

do not have a habit of sharing,” “I do not want to be criticized,” and “I change the

subject.”

Janet’s concerns appeared to focus more on the outcome of her specific actions in

relation to her ideas about authority. It was not as important for Janet to relay her

experiences accurately or to connect a clinical experience to her own understanding as

much as it was important for her to match whatever ideas she believed Veronica thought

were right.

Veronica was very insightful about Janet’s reaction to her nonverbal behaviors.

Veronica had been observed throughout the interviews using direct eye contact, smiling,

79

using silence, and leaning forward. When showing Veronica many of the selected

moments on the video recordings with special emphasis on Janet’s behaviors she said, “I

knew something was up.” Veronica had known that Janet’s approach to supervision was

to match her as effectively as possible. Veronica also understood that her own nonverbal

messages could translate in ways that she not only did not intend, but that her nonverbal

messages could be translated in ways that she also could not control. In response to many

of the nonverbal cues that Veronica exhibited, she referred to the constructive perspective

that, “I was trying to get her to think and process.” She added, “My facial expressions are

hard to hide. I do not have much of a poker face.”

Veronica noticed throughout the recorded sessions that Janet appeared to

experience a great deal of angst. She noticed that Janet would often become silent and

would sometimes begin a different conversation when the topic became uncomfortable.

In one instance when Veronica noted a shift, she said, “after the long pause she kind of

changed the subject.” Veronica was skilled at bringing Janet back to the conversation in

an effort to avoid a missed opportunity for learning, however when Veronica would offer

insight and feedback to Janet during these times, Veronica noticed that Janet would

always respond in the affirmative and did not offer her own opinions. Veronica reported

the following thoughts about Janet: “I’m not sure if she says yes to be agreeable,” “She’s

always asking for my opinion,” and “She thinks I know everything.”

Veronica was aware that Janet was concerned about the impression she made in

supervision sessions. Veronica often used language that was reassuring to Janet and

encouraged Janet to discuss her experiences. As Janet continued to be apprehensive about

80

what she would share in supervision, Veronica remarked, “She’s too stressed to make a

mistake.” Veronica found that her own efforts to use nonverbal cues intended to endear

herself to the supervision relationship, such as leaning in closer to Janet or smiling often,

did not yield the results she hoped for. Janet remained reserved in her actions and

behaviors even though Veronica made several attempts to reassure her that “It’s okay to

make mistakes.” Instead of softening to the experience, Veronica reported that Janet

tends to laugh in an effort to hide her emotions and explained this by saying, “She is so

stressed that she doesn’t have the capacity to be in her head and process.”

Table 1

“Veronica and Janet”

Nonverbal Cues

Veronica: Direct eye contact, forward lean, silence, smiling

Janet: Tearful, little eye contact, laughing out of context, speaking at a whisper, adjusting her glasses and scratching her head

Participant Meanings

Veronica: “I was trying to get her to think and process.”

Janet: “I do not have a habit of sharing.” “I do not want to be criticized.” “I change the subject.”

Mediating Factors • Cultural Disparities • Personality Traits • Miscommunication of Nonverbal Cues

Summary

In Veronica’s and Janet’s story there are three areas that warrant critical

reflection. The first is that Janet did not believe her status as an international student

played a prominent role in the supervision relationship. She often attributed her ideas

81

surrounding supervision and authority to her personality, yet many of her responses to the

supervision relationship were meant to “satisfy” the supervisor. Janet’s desire to satisfy

Veronica, as well as feeling tested by her, was not expressed as strongly, or with the same

intensity, as the remaining supervisee participants. This way of thinking was remarkable

in that Janet also believed it more important to please the supervisor, whether she agreed

or disagreed. For this reason, I wondered how much of Janet’s actions were related to

differences based on culture, which I will discuss in the next chapter.

In post-interview conversations with Veronica, she made it clear that while she

also believed Janet’s nonverbal presentation was influenced by culture, she wanted to

work with Janet to build a meaningful connection that they could both relate to. While

Veronica did not avoid the topic of culture, she chose to implement her role as supervisor

in ways that corresponded with specific nonverbal behaviors that Janet exhibited. When

this occurred, Veronica used questions that were adherent to constructivist practice and

used language that she hoped would encourage Janet to discuss her feelings in order to

elicit an understanding of the clinical issues Janet presented.

The second area that was remarkable was Janet’s feelings of insecurity. Janet was

sometimes observed crying and reported feeling “embarrassed” by this this because she

did not want to be “judged” and wanted to be seen as “good enough” by Veronica. This

disclosure coincides with Janet’s experience of being assigned tasks in her professional

training that were different from her peers. Due to a perceived language barrier, Janet did

not gain the clinical experience that she wanted and expected from her practicum and

82

internship, as she truly functioned from a deficit perspective and believed her

contributions were inadequate.

Finally, silence played a large role in the dynamic between Veronica and Janet.

Veronica regularly used silence in an effort to create the needed space for Janet to share

her thoughts and feelings, however Janet took this and other supervision tactics that

Veronica implored as a challenge. Janet expressed a desire to be liked by Veronica and

explained that she tends to keep her feelings inside. This exchange was seen time and

time again on video recordings of their supervision sessions. When Janet was silent,

Veronica would sometimes use silence as well. This would prompt tearfulness in Janet

due to being unsure what Veronica wanted from the professional relationship.

The interesting point here is that Veronica is using a constructive approach to

supervision that occasionally uses silence to provide supervisees with opportunities for

self-reflection. However, due to Janet’s insecurities in supervision she was unable to sit

with silence and allow the process to take place. Veronica was very keen in recognizing

Janet’s nonverbal behaviors and knew when various tactics caused discomfort. In

instances when Janet revealed through nonverbal behaviors, such as crying or laughing

out of context, that she was nervous upon Veronica using silence as a learning tool,

Veronica recognized these cues and would address these instances with Janet. Often

times, Veronica would use nonverbal body language and lean in closer to Janet to

indicate an “I am here with you” message followed by a warm smile or reassuring words.

Interestingly, Veronica’s efforts to reassure Janet were largely unsuccessful for reasons

that I will attempt to address in chapter five.

83

Veronica’s insight into many of Janet’s nonverbal responses was especially

apparent during periods of silence. Veronica’s use of silence was strategic, as she knew

that Janet would struggle with what to do next. On video recordings, Veronica is

observed breaking periods of silence with assurances and telling Janet that “It’s okay” to

feel uncomfortable and urging Janet to share her own thoughts as opposed to always

trying to come up with the right answer. Veronica’s responses to Janet’s nonverbal

behaviors in supervision demonstrated a keen sense of awareness. In every recorded

instance Veronica is seen providing guidance and education to Janet and purposefully

using nonverbal communication to connect in supervision sessions. In this way, Janet

understood that, despite her insecurities and lack of experience, she was valued by her

supervisor. In the next dyad story, you will see another example of how skillful

supervision strategy can be applied in conjunction with nonverbal communication cues

and thereby emphasizing the inherent benefits of supervisor awareness.

Dyad Story 2: Maintaining Balance

Background

Tawnya, the supervisor, is a part-time, female doctoral counseling student who

works full-time as a supervisor at a local community agency working exclusively with

children and families. Regina, the supervisee, is a second-year, female masters

counseling student completing her internship year.

Tawnya and Regina worked together as supervisor and supervisee for practicum

and again for Regina’s internship. Before participating in this study, the two had already

84

completed sessions one, two, and three during the fall semester. Sessions four, five, and

six, which were recorded and analyzed for this study, were conducted in the spring.

The Story

Tawnya and Regina’s supervision story is unique. While many dyad pairs had

similar inclinations about their supervision relationship, Tawnya and Regina had different

ideas about the flow of communication within their relationship. In Regina’s first

interview, I asked that she describe her opinions regarding the communication style

between her and Tawnya, and she said, “I’m happy to say it’s very easy.” After meeting

Tawnya professionally, prior to starting her practicum, Regina believed she would

receive a good, “hands-on” supervision experience and asked Tawnya to be the

supervisor for both the practicum and internship. Regina went on to say that, “I was

really thankful for that because…you get a lot of feedback and opportunity for growth,

and so by that I mean a challenge. That’s why I really like my tape supervisor; because

she really pushes me.”

During Tawnya’s interviews, I also asked her opinion about the communication

process between her and Regina. Tawnya’s ideas differed from Regina in that she said,

“It’s somewhere in the middle. My supervisee is extremely bright, extremely intelligent,

and she’s insightful. But in the process, she appears to have turned off her insights and

she’s working in her head.” While Tawnya reported that she was quite fond of Regina

personally, she added, “I [wonder if] I have been assuming, because she’s so

accomplished and competent, that I am missing opportunities to comment on [her]

strengths. I wonder if I have lost some of that balance – so that’s on my mind.”

85

Throughout the recorded supervision sessions Regina’s nonverbal behaviors

included pausing, direct and indirect eye contact, overly expressive speech, crying,

animated body movements, and smiling out of context. When interviewing Regina, I

specifically focused on three of her nonverbal behaviors: eye contact, crying, and smiling

out of context. First, I asked Regina to elaborate on instances when she was observed

engaging in varying degrees of eye contact and she explained that she tends to use

minimal eye contact when “in thought.” I took this as an opportunity to discuss a

particularly noteworthy moment when Regina described herself as being “in thought.”

The moment was when Regina disclosed in her interview several insecurities she had

about her professional ability. In general, Regina puts forth a very confident and assertive

persona, yet she explained that in one supervision encounter she believed that a

measurable amount of improvement in her clinical abilities was missed by Tawnya and

would have been more apparent if they had listened longer to a portion of the audio-

recorded client-session. In response, Regina experienced an emotional trigger and said,

“One of the feelings I was feeling was annoyed…and I guess Tawnya stopped the tape, in

my opinion prematurely…so I was frustrated and probably beating myself up a little bit

for being ‘not’ perfect.”

The above is interesting because Regina reported that she and Tawnya can discuss

“anything” and had, in fact, discussed Regina’s feelings of being imperfect in the past, as

Regina said, “Yeah – that’s just one of my biggest flaws.” However, based on recorded

moments shown during interviews, Regina did not always disclose all of her feelings to

Tawnya, including times when she felt annoyed. When shown examples and asked why,

86

Regina explained that she does not always believe it to be “necessary” to share some

things and believes it to be in poor taste to point out behavior of her supervisor that she

was particularly annoyed by.

The second nonverbal behavior that was striking was when Regina was observed

crying on one of the recordings. I asked Regina to recall her experience in as much detail

as possible. Regina recalled that her supervisor was asking questions “to get me to think

[but] I knew she knew the answer.” Regina was resisting her supervisor’s constructive

strategies because she did not want to face the reality of what she intuitively knew about

herself. She described feeling “passionate” and “sad” that her clients were struggling on

one of the identified moments and understood that her supervisor wanted to draw that out

of her. I indicated to Regina that her ongoing passion was apparent throughout the

recordings and asked her to help me to understand the type of passion that was present in

the particular moment we were reviewing. Regina said, “I remember I was equally as

passionate but this is more like a sadder passionate, a different presentation, but the same

quantity of passion and I guess sadness because she [supervisor] was saying out loud

what I had been thinking – that I wish I could do more with [my clients] and limiting

myself and not meeting my greatest potential. So I guess I was…allowing myself to be

sad.”

Regina reported that she had an appreciation for Tawnya’s intuition and her

ability to thoughtfully connect with her. As Regina continued to feel sad, Tawnya

followed up with some insightful comments that Regina listened to but remained very

quiet. I asked Regina to discuss what she was feeling in this instance and she said, “I am

87

nodding my head a lot and purposely not talking because I’ll just start crying more. But I

agree and I am happy to hear all of those things because, like she said, ‘this is

supervision,’ and I’m like ‘yeah this is exactly what I want’.”

The third nonverbal behavior that stood out was when Regina was observed

smiling continuously for about twenty seconds. This was out of character from what had

been recorded of Regina’s nonverbal behaviors thus far. In this instance, Regina’s affect

was not congruent to the context and it seemed as if she was not disclosing what she was

thinking. When asked to discuss her thoughts at that moment, Regina said, “I am smiling

because I got caught – because she is pushing me to be a therapist…and I don’t want to

do it, but I know it is the next step.”

Regina’s disclosure that she “got caught” was a direct result of Tawnya’s

effective use of silence in the context of constructive supervision. While Regina took

time to think, Tawnya attended to Regina nonverbally by using an empathic eye gaze that

indicated a sense of support and served to gently encourage Regina to continue within her

thought process. Using silence in this way resulted in Regina being able to take the time

she needed to reflect and come to the realization of what she needed to do on her own.

Tawnya’s attentive style added to and helped shape the way in which the

supervision relationship evolved. She regularly provided the clinical insight needed to

address the unspoken message that was hidden behind the spoken message. This was

especially useful to communication when making inferences based on the nonverbal

dynamic in the room.

88

Tawnya’s observed nonverbal behaviors were silence, low tone of voice, slow

production of speech, pausing, direct eye contact, and few body movements. The

interview seemed to naturally progress toward Tawnya’s ideas about unspoken thoughts

and feelings that Regina had, as she was keenly aware that her own nonverbal behaviors

could influence the outcome of Regina’s supervision experience. This became clearer to

me when Regina experienced difficulty or struggled with client issues. Tawnya had

become so in tuned with Regina’s mannerisms that she had developed an understanding

of knowing when something was awry, even if Regina did not always disclose.

At one point, Tawnya was observed using silence and direct eye contact while

Regina was engaging in an overproduction of speech and moving about in her chair while

discussing an issue. Tawnya explained that this was an indication that Regina was

struggling because, “She was laying out a lot of limits, and it was [her] rationale. I

learned whenever she has reasons why something has to be the way it has to be, she has

‘tells’ like a poker player and she’s really not comfortable with whatever she is going to

tell me now. Either she thinks I am going to jump all over it or she’s not comfortable in

herself. I’m not sure yet. But she does many more gestures and a lot of explaining and my

‘antennae’ comes up.” Tawnya used inclinations such as these as opportunities for

growth and explained that when she noticed Regina experiencing discomfort upon

processing uncomfortable information, she used patience in her approach but also saw

this as an indication to continue the conversation, which was consistent with the

constructive approach she was engaging. Tawnya said, “You gotta keep going with it”

and “I trust my quick intuition.”

89

After learning from Tawnya that she intuitively knew that Regina did not always

disclose her thoughts and feelings during supervision, I wondered about Tawnya’s ideas

regarding why that might be the case. Tawnya explained that “a tone exists” that is

sometimes apparent in Regina’s natural desire of “wanting to please me.” Tawnya

recognized that this realization was upsetting to Regina because “she has great defenses

that she’s totally unaware that she’s using.” However, as Tawnya explained, “We both

have to trust each other, and that’s real hard because we have to get over the authority

things that people come in with.”

Tawnya also touched briefly on age disparities and how they might affect the

supervision process. Tawnya explained that she sometimes found herself wanting to “take

care of” Regina and attributed this to the fact that she is of an age where she could easily

be in a parent role to Regina. She reported that she wanted to offer a “secure base” for

Regina but wanted to be sure she was not approaching the idea from a “parental”

perspective. As is consistent with the constructive approach, Tawnya believes in offering

guidance but not giving “direct solutions,” as she believed Regina did better at coming to

realizations in supervision on her own. Finally, Tawnya believed that the most important

part of supervision is what supervisees take away from the experience. In her words, “I

still hear the voices of the people who supervised me, and that is part of who I am. My

hope is that what we did together stays with her.”

90

Table 2

“Tawnya and Regina”

Nonverbal Cues

Regina: Smiling out of context, direct/indirect eye contact

Tawnya: Direct eye contact, pauses, silence, soft tone of voice

Participant Meanings

Tawnya: “…she has ‘tells’ like a poker player and she’s really not comfortable with whatever she is going to tell me now.”

Regina: “I am smiling because I got caught – because she is pushing me to be a therapist…and I don’t want to do it, but I know it is the next step.”

Mediating Factors • Strong Working Alliance • Shared View • Supervisor’s understanding of supervisee’s nonverbal communication cues

Summary

Tawnya’s and Regina’s supervision relationship yielded two main insights

regarding the role of nonverbal communication in the supervision relationship. The first

insight stems from several instances of incongruent affect. Incongruent affect takes place

when an outward expression of emotion does not match inner feelings. In this case,

Regina started out explaining how “easy” the communication process was between her

and her supervisor. However, there were times during interviews when Regina

experienced feelings that were different from what she expressed. This was especially

obvious when Regina explained that she felt as if she was “not perfect.” During this time,

Regina used minimal eye contact with Tawnya and reported that she was “in thought.”

However, upon further questioning, Regina disclosed that she had been feeling

91

“annoyed” with Tawnya for stopping the audiotape of her clinical session earlier than

expected because she believed areas of improvement would have become apparent if

Tawnya had listened to the tape of her client longer. At the time, Regina’s frustrated

affect was not evident to me as an observer and was not known to Tawnya. Regina chose

to withhold this information from the conversation and resorted to being “in thought” as

this appeared to be an alternative to sharing her feelings. During this time, Regina used

in-the-moment processing strategies to decide which nonverbal messages to send during

supervision. She did not want Tawnya to know her true feelings because she did not

always believe it was “necessary” to disclose areas of dissatisfaction. Because of this

belief, Regina reflected an outward appearance to ensure that her thoughts were not

always known to Regina.

In critically analyzing other reasons why Regina’s feelings were not always

discussed in supervision, the insights are twofold. First, when observed crying, it was

apparent to both Regina and Tawnya that a sensitive area was being touched on. Because

they were in tune with each other in this way, Regina’s crying response seemed to be

taken in stride. Tawnya explained that when Regina exhibited visible expressions of

discomfort, she took this as a cue to “keep going.” In fact, Regina appreciated Tawnya’s

supervision tactics in this regard and it appeared they shared a level of understanding

through nonverbal means that did not require spoken context. Second, when observed

maintaining a smile for almost twenty seconds, Regina revealed that she felt “caught” by

Tawnya. This encounter was telling because Regina responded positively to Tawnya’s

constructive approach and was able to grow in her understanding within the space

92

provided by Tawnya’s skillful application of methods. In both instances, Regina did not

verbally elaborate on her feelings because she and Tawnya appeared to function on a

higher dyadic level of communication that did not require an explicit verbal rendering of

the intended message.

The second main insight was Tawnya’s ability to recognize and to comprehend

the authentic message behind the nonverbal behaviors that Regina regularly presented.

Tawnya, a seasoned supervisor and very accomplished in her clinical abilities, could see

beyond Regina’s affect and carefully considered Regina’s thought patterns in

supervision. When Tawnya explained that Regina “has ‘tells’ like a poker player,” she

clearly demonstrated a level of critical understanding that could only be seen from her

vantage point. Tawnya’s ability to decipher Regina’s mannerisms and to account for gaps

in communication added meaning to the supervision exchange and provided a lens for

clarity.

Dyad Story 3: Being Unprepared

Background

Camden, the supervisor, is a 2nd year male, doctoral counseling student who

works full time as a counselor at a community agency. He is also a student supervisor to

master’s level counseling students at a research institution located in the north eastern

United States. One of his supervisees, Saunya, is a 2nd year female, masters counseling

student. She was in her final year of study while completing her internship as a counselor

at a local mental health clinic. Camden and Saunya were paired together the previous

year as supervisor and supervisee during Saunya’s practicum requirement and completed

93

ten weekly sessions. For the internship year, Camden and Saunya met for and completed

the first two supervision sessions (1, 2) during the fall semester and completed four

supervision sessions (3, 4, 5, and 6) during the spring semester. Camden and Saunya

were interviewed following sessions three, four, and five. Session six was not included in

this study. Due to scheduling conflicts, I met with Camden for the first individual

interview. For the two subsequent interviews I met with Camden second.

The Story

At the start of each interview, I asked Camden and Saunya to begin by describing

their communication style. Both believed they had a good rapport and believed they

worked well together. According to Camden, “We have a pretty good relationship

because, last year, we worked together. I let her sort of lead with what she wants to do

with the tapes and what things she wants to talk about. And then as curiosities come for

me I’ll kind of ask questions that I am kind of curious about. I think we kind of have a

feel for each other’s style and, you know, personalities.” Saunya had a similar, although

brief, response to the same question asked of Camden. She said, “We worked together

last semester during my practicum, so I am pretty comfortable with him.”

For the first interview with Camden, I asked him if there were any instances

during the first recorded session that were significant to him. While there was no specific

moment that was especially noteworthy to Camden during the first interview, he pointed

out that, “I tend to be a little bit more psychodynamic in my [supervision] orientation, so

I felt like I was leading her to go back…or talk more because I was curious. In the

94

moment I noticed [it] so I try to back off in my head a little bit.” Camden’s observation of

his own behavior was the premise by which most of the sessions followed.

I asked Camden to describe the initial “vibe” in the room once the supervision

conversation started. Camden immediately responded by engaging in several pauses and

hesitations in his speech before saying, “You know, I don’t know. I was wondering kind

of from the start like if she’s prepared. Like she started the tape and then [started] kind of

talking over the tape and I wonder if that’s discomfort with what is on the tape [or] rather

having prepared it before. So, right off the bat I sense this nervousness that she’s having

kind of a lack of preparation.” Camden shared that he often wondered if preparation was

a factor many times throughout the recording of their supervision sessions. During these

times, Camden’s nonverbal responses would almost always consist of silence when

wondering if Saunya was prepared. This was followed by fixed eye contact and

intermittent finger tapping.

While watching selected video moments with Camden, I asked him to “walk me

through” what he was thinking and feeling when these nonverbal behaviors were taking

place. In addition to the ongoing thought that Saunya was not prepared, Camden

expressed concern for Saunya’s experience and said, “I wonder if she was comfortable.”

He went on to add that, “She seemed a little closed off,” “She was not making eye

contact,” “I wondered if she was going on the fly with stuff,” “She exuded a lack of

direction,” and “Is she listening to me?”

Camden’s responses reflected what he was thinking during the time in which the

interaction took place. He was processing the moment in real time and recalls that he

95

struggled with his own questions during this time as well. Camden’s nonverbal behaviors

initially appeared as if he was frustrated or that he was losing his patience. However,

when asked to explain, Camden described feelings of discomfort and uneasiness. He

believed Saunya was uncomfortable sometimes because, “her affect might not match so

she will laugh more or smile more. She moves more and makes less eye contact.

Sometimes she rationalizes more and makes it more ‘heady’ and less about what she is

feeling. She will talk more than usual.” During this time, I noticed that Camden did not

disclose his concerns to Saunya, but during the interviews, he discussed various

nonverbal behaviors that Saunya exhibited that, when asked to elaborate on, he said, “If

it’s a little uncomfortable [for her], and if that’s what’s making her feel a little safer, then

that’s okay. If it’s more comfortable for her to avert her eyes I kind of let it go.”

Camden elaborated further on Saunya’s affect and shared that when she is

uncomfortable, Saunya would sometimes indicate this nonverbally by smiling out of

context. When this happened, Camden would usually match her smiles with his in an

effort to make her feel more comfortable. Upon hearing this I asked, “Is it comfortable

for you or comfortable for her?” To my question, Camden explained, “I think it is a

comfort thing that I would like to do less of. I think to some degree it is making me

comfortable too. [I want to] maybe draw more attention to it [behaviors of supervisee]

when she’s doing it. I think probably for me it’s more comfortable to match it.” Camden

explained that he had not considered this possibility before and wondered “if I’m more

consciously aware of [it], but maybe not as aware until someone else is looking at it.”

96

During interviews with Saunya, she described the initial feeling in the room as

“very comfortable” and added, “he usually lets me lead.” Yet, when asked if there was

anything she would like to share prior to viewing selected recordings, she indicated that

she struggled with “conceptualization” of client cases. Saunya explained, “[I mean] like

is this actually what I am trying to say?” Saunya carried these thoughts with her going

into each supervision session. She explained that she always wanted to be sure that she

sounded as if she made sense. She added that she valued and respected the supervision

relationship and that she believes she owes it to the sessions to come prepared. In her

words, Saunya explained, “I do respect him. I want to make sure I put in the effort.”

Saunya’s ideas about wanting to come to session prepared echoed some of the

same concerns that Camden originally shared. As Saunya’s interview delved deeper into

the question of preparedness, she disclosed that she was indeed unprepared for the first

supervision session. She said, “…we took a bit of time in between our sessions so there’s

that build up too, where I’ve had this tape and I’m like, I haven’t looked at this.” This

disclosure appears to coincide with many of the nonverbal behaviors that Saunya

exhibited on the video recordings. Saunya was regularly observed engaging in silence,

using indirect eye contact (looking passed supervisor), playing with rings on her finger,

shifting in her chair, smiling out of context, and using a “darting” eye gaze to and from

various objects in the room.

When Saunya’s nonverbal behaviors were shown to her, I asked her to share what

she was thinking about during those times. Saunya was less descriptive of her feelings

and, instead, used language that substantiated her actions and the thought process that

97

accompanied them. Saunya said, “I was cold,” “I always play with my rings,” and “I was

trying to be in the moment.” I noticed that Saunya did not identify any particular feelings

she had that were associated with nonverbal moments captured on video and ultimately

matched Camden’s description of being “heady” in her accounts.

As the recordings continued, I showed Saunya times in which she was observed

looking away from Camden, appearing to have difficulty sitting comfortably in her chair

due to constant movement, as well as repeating information she already shared. Saunya

also spoke over the tape-recorded client session and continuously explained the context to

Camden. I then asked Saunya to help me understand what was happening for her during

this time. Saunya explained that she had only recently refreshed her memory of the

client-session. She said, “I looked at it a little bit the night before just so that I can

remember which session it was.”

Saunya had not disclosed to her supervisor that she had only recently reviewed

the tape. She explained to me that she was not fully prepared for two of the three

recorded supervision sessions and that during these times she did not know if it was

apparent to her supervisor. In this context, Saunya described having the feeling that

Camden “knew” something and added that she was concerned about his perception of

her. When asked to elaborate she said, “I was probably a bit nervous.” Saunya

acknowledged that neither she nor Camden addressed the discomfort and when asked

why, she responded, “I think it was like we’re just going to kind of go with it.”

During this time, Saunya was observed looking down and away from Camden

after questions were asked. She took time to think about the question and would

98

periodically look up at Camden before answering. When asked to discuss any feelings

she experienced when observed being silent and upon looking to and away from Camden

before answering questions, she said, “I always look away when thinking.” Later she

added, “I always have to think about it,” as this implied a process that Saunya went

through when Camden asks questions. Saunya explained that this was usually in the

context of trying to interpret Camden’s facial expression and body language. In one

recorded example shown to Saunya I observed that Camden’s expression looked “intent.”

Saunya responded by saying, “Yeah. Like he’s really wanting an answer.”

Saunya’s experiences gave way to instances where she wanted more concrete

information from Camden, as she sometimes found it difficult to understand his use of

silence. When asking Saunya to describe the “vibe” after a long pause in the supervision

recording, she said, “I don’t know at this point. I feel like just listening and waiting for

something that I know I want to talk about.” In this part of the interview, Saunya stated

that she consciously held back from talking about various topics throughout the

supervision sessions because “it’s not really productive or useful.”

99

Table 3

“Camden and Saunya”

Nonverbal Cues

Camden: Tapping pencil on table, shifts in chair, taking deep breaths

Saunya: Indirect eye contact, manipulating objects, shifts in chair

Participant Meanings

Camden: “I was wondering kind of from the start like if she’s prepared.”

Saunya: “We took a bit of time in between our sessions…where I’ve had this tape and I’m like, I haven’t looked at this.”

Mediating Factors • Strong Working Alliance • Shared View • Supervisor’s understanding of supervisee’s nonverbal communication cues

Summary

The interpersonal interaction between Camden and Saunya posed an interesting

conundrum. In this case, Camden presented as an experienced clinician with great

insights. He expertly incorporated his professional knowledge into to the supervision

relationship with Saunya and was able to pick up on various nonverbal cues that allowed

him to read, quite accurately, some of the messages Saunya conveyed. However, their

dyad story is different from other stories presented because Camden was able to see

beyond the surface of Saunya’s nonverbal messages and was able to connect with

Saunya’s needs; but he did not openly discuss specific areas of discomfort that he

identified, despite the connections he had made. This did not appear to be in line with my

100

expectations of a seasoned supervisor and it caused me to question why Camden did not

open more dialogue in this regard.

In keeping with the dyad story itself, the main connection made was Camden’s

ability to pick up on Saunya’s lack of preparation. So, when he explained his reasons for

not incorporating his concerns into the supervision discussion, such as not wanting to

make Saunya feel more uncomfortable than she already was, I thought of two things. On

the one hand, using restraint and not exacerbating a person’s discomfort can be effective

and shows tact in most situations. On the other hand, in a setting where learning is

expected to take place, I wondered if Camden’s desire to protect Saunya’s feelings also

served to protect his own feelings.

Camden shared that while he did in fact discuss some nonverbal behaviors that

indicated discomfort in Saunya, he did not call attention to Saunya’s lack of preparation

because, ultimately, it was uncomfortable for him. This goes to show that while

supervisors and supervisees both struggle to decipher nonverbal messages, one’s internal

dialogue plays a very prominent role in determining how to proceed. In Camden’s case,

his role as supervisor afforded him the ability to see from his supervisee’s perspective

and to hone in on areas where she needed further attention. However, Camden’s

insecurities in this instance were less associated with Saunya’s nonverbal messages as

they were with her lack of professionalism in the context of being unprepared. This

realization makes their story stand out because Saunya’s nonverbal communication, or

the veneer that disguised the problem, was easier to discuss than the real issue. This is

unusual because data from other cases in this study would otherwise suggest that it is

101

more difficult to break through the surface before the easier process of discussing the

underlying issue. Ironically, it was just the opposite for Camden and Saunya. It seemed

easier for Camden and Saunya to address what appeared to be happening nonverbally,

than it was to discuss the more tangible issue of being unprepared.

Dyad Story 4: Gender and LGBTQ

Background

Sheila, the supervisor is a part-time female, doctoral counseling student who

works as a full-time psychotherapist at a local medical facility. Hayden, the supervisee, is

a 2nd year male masters counseling student completing his internship year at a community

mental health center. At the time, Hayden was Sheila’s only supervisee of the semester.

Sheila and Hayden worked together as supervisor and supervisee in the fall, and

completed sessions one, two, and three during that time. Sessions four, five, and six,

which were recorded and analyzed for this study, were conducted in the spring. Sheila

and Hayden were paired with different supervision dyads during the previous practicum

year and had only met for Hayden’s internship year.

The Story

When interviews began, Hayden was interviewed first. He appeared very

comfortable and spoke in a calm and friendly tone. After thanking Hayden for taking the

time to meet with me and for being a part of this research study, I asked him if there were

any specific moments during the recorded supervision session that he wanted to discuss

before watching selected moments I had chosen for the interview. Hayden wanted to talk

about the relationship dynamic between him and Sheila. He immediately disclosed that

102

he sometimes feels worried in session for different reasons. The first reason he shared is

that, when listening to the client-session tape, if it goes on for a longer period without he

or Sheila stopping to discuss what was just heard, that he might be perceived as being ill

prepared for supervision. He said, “I think there may be some moments where the tape

goes on a lot longer than I wished it would. It makes me feel a little worried about

coming in.”

This disclosure was curious to me for reasons I did not immediately understand,

as the tape-recorded session showed lively conversation, with Hayden doing most of the

talking. I pointed my observations out to Hayden and then asked if he would help me to

better understand by describing the communication process between him and Sheila.

Hayden replied, “I could ask her just about anything. We meet each other at a very

genuine level where I just feel very welcome and we can just be honest.” I felt as if there

was a small contradiction in what Hayden was describing. He stated earlier that he was

often worried in session, yet he followed up by stating that he felt comfortable sharing his

thoughts with Sheila, even though he had not disclosed his concerns with her in session.

I then decided to modify the interview process and asked Hayden to describe the

“vibe” in the room with Sheila when recording initially started. I played back the very

beginning of the first recorded session to Hayden. Hayden listened for a while, then

shared that “It was a comfortable vibe. It just feels like another day of supervision.”

However, as the tape continued, Hayden added, “I wish I could talk about more personal

things because I felt a connection with Sheila, but I guess I was [really] saying let’s get to

all the other stuff first.” I immediately wondered if Hayden wanted to be more candid in

103

supervision but did not believe he could. His nonverbal behaviors on the video recording

showed him looking away during these times as well as nodding in approval with almost

every assertion made by Sheila. As this type of presentation seemed out of the ordinary

for Hayden, I asked him if there were ever times when he believed he refrained from

sharing his thoughts during supervision. Hayden replied, “I would say so. Yes.” He stated

that his reason for doing so in the first session was because, “I didn’t want to bring it

[concerns regarding career aspirations] up during that tape. After we were done talking

about everything we needed to talk about, I could fishtail that in the end.” Despite what

appeared to be many opportunities, Hayden never directly shared his personal thoughts

with Sheila as they occurred within the context of recorded sessions for this study.

As interviews continued, many of Hayden’s nonverbal behaviors stood out in a

way that appeared to indicate a pattern. I noticed that Hayden often sat erect in his chair,

looking directly at his supervisor with minimal deviation in eye gaze, ongoing smile

regardless of affect congruency, and engaged in several adaptors (i.e. fidgeting with

glasses or scratching his head when speaking). When Hayden was observed looking

directly at Sheila, he was often silent while she was talking and did not usually offer

nonverbal signs of understanding such as head nods or use of paralanguage like “uh huh.”

These moments stood out as interesting upon review and were shown to Hayden in an

effort to elicit feedback. At one point, Hayden’s pattern of looking directly at Sheila

changed as he deviated in his stance and looked away from her for a moment before

returning his eye gaze. That specific nonverbal behavior appeared more submissive than

104

any other noteworthy moments that were recorded. When this action was explored in our

one-on-one interview, Hayden offered more detailed insight into his nonverbal actions.

When asked what he was thinking or feeling when briefly looking away from

Sheila, Hayden stated that this was a time when he was wondering where the direction of

the supervision conversation was going, but did not disclose his concerns to Sheila.

Hayden felt that the supervision conversation had shifted and focused on his personal

thoughts about gender roles and LGBTQ. It appeared as if Sheila was superficially

discussing the fact that Hayden identifies as LGBTQ but was being indirect and perhaps

was uncomfortable with the subject. Hayden also believed that Sheila might have been

indirect in an effort to avoid discussion, as he noticed hesitation in her voice. During this

time, Hayden was very quiet and appeared uncomfortable. In describing what he was

thinking in this instance, Hayden said, “When I experience things like this my first

thought is ‘where are you going with this’? I wanted to just jump right to the conclusion.”

As the discussion continued to focus on Hayden’s LGBTQ identity, Hayden

found himself in a position where he was trying very hard to understand Sheila’s

nonverbal cues, as she used silence and appeared nervous. When Sheila was silent,

Hayden wondered what her silence meant and followed up by pausing in his speech more

often, as if cueing Sheila that it was her opportunity to speak. However, during this time,

Hayden became noticeably less rigid and sat more comfortably in his chair. He was

observed leaning forward toward Sheila and appeared very relaxed. Hayden used

paralanguage to indicate that he was listening to Sheila and to encourage her to continue

talking. Hayden also used silence in very much the same way Sheila did, which appeared

105

to enhance the tension that was evident on the recording. Sheila’s responses were strained

and she appeared to stumble over her words in very much the same way a supervisee

might respond when challenged by a supervisor.

I addressed some of my observations about the session with Sheila when I

interviewed her. I explained to her that on the video recording that Hayden seemed

“visibly uncomfortable” at first and I asked if she felt that way as well. Sheila agreed and

said, “I did sense that too. He did seem a little uncomfortable and almost borderline

defensive.” When asked why she believed this was, Sheila explained, “Hayden disclosed

in the recording that he has a boyfriend, so he’s gay, and if I wondered what it triggered

is that maybe he thought I was asking about that – if he interpreted that I was saying

‘because you’re gay, does that make your role different?’ I don’t know, so yes, he did

seem uncomfortable, almost a little defensive in the beginning with that.”

I followed up with Hayden and asked if he could help me to understand the

feeling in the room during this tense moment with Sheila. Hayden explained that he was

feeling some discomfort with Sheila’s questions and believed she was “not saying

whatever she was thinking” and believed she was falling short at her efforts to lead up to

“a really deep insight.” Hayden acknowledged that he believed Sheila’s hesitation was

related to his LGBTQ identity and stated, “We’ve talked about LGBTQ identity before,

[but] I don’t think we ever talked about my relationship.” Because Hayden’s relationship

had never been part of the supervision conversation, I asked Hayden if he believes the

topic influenced the sense of discomfort he felt from Sheila, and he said, “I think it is

possible.” However, despite the discomfort that was prevalent in the session, Hayden was

106

quick to add that discussion about his partner was not uncomfortable for him and that it is

a preferred topic because “talking about my boyfriend is easier than talking about my

family.”

Hayden’s preference to discuss his relationship caused a shift in the interview, as

he reevaluated his thoughts about Sheila’s nonverbal cues earlier on and changed his

response to, “I think in re-hearing her question [regarding LGBQ], I think I just misheard

it wrong. I guess I try to repress a lot of experiences with [a male family member]. He

was very authoritative.” This disclosure led to Hayden elaborating on his experiences

with gender roles and explained that he experienced gender disparities firsthand at his

internship site and saw a stark difference in the way male and female staff respond to, or

even consider, various scenarios. Hayden explained that, because of what has been

observed in various settings, he purposely softens his voice in an effort to avoid sounding

authoritative in any way. He said, “I think in my sessions I recognize the possibility that

that influences what happens in our sessions. So, I don’t think I said this in my sessions

with my supervisor but I definitely try to soften my voice as much as possible, speaking

slowly, calmly, really doing everything I can to avoid an aggressive tone. Just because I

don’t want to come off as intimidating.”

After Hayden shared his insights about how he actively works to avoid an

authoritative stance with Sheila, he became more passive on the recordings. This was

especially apparent when Hayden would sometimes look away when asked questions.

Additionally, he was often overly responsive and agreeable, but would sometimes pause

and weigh his words more carefully. Throughout the interview process, Hayden

107

explained that some portions of the supervision sessions were uncomfortable for him and

that he believes the supervisor might have been hesitating or withholding her thoughts

from him. As a result, video recordings showed overelaborations and redundancy at those

times. Hayden explained that discussion about gender roles had never been discussed in

supervision with Sheila.

Throughout the interview process, Hayden continued to share more instances of

times when disclosure in supervision did not take place. For example, Hayden shared

that, at times, he felt a lack of engagement from Sheila. He explained that he did not

bring up feeling a lack of engagement with her because he sees Sheila as an authority and

did not want to overstep professional boundaries. However, Hayden acknowledged his

supervisor’s position of authority from a sense of propriety and was content with the idea

that not calling attention to areas of dissatisfaction is simply what one does. He said,

“Supervisors have authority over supervisees and I don’t want to tell my supervisor how

to do their job.”

In follow up interviews with Sheila, when asked about gender differences, she

reported that she does not perceive male/female disparities and does not believe gender

plays any type of noteworthy role in their supervision relationship. Sheila sees Hayden as

forthcoming and open about his experiences. She believes Hayden will say what he is

thinking and believes that he would not hold back from disclosing information. Sheila

denies that she feels a sense of power over Hayden and recognizes the existing,

unspoken, dynamic that is inherent in most supervisory relationships, but does not believe

it has been a factor for them interpersonally.

108

Sheila was observed in supervision using minimal talking, direct eye contact,

frequent pauses, and long periods of silence. Sheila’s nonverbal responses were

sometimes ambiguous to Hayden as he was observed during these times seeming to “take

in” what Sheila was saying without much interjection. When Sheila’s nonverbal

behaviors were shown to her on video, she explained that her actions could be likened to

previous supervision relationships where, “I was trying to be the poker-faced

constructivist person; not saying anything.” Here Sheila is referring to the constructive

notion of supervisors encouraging supervisees to develop their own answers, however,

rather than supporting Hayden verbally and nonverbally in his efforts to find answers on

his own, Sheila’s “poker face” left him confused and unsettled.

When asked if her use of silence was always useful and whether Hayden would

have liked more verbal support from her when he described issues that he struggled with,

she said, “I think he wants feedback [but] I think he knows what may or may not have

been wrong.” I was very interested in Sheila’s perspective about Hayden’s needs as it

relates to feedback during supervision, so I asked her to help me to understand in more

detail as to why she did not offer more feedback or why she did not engage more directly

in discussion about some of the topics in supervision. To this, Sheila said, “I would never

hit him over the head and say you missed that,” and “I don’t think he was looking for

support.”

Hayden’s ideas about feedback in supervision were very different from Sheila’s.

Hayden indicated that there were several times when he wanted Sheila to take more

initiative in offering information or to take the lead in conversation. He said, “I think I’ve

109

always wished Sheila would interrupt and say things more [often] instead of me leading

it, because sometimes it feels like Sheila is not fully engaged.” Hayden’s disclosure gave

the impression of exasperation and indicated that perhaps he has come to expect minimal

feedback from Sheila. When asked to describe his feelings when this happens, Hayden

said that he tends to “catastrophize.” He added, “I do that a lot when I get a sense that she

is disengaged or that she has lost interest in the tape. I get the sense that I did something

really bad.” Sheila’s “poker faced” approach resulted in Hayden feeling as if she was not

invested in the session or, worse, that she disagreed with his ideas but was not

comfortable saying so. This is a specific instance where it would have been more

beneficial for Sheila to engage nonverbally by nodding in the affirmative, leaning in to

indicate interest, or to implement the use of paralanguage such as “uh huh” as Hayden

spoke. This is also an area where Sheila could have verbally encouraged Hayden by

inviting him to say more about his ideas or to bring him into the process by explaining

that she wants to provide a space for him to think freely about how he would approach

some of the clinical experiences he struggled with.

Hayden indicated that Sheila has never directly told him that he did anything

wrong, however that is how he feels in response to her nonverbal messages. I then asked

Hayden what the opposite would look like. I wanted to know which types of behaviors

from Sheila would indicate to him that all was well. Hayden responded, “So far, the

biggest thing Sheila did not do, that I always wanted her to do, was to say that she has

something to say, and she never did.”

110

Table 4

“Sheila and Hayden”

Nonverbal Cues

Sheila: Flat facial expressions, silence, direct eye contact

Hayden: Direct eye contact, smiling out of context, adaptors, silence

Participant Meanings

Sheila: “I was trying to be the poker-faced constructivist person; not saying anything.”

Hayden: “[Sheila was] not saying whatever she was thinking.” “When I experience things like this my first thought is ‘where are you going with this?’ I wanted to just jump right to the conclusion.”

Mediating Factors

Poor Working Alliance Sheila’s nonverbal cues led to Hayden believing he could not freely share his

thoughts and feelings.

Summary

Sheila’s and Hayden’s supervision relationship is the most complex factor of their

story. There were several areas where nonverbal communication told a story that was

different from what either participant presented. For instance, Hayden shared in the

beginning that he sometimes feels worried about the supervision relationship and that he

is afraid of appearing ill-prepared in certain instances. Yet, in the same interview, Hayden

later described the relationship with his supervisor as “very welcome and honest.”

As we can see, Hayden’s descriptions of the supervision relationship differed

greatly. After disclosing his initial worries, he then followed up by using positive

language to build up the relationship. This contradiction was noteworthy throughout the

111

interview process, as Hayden’s nonverbal behaviors constantly indicated feelings of

uneasiness.

Hayden always sat in a rigid, upright, seated position. He sometimes looked

physically uncomfortable and his eye contact rarely deviated from Sheila, as if he was

waiting for an appropriate time to speak. During these times, Sheila also used direct eye

contact, mostly spoke in a low tone of voice, and used silence regularly. Only in the end,

when Hayden finally revealed that he would have liked Sheila to initiate a discussion of

his work by stopping the audio tape herself, did the following inconsistencies converge.

Hayden’s disclosure in the beginning foreshadowed what was to come. Being

“worried” about the supervision relationship warranted discussion. However, when

Hayden disclosed that he “always wished” that his supervisor would have taken the

initiative in this regard, he demonstrated how instances of nonverbal communication

were overlooked by the supervisor and, as a result, Hayden’s concerns in supervision

were never discussed. This disconnection set the stage for an inevitable breakdown in

communication.

A breakdown in communication took place more prominently when Hayden’s

identification with LGBTQ surfaced. When Hayden spoke about his boyfriend, Sheila’s

nonverbal behavior conveyed a sense of discomfort that, in turn, resulted in Hayden

feeling uncomfortable with Sheila’s reaction. Seeing this dynamic between Hayden and

Sheila revealed even more about the nonverbal messages and general understanding that

Hayden received from Sheila’s engagement style, as Hayden ultimately took the initiative

in the same way that he once hoped Sheila would have taken.

112

Another way that communication broke down between Sheila and Hayden is

when Sheila believed she was effectively applying constructive supervision techniques by

using a “poker face” that failed to convey understanding, empathy, or connection to

Hayden. This left Hayden feeling baffled by the process and left him wondering what he

did “wrong.”

Even though Hayden recognized the need to facilitate clearer communication and

took steps to initiate this, he did not find this role desirable. Hayden reported that he

would have liked Sheila to interrupt more with her own interjections and that, when she

did not appear engaged, he explained that he “catastrophizes” and wondered what he

could have been done differently. So even though Hayden took the initiative in some

ways and even challenged Sheila on some subject matter, the richer experience he wanted

from supervision was never fully realized.

Dyad Story 5: Wanting More

Background

Marcy, the supervisor, is a full-time female doctoral counseling student who also

works full-time as a therapist at a community agency working with children and families.

Selina, the supervisee, is a 2nd year female, masters counseling student. Selina was

interning at a local mental health clinic while completing her final semester of her

internship year.

Marcy and Selina worked together as supervisor and supervisee in the fall of

Selina’s internship year and had completed sessions one, two, and three during that time.

Sessions four, five, and six, which were recorded and analyzed for this study, were

113

conducted in the spring. Marcy and Selina were paired with different supervision dyads

during the previous practicum year and had only met for Selina’s internship year.

The Story

Selina came prepared to each interview session with both personal and

professional insights that richly added to her experience in supervision. As with all

supervision dyads interviewed for this study, I asked Selina to discuss the relationship she

and her supervisor had formed thus far. Selina started out by explaining that she had a

good rapport with Marcy and that communication was “easy because we are on the same

wavelength.” She went on to explain that, “I also think it’s challenging because she kind

of holds me to what I say.” Based on Selina’s description of her supervision experience,

it seemed as if the interview process would reveal a supervisor-supervisee relationship

characterized by an exchange of information followed by Marcy leading many of the

topics to be discussed. However, this was not the case. Instead, throughout the interview

process, Selina’s disclosures about her relationship with Marcy painted a very different

picture.

For each recorded supervision session, Selina was always adequately prepared

with carefully selected sections of the client-tape to review along with specific questions

for each scenario. While listening to the audio with Marcy, Selina would sometimes offer

clarification of different clinical encounters. However, when Selina would ask questions

or offer unsolicited information to further clarify events, Marcy was often observed being

quiet and did not offer insight or interject in any way. In response, Selina was observed

pausing as if she was looking for a response, but when this did not happen, Selina

114

continued to talk in what looked like an effort to fill the void that developed within the

exchange. When showing this interaction on video, Selina explained she was in fact

hoping for Marcy to contribute to the discussion. She said, “I remember feeling like she

started kind of not answering or reacting and then I was looking [for an indication] that

she got it. I was hoping for affirmation.” Selina made it clear that Marcy’s minimal

response contributed nonverbally to feelings of discomfort. Selina added, “I was feeling a

bit nervous that Marcy wasn’t responding [and] I have a habit of pausing. The problem is

that I am worried about how I’m going to communicate and if I [will] get the right words

across.” When asked what could have happened differently in supervision that could have

served to alleviate some of the feelings she described, Selina said, “I would have wanted

to know something concrete because I can see myself saying too much.”

In wanting more feedback from Marcy, Selina admitted that she often found that

she was not always expressing what she was thinking in session. She explained that she

felt a lack of support from Marcy but that she did not want to “overstep boundaries.” Yet,

Selina believed, “I could definitely use more in the moment.” In light of this, Selina

chose to keep her thoughts to herself due to not knowing if it would have been beneficial

to disclose in supervision. For example, after listening to audio of a client-session that

touched on race and sexuality, Selina asked Marcy a direct question in an effort to elicit

feedback, however Marcy was silent, did not acknowledge Selina’s question, and

abruptly ended the session. When asked to share her thoughts during this occurrence,

Selina said, “I was sensing that I was making her a little uncomfortable in that moment

because she didn’t know what to say. I remember giving her the benefit of the doubt that

115

she doesn’t want to talk about race and sexuality.” Still, Selina was left wanting more

from Marcy and added, “I did not expect her to have the answer, but I also did not expect

her to just not acknowledge it. It was almost as if it did not happen [because] she just

said, ‘okay, we’re done now.”

Selina was observed on video using little eye contact, being silent, pausing

frequently, using very little speech at times, and at other times engaged in an

overproduction of speech, as well as engaging in several adaptor behaviors such as

fidgeting with objects, touching her hair, or manipulating a pen in her hands. When these

behaviors were identified and discussed with Selina, she reported many of them to be in

response to Marcy’s perceived lack of input. Selina believed Marcy’s nonverbal

behaviors served to exacerbate some of the angst that she had already been feeling during

session, and added that, had Marcy interjected at more opportune times, that “it would

have quelled my nerves a little bit.”

As the interviews continued it became clear that Selina was tolerating minimal

feedback from Marcy but wanted more from the interaction, yet Selina did not assert her

needs in this way. This type of exchange between Selina and Marcy felt very tense in the

observed video moments. That is, when Selina found that she wanted more feedback

from Marcy, she changed her body language and allowed longer pauses in the hope that

Marcy would respond, but she did not specifically say what she was looking for.

However, when asked if there was a noticeable or unspoken sense of hierarchy in the

supervision relationship, Selina said, “It’s maybe a little different because she’s older

than me, but not necessarily a power differential.” I came back to this point later and

116

asked Selina to elaborate more on the messages she infers in specific instances when

tolerating silence from Marcy. Selina explained, “I think in that moment I could use

acknowledgement [but] usually in my head I’m thinking she has this genius plan.”

On the recordings, Marcy was observed mostly using silence, low tone of voice,

pauses, direct eye contact, and very few body movements. When shown some of the

recorded moments and asked to share her thoughts and feelings during times when she

engaged in long periods of silence, slow responses, and pausing, Marcy believed she was

behaving naturally and that she was demonstrating a constructive approach to

supervision. She said, “I didn’t want to interrupt, and part of me was modeling what

silence can do.” I later showed Marcy recorded moments where Selina had paused in

response to her use of silence. I asked Marcy what she was feeling during that time and

asked her to talk about what she believes might have been Selina’s experience as well.

Marcy reported having some insight into the messages she inferred from the supervision

dynamic and said, “It’s almost like she wanted me to say something. That’s something

I’ve been working on. I could have said something.” However, Marcy explained that

when Selina was experiencing a moment where she was processing information in a way

that was integral to her development as a counselor that, “I needed her to work that out so

I just sat there and waited for her, and in her awkwardness, I was trying to let her figure it

out.” As there were many moments like this throughout Marcy and Selina’s supervision

sessions, I asked Marcy if she believes Selina understood that her discomfort was being

used as a tool in this way. To that Marcy said, “I think it was okay that she was

117

uncomfortable because I think she needed to be. She already knew what she needed to do

and didn’t need me to tell her. She needed to say it out loud.”

Selina’s response to Marcy’s silence indicates that she perceived a lack of transparency

on Marcy’s part, as the distinguishing factor between effective silence and ineffective

silence in supervision seems to fall well within the many ways nonverbal cues are sent

and received. Examples of effective silence is often followed by nonverbal indications

from the supervisor that are meant to encourage and to support the supervisee whereas,

within the context of ineffective silence, the supervisor gives no evidence of support and

is devoid of any measurable amount of nonverbal expression that would indicate

understanding.

118

Table 5

“Marcy and Selina”

Nonverbal Cues

Marcy: Silence, fixed stare, flat affect

Selina: Eye contact, pausing, overproduction of speech, adaptors

Participant Meanings

Marcy: “I didn’t want to interrupt, and part of me was modeling what silence can do.”

“I just sat there and waited for her, and in her awkwardness, I was trying to let her figure it out.”

Selina: “I was sensing that I was making her a little uncomfortable in that moment

because she didn’t know what to say.”

“I did not expect her to have the answer, but I also did not expect her to just not acknowledge it.”

“It was almost as if it did not happen [because] she just said, ‘okay, we’re done now.’”

Mediating Factors • Supervisee anxiety • Supervisee apprehensive about speaking in session • Supervisor’s nonverbal responses indicated that she was not willing to discuss

topics that challenged her comfort level

Summary

As was clear in their story, silence was the most prevalent form of nonverbal

communication observed in Marcy’s and Selina’s supervision relationship. Silence was

used in two recurring ways. First, the use of silence was carried out by Marcy in a

manner that Selina did not always understand. These were times when Marcy did not

offer feedback to Selina or acknowledge her comments. Selina indicated this as a great

source of concern that resulted in consciously using some of her own nonverbal cues,

such as pausing, to indicate that Marcy should continue speaking. When Marcy used

119

silence in this way, Selina felt discomfort and was often confused. As a result, Selina

found Marcy hard to read.

The second way silence was used is when Selina felt silenced by Marcy. Selina

reported in the dyad story that Marcy shortened her sentences and abruptly ended an

uncomfortable discussion about race and sexuality at one point. Selina felt shutdown by

Marcy’s response, however Selina used her own insight to recognize that Marcy was

uncomfortable with the subject matter. Marcy’s discomfort was abundantly clear, as she

did not initiate conversation about race and sexuality and left the subject lingering

awkwardly as if pretending it was not there. Moreover, not only did Marcy not initiate

discussion on an uncomfortable topic, she followed up by shutting down the conversation

when Selina successfully brought it up in the session.

In both instances, Selina found herself taking responsibility for Marcy’s actions.

When I asked Selina how she felt about silence being used in such a way, she indicated

that she often gave Marcy the benefit of the doubt and truly believed that Marcy had a

“genius plan” for making the choices she did. In the end, however, Selina reported that

due to the way silence was incorporated into sessions, she never did have a satisfactory

supervision experience. She explained that while she enjoyed Marcy as a person and felt

comfortable with her in general, that it became apparent that Marcy’s supervision style

did not match her needs and regularly left something to be desired.

In response to the two ways silence was used in Selina’s and Marcy’s supervision

sessions, Selina reported that she was often at a loss for words. Selina explained that

Marcy’s use of silence served to exacerbate feelings of insecurity and emphasized

120

feelings of inadequacy. Selina then found that she had trouble articulating her thoughts

and was overly concerned with wanting to express herself as clearly as possible in order

to convey her thoughts clearly.

The take away from Selina’s experience with silence is that she questioned

whether she was doing a good job. Selina, struggling with the rigors of being a novice

clinician, hoping to gain insight, and looking to use supervisor feedback to continue

learning, had the added burden of reading and deciphering Marcy’s use of silence. The

interesting piece is that Marcy’s use of silence was not always a nonverbal strategy and

that, sometimes, there was no conscious meaning for its use, as she later reported that her

participation in this study helped her to see that silence was not always a useful tool. In

fact, Selina’s and Marcy’s story would suggest that, unless it is purposeful and part of the

supervision dialogue, that silence in supervision can inhibit a supervisee’s ability to grow

and can be detrimental to the supervision relationship as well as convey discomfort and

disinterest.

Summary of Findings

The dyad stories presented in this chapter provided a clear demonstration of the

ways in which nonverbal communication contributes to the supervision experience. Each

supervision dyad’s story was a small part of a larger conglomeration of nonverbal

communication practices that evolved over the course of the semester. Participants

received and perceived nonverbal communication practices differently, which provided a

more diverse perspective into the developing research for this area of study.

121

Dyad one told the story of a supervision relationship where the supervisee, an

international student, felt nervous and did not readily disclose her thoughts and feelings

in supervision. Instead, she inadvertently reveals insecurities through nonverbal

behaviors and continues to believe her supervisor is unaware of her self-doubt and

uncertainties. In this case, the supervisor not only recognized that the supervisee

struggled with self-doubt, but used her own nonverbal cues to call attention to the

supervisee’s struggles. The supervisor made attempts to reassure the supervisee by letting

her know that supervision is a place for learning and that mistakes are part of the learning

process.

In dyad two, the supervisor and supervisee felt especially comfortable with each

other and believed they could freely express what they were thinking and feeling. The

supervisor brought a lot of experience and skill to the supervision relationship and was

able to recognize times when the supervisee’s use of nonverbal communication indicated

teaching opportunities. Because of the supervisor’s expertise, it became evident when the

supervisee’s nonverbal behaviors were incongruent with the message she was trying to

send. The supervisor, who was aware of her own nonverbal behaviors, would often read

with great accuracy the supervisee’s body language in an effort to engage in critical

moments and to elicit a more authentic exchange within the supervision dialogue.

The two instances above are examples of ways that nonverbal communication can

serve as a useful tool in supervision. Nonverbal communication can indicate a need for

further understanding, elaboration, and for knowing when to shift the conversation. This

happens best when supervisors and supervisees work in unison but can also be attained

122

when the supervisor is equipped with and uses professional insight and intuition to meet

the supervisee’s needs. However, while this is an ideal approach, it is not always possible

to have such a meaningful exchange, as success of the supervision connection depends

greatly on the skill of the supervisor in creating an environment where connections can be

made that extend beyond the spoken word.

In dyad three, both the supervisor and supervisee reacted nonverbally to the

supervisee coming to session unprepared, however the supervisor did not call direct

attention to the supervisee’s lack of preparedness. Instead, the supervisor exhibited

nonverbal cues that made him appear impatient. The supervisee shared that she was in

fact unprepared but did not want to disrespect the supervision relationship. So, choosing

not to discuss her lack of preparation, the supervisee avoided eye contact with the

supervisor and constantly shifted in her chair during supervision sessions. As neither

participant discussed the issue of being unprepared, this resulted in a superficial

connection that served to inhibit a deeper communication process.

In dyad four, nonverbal cues were displayed more prominently upon discussing

LGBTQ and gender topics. Unlike other dyads where the supervisor’s nonverbal

behaviors elicited a reaction from the supervisee and set the tone for the session, the

supervisee’s nonverbal behaviors affected the interpersonal exchange so much that a role

reversal briefly ensued. That is, the supervisor appeared uncomfortable with the subject

matter and did not seem to recognize changes in the supervisee’s demeanor. During this

time, the supervisee started to ask questions in an effort to elicit information from the

123

supervisor in much the same way the supervisor would have been expected to craft

questions during teaching moments in supervision.

Finally, in dyad five, the supervisee responded to a lack of engagement by the

supervisor. The supervisee believed the supervisor did not offer adequate support in

sessions, as the supervisee often felt waves of uncertainty and discomfort in her

supervision sessions. The supervisee regularly used nonverbal cues such as pausing and

silence to indicate turn-taking in the supervision dialogue, but found that her tactics were

not effective. During these times, the supervisor was frequently quiet and rarely offered

feedback on many of the topics the supervisee shared. As a result, a communication

breakdown occurred. The supervisee often felt silenced by the supervisor and became

apprehensive about speaking, fearing she might say too much. This was especially

apparent when the supervisee attempted to discuss race and sexuality, which was met

with discomfort and apprehension by the supervisor who abruptly ended the discussion.

The supervisor’s responses indicated that she was not willing to initiate topics that were

uncomfortable for her and she reacted by shutting down the supervisee’s efforts to

engage in discussion on the subject. Moreover, the supervisee became nervous and

believed she could not adequately articulate her thoughts. The supervisee often looked for

acknowledgement but did not get the needed feedback from her supervisor to indicate

that she was heard. The supervisor’s use of silence was often misapplied in that it offered

little to no benefit to the supervisee and left the supervisee with feelings of inadequacy in

supervision. In turn, the supervisor did not recognize disparities in communication and

carried on without acknowledgment of the supervisee’s discomfort.

124

Summary

This chapter described the some of the ways that nonverbal behaviors can be

experienced among supervisors and supervisees in clinical supervision. As each dyad

encountered nonverbal behaviors differently, the focus was on the process by which the

supervision context contributed to the complex dynamics that are inherent within the

professional relationship. As a result, nonverbal behaviors were received and perceived

based upon each participant’s unique perspective, as it relates to personal experience and

varying learning styles.

Each dyad experience was heartfelt and was expressed in narrative form.

Participant stories were told in their own words to help readers connect intimately with

the rigors of supervision. The most prevalent themes that emerged from participant

stories were used to provide insight into the many challenges, as well as the many

learning opportunities, that come about when responding to nonverbal communication

cues. In the next chapter, I discuss the main findings within the context of the extant

literature.

Chapter 5: Discussion

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how supervisors and

supervisees derive meaning based on overt and covert forms of nonverbal communication

during clinical supervision sessions. Stories were written from the perspectives of

supervisors and their supervisees in order to add context to individual experiences. By

incorporating input from both dyad-participants, the presented research lends to a

balanced understanding of their shared story.

125

This study provides a scope into clinical supervision that has never been seen

before. As supervision is a confidential arrangement that is meant to provide support for

clinical, and sometimes personal disclosures, those outside of the specific supervision

relationship do not have general access to that which takes place behind the closed doors

of this valued resource or the inner experiences of supervisors and supervisees. By

peering into the inner workings of clinical supervision, this discussion yields great

insights for practice as each dyad story worked in unison to provide the beginnings of an

informed navigation tool for detecting and understanding nonverbal messages in

supervision.

This study was based on the following research question: How do supervisors and

supervisees communicate with and make meaning of nonverbal behaviors in clinical

supervision? In this chapter I will synthesize the findings in the context of the extant

literature. The chapter begins with a discussion about how nonverbal communication was

perceived as it relates to supervisees’ comfort in disclosing sensitive information with

their supervisors. Next, I discuss effective and ineffective ways that silence can be used

in supervision. Finally, this discussion will address the effects of high context and low

context communication among supervision dyads.

Relationship Between Nonverbal Communication and Disclosure

Findings from this study indicate that supervisees will only share openly and

honestly when they are comfortable with supervisors. The belief is that supervisors will

accept them and help them to process and understand their clinical experiences. This is

consistent with a vast amount of scholarship that has examined supervisor and supervisee

126

relationships (Jacobs, 1994; DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006; Hall, Coats, & Lebeau,

2005). Moreover, the literature strongly supports that nonverbal communication is a

highly important component of clinical supervision (Hill et al., 2003; Ladany et al., 1996;

Worthington & Roehlke, 1979). As both supervisors and supervisees communicate a

great deal of information through nonverbal behavior, messages are constantly being sent

and received. When it is acknowledged as a viable part of the supervision context,

nonverbal communication can give way to understanding and can be used to effectively

address unspoken thoughts and ideas that lie beneath the surface of supervision sessions.

However, when nonverbal communication is not recognized as an inherent part of the

supervision experience, efforts to attend to issues that arise can be ineffective.

This study is the first to document, from the perspectives of supervisors and their

supervisees, the nonverbal behaviors that contribute to supervisee comfort level. The

findings revealed that when the supervision discussion touches on issues that may be

personal or potentially unsettling, more thoughts and ideas go unsaid as opposed to that

which is said aloud. Some issues that were visibly avoided on video recordings occurred

in the context of uncomfortable subject matter resulting in feelings of fear, anxiety, and

frustration. Participants in this study believed that supervision is meant to be an inviting

space where thoughts and feelings could be shared freely. Supervisees thought of the

supervisor as someone who is meant to impart knowledge based on professional

experience and as someone who would work together with them in an effort to expound

upon what was learned. While this understanding was an expectation had by all

participants, many found that their expectations did not always match their experiences.

127

This realization was revealed during follow up interviews where supervisees reported

discomfort in supervision sessions when asked to explain their non-verbal behaviors.

That is, supervisees openly shared in interviews what they were thinking, but were not

saying, in their supervision sessions.

Ladany, Hill, Corbett, and Nutt (1996) explained that supervisees will often

disclose to someone other than the supervisor when the issue is too personal, when there

is a poor alliance with the supervisor, when negative feelings are present, and when their

issues are perceived as unimportant by the supervisor. Additionally, many nondisclosures

in this study took place upon supervisees not wanting to defy authority, feeling

vulnerable, or simply believing the occurrence was not as important at the time.

However, in every instance found on video in this study where it was discovered that a

nondisclosure took place, supervisees exhibited some form of visible nonverbal cue that

was indicated by a change in affect or was noted as an incongruence in communication

that prompted me to question the interaction.

This is the first study of its kind to explore the conditions under which supervisees

become anxious when responding to supervisors’ nonverbal behaviors. While there are

reports in the literature on ways nonverbal cues are sent and received, very few studies

have discussed covert changes in affect as it relates to such internal processes. This study

supports findings from earlier research by DePaulo, Rosenthal, Eisenstat, Rogers, and

Finkelstein (1978) who used video as a tool in their research and found that while verbal

and nonverbal information work together in depicting the intended message, visual

nonverbal cues were found to be more important in communicating affect. This finding

128

was referred to as “video primacy” (p.314). Findings from the current study extend

DePaulo et al’s. (1978) research about video primacy by demonstrating similar findings

on affect in clinical supervision. Further, results from the current study suggests that

supervisees’ interpretations of their supervisors’ nonverbal cues are important in helping

them decide the degree of safety the supervisee perceives in fully disclosing their

thoughts and feelings to their supervisor.

While DePaulo et al. (1978) focused their research on the detection of

discrepancies in affect based on multimodal forms of nonverbal communication, Cheshin,

Rafaeli, and Bos (2011) studied incongruent nonverbal affective behaviors in relation to

mood. The authors reported that among the virtual teams studied, several aspects of

emotion are negatively influenced due to “incongruence between verbal and behavioral

cues” and that, “while challenged to the contrary in some contexts, nonverbal cues are the

critical mechanism for the communication of emotion” (p. 12). Cheshin et al. (2011)

further noted Schwarz’s (1990) Affect-As-Information idea that “people use their own

affect as a source of information on how to act in given situations” (p.4) followed by Van

Kleef’s (2009) reasoning that individuals will, for this purpose, also assess the emotions

of others. Cheshin et al. (2011) surmised that the emotions of others are used by people as

input for how they should feel.

Cheshin et al. (2001) findings are especially telling in regard to the connection

made between affect and nonverbal communication in this study. In evaluating dyad

stories, my findings are the first to reveal that disclosures were often governed by the

perceptions and inferences that supervisees made in response to supervisors’ nonverbal

129

behaviors. More specifically, every supervisee participant in this study reported to have a

generally good relationship with their supervisor and all reported they could speak freely

about any subject. However, the findings indicated that supervisees, in fact, did not speak

freely about just any subject and that their desire to disclose depended heavily on how the

supervisees understood and made meaning of nonverbal behaviors of supervisors. That is,

supervisees’ perceptions of their supervisor’s non-verbal behaviors greatly influenced not

only what supervisees disclosed, but how they disclosed their thoughts and feelings

during supervision.

One of the main findings of the current study was just how much supervisees

were paying attention to the nonverbal cues of their supervisors in an effort to gauge how

well their disclosures would be received. When supervisors used nonverbal cues to

indicate that they were open, accepting, and empathic to the supervisee, as demonstrated

by eye contact, forward lean, smiling appropriately, and using paralanguage to indicate

active listening, supervisees felt encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas more freely.

However, when supervisors appeared hesitant or exhibited nonverbal signs of discomfort

such as prolonged silences and blank stares, supervisees perceived it was not safe to share

their thoughts and, in many instances, would shut down in their efforts to communicate.

For example, one supervisee explained that she often held back from expressing her

thoughts to her supervisor because she received minimal responses. Because of this, the

supervisee responded nonverbally by modifying her own body language and allowed for

longer pauses in the hope that her supervisor would engage with her more. The

130

supervisee then tailored disclosures to match the messages she inferred from the

supervisor’s nonverbal behaviors.

Prior research has found that supervisees may be reluctant to share in supervision

when they feel shame. According to Yourman (2003), supervisees often withhold

information from supervisors even though there is an expectation that they will indeed

self-disclose in supervision. This raises questions regarding reasons that contribute to

what is shared and not shared. Yourman (2003) recognized that many factors play a role

in supervisee disclosures and reported that discrepancies between what takes place in

sessions and what is disclosed to supervisors is a reflection of the difficulty that coincides

with such complex interactions, stating that “there is a growing body of theoretical and

empirical work suggesting that it is common for a portion of supervisee nondisclosure to

result from the desire to conceal aspects of the therapeutic hour” (p. 602). However,

Yourman’s (2003) research focused on shame as a major factor contributing to supervisee

non-disclosures. While shame was not specifically identified by participants in the

current study, findings from the current study extend Yourman’s (2003) research by

indicating how supervisor non-verbal behaviors can affect supervisee comfort level in

disclosing potentially troubling, and perhaps even shameful, aspects of themselves and

their clinical practice. When supervisors are uncomfortable with topics being discussed, it

shows in their nonverbal behavior and supervisees are often able to pick up on this

discomfort and adjust their behaviors accordingly.

One example in the current study that demonstrates how the power of nonverbal

communication can influence relationships between supervisors and supervisees was

131

when a supervisee who identifies as LGBTQ sensed his supervisor was uncomfortable

with the supervision discussion. The finding emerged when the supervisee reported that

he held back in disclosing his thoughts because he could not fully understand what the

supervisor was thinking and feeling when the subject of LGBTQ came up. The

supervisee inferred discomfort and disinterest from the supervisor’s nonverbal cues of

silence and several pauses. During this time, the supervisee used less language and

altered his disclosures.

The supervisee’s experience was especially concerning because of the

supervisor’s apparent discomfort with the subject of LGBTQ. Counselor educators are

trained to encourage “open, direct, and supportive dialogues…regarding LGB-affirmative

counseling” (Whitman & Bidell, 2014, p.164). LGB-affirmative counselor education

adopts a science-based perspective that LGBTQ orientations are healthy and normal

expressions of human development. Moreover, the ACA Code of Ethics (2015) stipulates

that counselor educators are to show respect for supervisees’ experiences and value

systems in this regard (Whitman & Bidell, 2014). However, while the supervisor’s verbal

behaviors appeared accepting and validating of the supervisee’s sexual orientation, her

nonverbal behaviors portrayed her discomfort with it and this became apparent to the

supervisee.

Knowing that disclosures are being withheld can exacerbate discomfort and can

leave the door open to feelings of insecurity, dissatisfaction, and frustration (Lunenberg,

2010). The supervisor was visibly uncomfortable with the subject matter and wondered

if her level of discomfort was being misunderstood by the supervisee. Both participants

132

later disclosed that the perceived discomfort of the other shaped the way in which each

carried out their portion of the conversation. The crux of this finding is that both

participants knew that the other was not disclosing something, yet neither participant

shared nor invited the other to share their thoughts. The finding suggests that even when

both participants recognize and personally acknowledge uneasiness through nonverbal

communication in the context of socially uncomfortable subject matter, supervisors and

supervisees continue to withhold their thoughts, speculate on what the other might be

thinking, and avoid disclosures. This study has shown that when supervisors and

supervisees do not engage in discussion of a known factor, it has a profound effect on the

interpersonal interaction within supervision sessions and sets the stage for poor

communication moving forward. When this is the case, the onus for openly addressing

these gaps in communication falls upon the supervisor and not the supervisee. This study

emphasizes the need for supervisors to engage in their own supervision-of-supervision to

assist in recognizing when their own nonverbal behaviors do not match what they say

during supervisions sessions in order to thoughtfully reflect upon the nature and cause of

this misalignment.

The above finding is reminiscent of Worthington and Roehlke’s (1979) point that

what is disclosed and not disclosed reflects an internal struggle in supervision. However,

while the authors’ finding is consistent with much of what this study has reported on

disclosures thus far, this study adds to the literature in that it is the first to report that

despite both participants being fully aware in the moment that the other was holding back

133

from disclosing, both participants avoided an open discussion in the presumably secure

setting of the supervision session.

Another example of how non-verbal behavior can become a barrier to effective

supervisor/supervisee relationships is when nonverbal behaviors are misinterpreted

because of cross cultural differences. One example of this from the current study is when

as international supervisee reported feeling “tested” by her supervisor and had strong

feelings of wanting to “satisfy” her supervisor. In this case, the supervisee’s experience

appeared to be coupled with cultural factors and personally held views of authority in

response to the supervisor’s nonverbal behaviors, including forward lean and direct eye

contact. The supervisee’s reaction contrasts with Dowell and Berman’s (2013)

explanation that nonverbal cues such as those mentioned above are associated with a

greater sense of involvement by the supervisor and are linked with rapport, empathy, and

genuineness. However, in this case, the supervisee interpreted her supervisor’s nonverbal

behavior as challenging and, as a result, reported choosing her words carefully and only

spoke in terms of what she thought her supervisor wanted to hear.

The supervisee’s experience regarding the potential for non-verbal behaviors to be

perceived differently based on cultural differences have not been previously reported in

the context of clinical supervision. Brown and Landrum-Brown (1995) distinguished

between multicultural supervision and cross-cultural supervision. Multicultural

supervision is characterized by cultural models or patterns of supervision (i.e. how the

supervisor of one culture supervises the supervisee of a different culture), whereas cross-

cultural supervision takes into account outcomes in supervision based on differences in

134

race, ethnicity, and culture (i.e. the way in which cultural differences in supervision has

an effect on the supervision relationship as a whole). In this particular dyad, the

supervisor considered the influence of culture and race. The supervisor acknowledged a

lack of true dialogue within the dyadic relationship and believed that responses within the

context of supervision were affected by cultural norms that were unique to both

participants. This appears to have been true, as participants in this dyad acknowledged a

misinterpretation of what their nonverbal communication cues meant to each other. While

the supervisor’s expectation is that her nonverbal behaviors would be perceived as

engaging and friendly, the supervisee in this case received the nonverbal cues as

threatening and often felt challenged by them.

Because the supervisee in this dyad example denied that culture played a role in

many of her own nonverbal responses in supervision, she did not directly address cultural

influences with her supervisor. However, the supervisor did in fact identify that

differences in culture influenced her supervision style, yet did not explicitly discuss the

topic with the supervisee. That is, the supervisor made attempts to normalize the

supervisee’s thoughts and to put her at ease without definitively indicating to her that

culture might have been playing a role in the supervision relationship. The main take

away from this finding is that cross cultural differences in communication occur not only

through verbal interactions, but also through nonverbal interactions. More importantly,

findings from the current study suggest that supervisors and supervisees need to discuss

the meaning of their nonverbal behaviors openly with supervisees in order to avoid

misperceptions.

135

As this section uncovered, for the first-time, different challenges participants face

upon choosing to disclose in supervision, the next section will delve deeper into the

participant experience by exploring perceptions and responses to nonverbal cues that

were not immediately apparent. In the following section, I discuss the inferences that

participants made when challenging events in supervision did not match participant

perceptions. When this was the case, silence evolved into a conduit for meaning from the

perspective of each participant. Inferred meanings were made by the receiver of

information, and often without added input or awareness of the inference from the sender.

An Understanding of Effective and Ineffective Uses of Silence

Findings from this study indicate that a great deal of information is conveyed

when supervisors use silence, which is consistent with other research that has explored

non-verbal communication in other settings (Depaulo, Rosenthal, Eisenstat, Rogers, and

Finkelstein, 1978; Dowell & Berman, 2013). However, this study goes further and

provides one of the first understandings of how silence can be used in ways that are

effective and ineffective. Results indicate that supervisors use silence effectively when

the supervisee is aware that it is being purposefully implemented upon processing

information. This is in line with other literature that has explored silence in

psychotherapy (Cook, 1964; Hill, Thompson, & Ladany, 2003) but serves to extend the

current research as the first study to examine the effects of silence as it is experienced

within the supervision relationship.

In clinical supervision, silence can be used to facilitate learning. For instance,

when a supervisor recognizes that a supervisee requires more time and thought on a

136

discussion topic, supervisors can choose to remain silent in order to facilitate the thought

process. In many clinical settings, silence is skillfully incorporated in order make way for

reflection, encourage responsibility, promote session flow, and to convey empathy (Hill,

Thompson, & Ladany, 2003). When this happens, supervisees are often aware that

silence is being used as an assistive tool allowing the time needed to think about and to

share thoughts as they become clearer.

While silence can be used in supervision to establish a sense of understanding

within the supervisory relationship, data from this study also suggests that silence can

sometimes promote a counter effect in unique instances of supervision. Supervisees in

this study identified times when longer periods of silence, coupled with varying

nonverbal cues, evoked a range of thoughts and emotions that left them feeling uneasy in

supervision sessions. That is, supervisees were sometimes unsure of the meaning behind

the supervisors’ use of silence and found it necessary to decipher silence based on their

ability to make inferences in the context of the session itself.

The main point in this finding is that supervisors and supervisees were constantly

processing a great deal of information and, during these times, supervisees made in-the-

moment decisions within the context of ambiguity. Perhaps more importantly, results

indicate the ingredients that lead to silence being perceived as ineffective and even

harmful in supervision. This includes times when supervisors would pause prematurely

and/or allow the pause to linger, look away, take deep breaths, and use adaptors (i.e.

fidget with items while talking). When this happened, the supervisor’s use of silence was

unclear and the supervisee would exhibit signs of discomfort such as averting eye gaze,

137

speaking less, smiling out of context, using fewer hand gestures, or engaging in repetitive

motor movements (shaking leg or twisting in chair). Indications of discomfort were

followed by an indistinguishable “vibe” that supervisees described as a sense of

uneasiness associated with not knowing what the supervisor wanted from them during the

interaction. Supervisors’ nonverbal behaviors are consistent with findings from previous

research that such actions could indicate annoyance and dissatisfaction that, when

exhibited along with silence, can give the impression of disinterest and inattention,

thereby manifesting feelings of nervousness in the supervisee leading to the desire to be

reassured (Zimmerman & West, 1996).

In instances where silence was indecipherable by supervisees, I found that critical

moments went unaddressed. I define critical moments as times in which a supervisee

would have liked to discuss a clinically significant issue, but did not due to ambiguity

surrounding supervisor silence. Supervisees reported that they felt “nervous” or

“embarrassed” in this context. This is consistent with prior research on non-verbal

behavior conducted by Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt (1996).

One supervisor stated that her ineffective use of silence during supervision was

attributed to her attempting to implement the constructive approach to clinical

supervision (Guiffrida, 2015), which is meant to allow the supervisee to discover her own

answers to clinical questions. However, data from the supervisee indicated that the

supervisor’s use of silence was not perceived by the supervisee as allowing her space to

deeply reflect upon her practice. Instead, the supervisee perceived this silence as causing

her to feel discomfort, confusion, and a lack of connection with the supervisor—all of

138

which inhibited rather than facilitated supervisee critical self-reflection. Careful analysis

of the supervisor behaviors revealed that the supervisor demonstrated many of the

behaviors mentioned above that are consistent with ineffective use of silence. Further,

the supervisor stated, upon reflection of the silence, that she felt uncomfortable with the

content being discussed; therefore, rather than purposefully implementing silence as a

means of facilitating deep reflection, the supervisor instead used silence as a means of

protecting herself from directly addressing her own discomfort during the session.

Due to a lack of verbal communication and an inability on the part of the

supervisor to effectively send and receive nonverbal messages, the supervisee developed

ideas as to what silence meant when in session. To the supervisee, silence meant

disinterest, supervisor discomfort, and poor functional awareness of the clinical issue

being discussed. Incidentally, having no tangible framework of silence from which to

draw, meaning was made based on both a lack of information and ineffective supervision

skills. This finding supports research by Hill, Thompson, and Ladany (2003) that using

silence is an important component of supervision that requires skillful application.

However, this finding extends the research by making it clear that the use of silence is an

integral part of supervision that lends generously to communication and that, when

misapplied, can result in supervisee confusion and misperceptions.

Interestingly, in regard to supervisors, Hill et al. (2003) studied silence in

psychotherapy and found that silence is a difficult skill for therapists to implement with

clients. It can be difficult because some therapists feel uncomfortable with silence, while

others use too much silence in an effort to manage their own anxiety when not knowing

139

what to do or in response to their fear of doing the wrong thing. Hill et al. (2003) add that

therapists are “barely” trained in how to use silence and that theoretical literature about

the advisability of silence is contradictory, as some theorists argue that silence can

“convey empathy and help clients reflect on their thoughts and feelings, whereas others

suggest that silence raises client anxiety, exerts pressure on the client to communicate,

results in the client feeling misunderstood or abandoned and experiencing the therapist as

withholding and critical” (p.514).

Some of the ways supervisees believe supervisors could have minimized

uncertainty in the context of silence is by simply stating their thoughts to the supervisee.

Carrying out this idea in supervision, in many ways, resembled a well-choreographed

routine. In fact, this study found for the first time that there is an effective way to

incorporate silence in clinical supervision. In one example, the supervisee was well aware

of the way the supervisor used silence and explained that the supervisor was, in a healthy

way, “pushing me to be a therapist.” That is, when dialogue appeared seamless, the

supervisor’s use of silence was coupled with a genuine look of interest supported by

paralanguage that included head nods and approving smiles, which the supervisee

perceived as encouragement. Similarly, when the dialogue appeared strained, the

supervisor’s silence was coupled with nonverbal gestures that promoted a sense of calm

such as slow-moving head nods and gently saying “uh-huh” or “m-hmm.” As a result, the

supervisee inferred meaning from the supervisor’s nonverbal communication cues and

felt strongly that the supervisor’s silence indicated that the conversation could continue

without judgement.

140

The most important finding that this study yields is the fact that, for the first time,

the data suggests actual reasons as to why silence weighs so heavily on the clinical

supervision relationship. In every dyadic group, both supervisors and supervisees

reported that their perception of the other played a large role in the way information was

shared. This has been shown in other supervision research. Kiewitz, Restubog, Shoss,

Garcia, and Tang (2016) conducted a study that focused on workplace perceptions of

supervisees of their supervisors in response to silence. The authors studied the

relationship between silence and levels of assertiveness among those being supervised

and argued in part that a climate of fear exists that contributes to “defensive silence” in

supervision relationships due to factors related to abusive supervision practices, or

“sustained, hostile, non-physical behavior directed against subordinates” (p.1). The

authors’ findings support the current study in that many supervisees responded to

supervisor silence with additional silence. However, the current study adds to this finding

by pointing out that fear is not the only factor that is indicated by silence and that it is not

always defensive, even in adverse settings. Thus, this study shows that, more often, when

perceptions are incongruent to each other that silence ensues. That is, if both participants

make meaning of silence but find, through nonverbal communication, that their ideas do

not match, supervisees experience a fear or anxiousness due to missing the intended

nonverbal cue, which is then followed by silence. As both supervisor and supervisee in

the current study tended to wait for the other to offer enough tangible information to

proceed in an informed way, the supervisee was regularly afraid of sounding uninformed.

141

Finally, this study found that silence works in conjunction with other nonverbal

cues. It was found that silence sends distinct messages when coupled with or without

other forms of nonverbal communication. The finding here is that supervisees were more

anxious in the presence of ambiguous silence without visible nonverbal cues to support or

refute their perceptions. While supervisees expressed anxiety in every instance of

uncomfortable silence, instances where silence was indecipherable created even more

anxiety and a sense of being lost in communication. This finding is partially supported by

Cook (1964) who studied the ways in which silence is experienced in client-centered

psychotherapy and posited that the dimension of silence is likely a “necessary condition”

but that it “could not be sufficient in a linear sense,” meaning that as a therapeutic tool,

silence could not function alone as one finite entity in and of itself (p.42). Instead, the

author explained that in psychotherapy, the use of silence can be seen on a continuum

with extremes of “all silence and no silence” and that if either extreme persisted that it

would indicate “maladaptation or at least a nonproductive therapeutic relationship”

(p.42). More specifically, there are degrees of silence. However, without balance, too

much or too little silence can be rendered ineffective. The current study adds to this idea

with the finding that, regardless of the degree to which silence is experienced,

supervisees look for and make inferences based on the entire nonverbal message being

presented during the supervision session and, without the support of nonverbal cues,

supervisees experiencing silence can also experience an increase in anxiety. This is the

first study to document not only the importance of silence, but also the ingredients that

lead to ineffective uses of silence.

142

An Understanding of the Importance of High and Low Context Communication

Results of this study found that the most effective nonverbal communication

occurred in dyads where participants were able to effectively communicate about issues

without having to explicitly state the issue being discussed. This was evident on video

recordings when participants exchanged knowing looks of agreement and/or used words

such as “you know” and “that” to indicate a previously discussed topic. This is what

researchers refer to as high-context communication (HC; Wurtz, 2006). Similarly,

participants who used more explicit language to communicate engaged in what is known

as low-context communication (LC).

HC and LC can be conceptualized as being on a spectrum with two extremes.

When communication is HC, it is indirect, ambiguous, understated, harmonious, and uses

nonverbal cues extensively to convey meanings (Wurtz, 2006). Furthermore, people

using HC communication often engage in nonverbal cues that involve “gestures, body

language, silence, proximity, and symbolic behavior (p.278).” More specifically, HC

messages are situational and are internalized by the receiver. In HC messages, less weight

is placed on the content of the message, as meaning relies heavily on nonverbal aspects of

communication. In HC, nonverbal cues can create a division for people who enter a

conversation later. That is, the original participants in the conversation are present when

context is established and have a clear understanding of the conversation. However, non-

participants who are not present when context is established may not immediately follow

the conversation without being updated by an original participant (Sue & Sue, 1999).

143

When communication is LC, it is direct, precise, and based on feelings, yet relies

more heavily on content from which to derive meaning and thereby places special

emphasis on the spoken word (Wurtz, 2006). That is, in LC, attention is focused on the

explicit verbal parts of the message. Mindess, Holcomb, Langholtz, Moyers, & Solow

(2006) explained that cultures engaging in LC communication have a low dependence on

context so, as nonverbal messages within a conversation are not immediately recognized,

there tends to be a greater need for explanation. The dyads in this study appeared to have

started out more LC and then evolved to HC, as Wurtz (2006) explained, “the closer the

relationship, the more HC the communication tends to be, drawing on shared knowledge

of the communicating parties” (p.278).

The current study found that the relationship between each dyad changed over

time, and with it, the way nonverbal information was communicated changed. As a result,

whether a dyad functioned more in HC or LC, supervisors sometimes “missed the mark”

or did not accurately reflect the supervisee’s feelings. When this occurred, nonverbal

context contributed to the ways in which both participants understood the messages that

were being sent and received. Hall (2000) recognized that communication can function in

this way and explained that “meaning and context are inextricably bound up with each

other” and that, in order to understand, meaning and context must be evaluated together

(p.36). This study extends this research by documenting for the first time that across

supervision dyads, HC and LC is present to varying degrees depending on the strength of

the supervision relationship. That is, among supervisors who were more in tune with the

supervisee’s needs, HC was high, and in dyads where the connection was not as strong,

144

HC remained present, but to a lesser degree, thereby leaving LC to function as the default

form of communication.

As HC relies more heavily on context coupled with minimal verbal input, this

study showed for the first time that supervisors and supervisees can carry out a fully

functional level of communication that is not detectable to the outside observer. This

level of communication is perhaps the most elusive form of nonverbal communication, as

it is known only to the sender and receiver of information. It is known as the dyadic

effect.

The dyadic effect is an estimate of the degree to which accuracy in understanding

is a function of communication between two individuals (Elfenbein, Foo, Boldry, & Tan,

2006). In essence, the dyadic effect happens when a congruence of unspoken thought and

emotion between two people occur that is only understood within the specific dyadic

exchange. When this is the case, an outside observer would not have access to, or even

recognize, that an exchange took place. In order for a true dyadic effect to occur, both

parties must have experienced the same emotion or have gained the same understanding

(Elfenbein et al., 2006). This rings true for the relationship between supervisor and

supervisee.

The dyadic effect was indicated in the current study as all participants reported

different times when a mutual understanding or feeling was felt within their unique dyad.

In keeping with each participant’s experience, I introduced the word “vibe” into the

interview process, as this term became the “buzz-word” for describing information being

shared, processed, or explicitly understood only between supervisor and supervisee. This

145

information had a direct effect on the ways in which each participant contributed to the

interpersonal interaction during supervision.

In this study I was able to isolate one particular nonverbal behavior that offered

the most insight as it relates to the occurrence of the dyadic effect between supervisor and

supervisee: Eye gaze. Eye gaze was a prominent nonverbal behavior that indicated

participant-held perceptions of the supervision relationship. As nonverbal behaviors vary

and can offer information in ways that can be understood differently by sender or

receiver, specific nonverbal behaviors can determine the ways in which information is

understood. For instance, supervisees reported how the held gaze of their supervisor

evoked different emotions. It is important to note that eye gaze is “the direction of one’s

gaze at another’s eyes” and is not to be confused with staring, which is “a gaze or look

that persists regardless of the behavior of the other person” (Kleinke, 1986, p.78).

In this study, eye gaze rendered meaning based on the way in which the sender

and receiver experienced it nonverbally, as both reported the same dyadic vibe. In fact,

all dyad pairs reported an understanding of the shared message or feeling related to eye

gaze. The interesting connection here lies with the message in the sender’s eye gaze and

the receiver’s perception of the eye gaze, as “people are generally unaware of their

gazing behaviors in an interaction” (Kleinke’s, 1986, p.79). As a result, the data

uncovered for the first time a covert form of communication that this study refers to as

nonverbal subtext. That is, participants believed that while video moments often captured

the process of their experience, it did not capture the feeling that was shared within the

dyad. In fact, each participant agreed that feelings were realized through an

146

understanding that was shared only between them and them alone. Thus, for the first

time, meaning was derived based on a shared understanding that rendered a complete

message based on eye gaze and context.

Eye gaze is especially important in relation to affect among dyads. While this is

the first study to touch specifically on dyadic effect and eye gaze together, Ellsworth and

Carlsmith (1968) reported that “the amount of eye contact in a dyadic interaction

influences a subject’s affective reaction to the situation and the other person” (p.18). The

authors found that the effects of eye gaze are heavily influenced by whether the verbal

content of the exchange is favorable or unfavorable. If the conversation is at least

“neutral to generally positive,” participants tend to look each other in the eyes and react

more positively to the interaction (p.18). Conversely, when participants did not have a

positive experience or felt criticized, there was less eye contact and participants reacted

more negatively to the interaction (Ellsworth & Carlsmith, 1968). The current study adds

to the literature in that those who experienced a more positive dyadic interaction were

more in tune with their dyad partner, provided more eye contact, and reported a clearer

nonverbal understanding of the shared experience that was not explicitly stated but was

mutually felt within their respective dyads.

This study is the first to effectively exemplify HC and the dyadic effect between

supervisor and supervisee. The data indicated several nonverbal events that explored the

mechanics of the interaction. However, participants were able add to the data and offer a

deeper perspective that was not visible on video recordings. As a result, this study

provided access to unspoken and unseen dialogue that would not have otherwise been

147

accessible outside of a given dyad. Moreover, this finding indicates for the first time the

existence of effective communication through shared nonverbal subtext.

Implications for Future Practice and Research

Results of this study have several implications for future research, theory, and

practice in supervision. Education is the most pertinent factor toward understanding

nonverbal communication in clinical supervision. To educate supervisors in the many

ways nonverbal behaviors are sent and received will enhance the skills needed to be an

effective supervisor. That is, by learning to recognize the meaning of their own and their

supervisees’ nonverbal behaviors, supervisors will be better equipped to tailor sessions in

a way that is beneficial to the professional relationship.

Information about how to recognize and understand supervisee nonverbal

behaviors and how to effectively communicate nonverbally with supervisees needs to be

incorporated into clinical supervision training. An understanding of the power of

nonverbal communication will allow supervisors to recognize the many ways that

supervisee thoughts and feelings are unwittingly communicated to them nonverbally, thus

allowing supervisors more insight into the experiences of their supervisees. A better

understanding of nonverbal communication will also assist supervisors in effectively

expressing their own thoughts, feelings, and expectations to supervisees. For example,

supervisees should learn how their silence can become a hindrance to the

supervisor/supervisee relationship when they are silent during times they are confused,

apprehensive, or in disagreement with their supervisees. Conversely, supervisees should

148

also be taught how to utilize silence to facilitate supervisee critical reflection during times

of impasse.

Similarly, supervisors need to be taught to verbally clarify what they are

communicating nonverbally when supervisees express confusion or misunderstanding.

Clarifying that which is not said reduces the risk of miscommunication and opens the

door for more dialogue, thereby promoting a deeper understanding of nonverbal cues

expressed in supervision. Thus, providing supervisors with the tools needed to

strategically engage nonverbal cues and to verbally clarify these cues when needed will

provide encouragement and support to supervisees.

In addition to providing training about nonverbal behaviors, a second implication of

the current study is the need for additional research about nonverbal communication in

supervision. Future research with a larger and more diverse sample is needed to

understand in the ways in which nonverbal gestures such as silence and eye gaze are used

by supervisors and supervisees to communicate during supervision. Additional

qualitative research with a larger and more diverse sample is needed to understand the

intended meaning of nonverbal behaviors and how they are received with supervisors and

supervisees from diverse background. This research should include supervisors and

supervisees from countries outside of the U.S.

Another potential implication for future research is studies that seek to better

understand the impact of High Context (HC) and Low Context (LC) communication.

Results of the current study suggest that HC was higher when the supervisor was more in

tune with the supervisee’s thoughts and feelings, which suggests the possibility that HC

149

could be used as a potential gauge for identifying ease of communication and strength

and overall effectiveness of the supervision relationship. Quantitative research that

assesses correlations between HC and LC communication and supervisor/supervisor

working alliance provides potential for better understanding the power of nonverbal

communication.

Finally, incorporating a broader base of participants will provide data that is a

better representation of the supervisor-supervisee demographic. That is, more participants

would yield results that are more applicable to the field of supervision as a whole and will

allow for “greater confidence that the problems that need to be fixed will be found”

(Faulkner, 2003, p.382). Thus, with continued research, evolving theoretical

developments may serve to further inform how nonverbal communication in clinical

supervision is experienced on a micro, mezzo, and macro level of understanding. This

implies a need for existing supervisor-supervisee relationship theories to recognize

nonverbal communication as central to forming and maintaining effective relationships.

Furthermore, continued research may be able to assess identified nonverbal

communication cues (i.e. direct eye contact, and pausing) in conjunction with the quality

of the supervision relationship in order to improve supervisor-supervisee dynamics.

Limitations

While the current study provides a useful window into the power of nonverbal

communication, there are several limitations that are important to note. One limitation

was found within the recording process as all participants reported that they were

especially aware of the fact that they were being recorded. It is possible that discomfort

150

associated with being recorded could have caused some supervisees to be more nervous

in general, thereby causing them to present as being less comfortable in the presence of

their supervisor. However, as time went on, many believed that the camera became an

unnoticeable part of the supervision process and found that their reactions became more

natural. Because of this, it is not clear where in the data to account for possible

inauthenticity in nonverbal behavior or to indicate areas where input from participants

might have been inaccurately reflected.

Another limitation is that while the study touched on diverse topics, the

participant pool was not broad enough to include a meaningful variety of socio-cultural

groups. Participants consisted of five supervisors who identified as White (one male and

four women), three supervisees who identified as White (one male and two women), and

two supervisees who identified as Asian (both women, one Asian American and one

International Chinese student). The benefits of having a diverse sample that consists of

various sociocultural backgrounds including all gender perspectives, LGBTQ, ethnic,

cultural, and nationality will provide a more comprehensive view when identifying the

unique needs of supervisees and can provide an informed path for supervisors to follow

when addressing those needs. While the current study did report cross cultural differences

and potential misunderstandings in one dyad that included an international student and a

domestic supervisor, the scope of understanding is limited. Much more research that is

representative of many more groups is needed to understand the potential for cross-

cultural misunderstandings through nonverbal behavior.

151

A final limitation is that the current study indicated supervision nondisclosures

based on events that supervisees were dissatisfied with. In most instances, participants

were asked to respond to moments that were specifically selected for them. While

supervisees also shared instances when silence was comfortable and carried out

effectively, the study did not focus specifically on areas of strength within the supervision

relationship, as it is reasonable to assume that if participants were asked to report equally

positive supervision experiences, the perspective from which this study was written might

have been affected.

Conclusion

Results of the current study found that supervisors and supervisees not only send

and receive nonverbal communication cues, but both respond to that which they perceive

based on those cues. This study provided a way for all participants to explore and to

expound upon their experiences, many of which only became apparent through

participation in this study. It was ultimately found that, through self-reflection and recall

by way of video prompts, participants were willing to share thoughts and feelings that

were not readily shared in the context of their respective supervision sessions. Participant

responses affirmed that an obscure process takes place under the pretext of supervision.

This suggests that more work is to be done to better understand and to effectively apply

useful practices in addressing nonverbal communication in clinical supervision.

152

References

Anderson, P.A., Guerrero, L.K., & Jones, S.M. (2006). Nonverbal behavior in intimate

interactions and intimate relationships. The Sage handbook of nonverbal

communication, 259-277.

Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand

dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855-870.

Battaglia, M. (2008). Convenience Sampling. In Paul J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Survey Research Methods. (pp. 149-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Birdwhistell, R.L. (1955), Background to kinesics. Review of General Semantics, 13, 10-

18.

Birdwhistell, R.L. (1952), Introduction to kinesics: An annotated system for the analysis

of body motion and gesture. Louisville.

Bordin, E.S. (1983). A working alliance-based model of supervision. The Counseling

Psychologist, 11, 35-41.

Brown, M. T., & Landrum-Brown, J. (1995). Counselor supervison: Cross-cultural

perspectives. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 263-286). Thousand Oaks, CA,

US: Sage Publication, Inc.

Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: revisiting

the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976-993.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

153

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Cheshin, A., Rafaeli, A., & Bos, N. (2011). Anger and happiness in virtual teams:

Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 2-16.

Cooper, J.M. & Glasgow, R.B. (1968). Kinesiology. St Louis, MI: CV Mosby Co.

Cook, J. J. (1964). Silence in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11(1),

42.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J., Hanson, W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Qualitative research designs:

selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.

Creswell, J. (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. London: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. London: Sage.

Darrow, A. A. & Johnson, C. (2009). Preservice music teachers’ and therapists’

nonverbal behaviors and their relationship to perceived rapport. International

Journal of Music Education, 27, 269-280.

154

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Depaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),

The handbook of social psychology, (pp. 3-40). New York, NY, US: Oxford

University Press, Inc.

Devito, J. A. (1986). Teaching as relational development. In J. M. Civikly (Ed.),

Communicating in college classrooms (pp.51-59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.

Medical Education, 40, 314-321.

Dowell N. M., & Berman, J.S. (2013). Therapist nonverbal behavior and perceptions of

empathy, alliance, and treatment credibility. Journal of Psychotherapy

Integration, 23(2), 158-165.

Duncan, S. Jr., Rice, L.N., & Butler, J.M. (1968). Therapists’ paralanguage in peak and

Poor psychotherapy hours. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73,(6), 566-570.

Egan, T. M. (2002). Grounded theory research and theory building. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 4, 277-295.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.

Psychiatry, 32,88-105.

Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., Boldry, J. G., & Tan, H. H. (2006). Dyadic effects in

nonverbal communication: A variance partitioning analysis. Cognition and

Emotion, 20(1), 149-159.

155

Emigh, R. J. (1997). The power of negative thinking: The use of negative case

methodology in the development of sociological theory. Theory and

Society, 26(5), 649-684.

Ethier, N. A. (2010). Paralinguistic and Nonverbal Behaviour in Social Interactions: A

Lens Model Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo).

Faulkner, L, 2003. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes

in usuability testing. Behavior Research and Methods, Instruments, & Computers,

35(3), 379-383.

Fretz, R. B., Corn, R. Tuemmler, M. J., & Bellet, W. (1979). Counselor nonverbal

behaviors and client evaluations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 304-311.

Frymier, A. B. & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an

Interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219.

Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., &

Rodolfa, E. (2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation variables in

supervision: Do they really matter? Journal of multicultural counseling and

development, 29, 102-113.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The

interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Good, G.E., Gilbert, L.A., & Scher, M. (1990). Gender aware therapy: A synthesis of

feminist therapy and knowledge about gender. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 68(4), 376-380.

Graham, E. E., West, R. & Schaller, K. A. (1992). The association between the relational

156

teaching approach and teacher job satisfaction. Communication Reports, 5, 11-22.

Granvold, D. K. (1996). Constructivist psychotherapy. Families in Society: The Journal

of Contemporary Human Services, 77(6), 349-359.

Graves, J.R. & Robinson, J.D. (1976). Proxemic behavior as a function of inconsistent

verbal and nonverbal messages. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23(4), 333-

338.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29 (2), 75-91.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm

Dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park: Sage.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2015). A constructive approach to counseling and psychotherapy

supervision. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 28(1), 40-52.

Ha, J.F., Anat, D., & Longnecker, N. (2010). Doctor-patient communication: A review.

Ochsner Journal, 10(1), 38-43.

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical

dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. American Psychological

Association, 131(6), 898-924.

Hasse, R.F., & Tepper, D.T. (1972). Nonverbal components of empathic communication.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(5), 417-424.

Haskard, K., Williams, S., & DiMatteo, M. (2008). The providers voice: Patient

satisfaction and the content-filtered speech of nurses and physicians in primary

medical care. Nonverbal Behavior 2008, 32, 1-20.

157

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London: Sage.

Henry, S., Fuhrel-Forbis, A., Rogers, M., & Eggly, S. (2011). Association between

nonverbal communication during clinical interactions and outcomes: A systematic

review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 86, 297-315.

Heppner, P.P., & Roehlke, H.J. (1984). Differences among supervisees at different levels

of training in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy: Implications for

developmental model of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 76-

90.

Hernandez, P. & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersectionality, power, and relational safety in

context: Key concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Education in

Professional Psychology, 4(1), 29-35.

Hickson, M. (2010). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Holstrom, I., & Roing, M. (2010). The relation between patient-centeredness and patient

empowerment: A discussion on concepts. Patient Education and Counseling,

79(2), 167-172.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12,

307-312.

Hoshmand, L. T. (2005). Narratology, cultural psychology, and counseling research.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 178-186.

Jacobs, T. J. (1994). Nonverbal Communications: Some reflections on their role in the

psychoanalytic process and psychoanalytic education. Journal of the American

158

Psychoanalytic Association, 42(3), 741-762.

Jolly, S. (2000). Understanding body language: Birdwhistell’s Theory of Kinesics’.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5(3), 133-139.

Joshi, S., & McAllister, L. (1998). An investigation of supervisory style in speech

pathology clinical education. The Clinical Supervisor, 17, 141-155.

Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S., & Krathworth, D., (1969).

Interpersonal process recall. Journal of Nervous and Mental Health, 148(4), 365-

374.

Kelly, W. E. & True, H. J. (1980). Eye contact and communication of facultative

conditions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 815-820.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in

experimental social psychology, 18, 142-182.

Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R., & Tang, R. L. (2016). Suffering

in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive

supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 731-

42.

Kim, B. S., Liang, C. T. H., & Li, L. C. (2003). Counselor ethnicity, counselor nonverbal

behavior, and session outcome with Asian clients: Initial findings. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 81, 202-207.

Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin,

100(1), 78-100.

Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal

159

communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? In M. Zanna (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 389-450). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness.

American Journal of occupational therapy, 45(3), 214-222.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews:An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladany, N., Hill, C., Corbett, M., & Nutt, E. (1996). Nature, extent, and importance of

what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their supervisors. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 10-24.

Ladany, N., Ellis, M.V., & Friedlander, M.L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance,

trainee self-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Development,

77, 447-455.

Larsen, D., Flesaker, K., & Stege, R. (2008). Qualitative interviewing using interpersonal

process recall: Investigating internal experiences during professional-client

conversations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 18-37.

Larsen, D., & Stege, R. (2012). Client accounts of hope in early counseling sessions: A

qualitative study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 45-54.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-278.

Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work

practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11, 188-202.

160

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lunenberg, F.C. (2010). Louder than words: The hidden power of nonverbal

communication in the workplace. International Journal of Scholarly Academic

Intellectual Diversity, 12, 1-5.

Mahoney, M. J. (1995). Continuing evolution of the cognitive sciences and

psychotherapies. In R. A. Neimeyer & M. J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in

psychotherapy (pp. 39-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Constructivist psychotherapy: A practical guide. New York, NY:

The Guiliford Press.

Marcinowicz, L., Konstantynowicz, J., & Godlewski, C. (2010). Patients’ perceptions of

GP non-verbal communication: A qualitative study. British Journal of General

Practice, 60(571), 83-87.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Design qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K. (2011). Handbook of counselor preparation:

Constructivist, developmental, and experiential approaches. California: Sage.

McLeod, J. (2003). Doing counseling research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal

communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 81, 248-252.

Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal

161

Of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109-114.

Mehrabian, A. (1968). Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and

distance.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of

attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 359-372.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mindess, A., Holcomb, T. K., Langholtz, D., Moyers, P., & Solow, S. N. (2006). Reading

between the signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters

(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press a division of Nicholas Brealey

Publishing.

Neimeyer, R. A. (1995). An invitation to constructive psychotherapies. In R. A.

Neimeyer & M. J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in psychotherapy (pp. 5-8).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Neimeyer, R. A. (2009). Constructivist psychotherapy: Distinctive features. New York:

Routledge.

Neufeldt, S. (2007). Supervision Strategies for the First Practicum (3rd ed.). Virginia:

American Counseling Association.

Nguyen, A., Chen, W., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). Intelligent presentation skills trainer

analyses body movement. In Advances in Computational Intelligence (pp. 320-

332). Springer International Publishing, 2015.

Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal

communication

162

of affects: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. Journal of

Nonverbal Behavior, 18(1), 9-35.

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs, and Schieffelin, B. (Ed.), In

developmental pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory

method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4), 1-15.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge (A.

Rosin, Trans.). New York: Viking.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Piaget's and Derrida's contributions to a constructivist

psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, (8)4, 269-282.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative

research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, (8)4, 269-282.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the

qualitative research concept “thick description”. The Qualitative Report, 11, 538-

549.

Qiang, K. (2013). Paralanguage. Canadian Social Science, 9(6), 222-226.

Rabinowitz, F.E., Heppner, P.P., and Roehlke, H.J. (1986). Descriptive study of process

and outcome variables of supervision over time. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 33, 292-300.

Rockmore, T. (2005). On constructivist epistemology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield

163

Publishers, Inc.

Ryan, E.B., Hummert, M.L., & Boich, L.H. (1995). Communication predicaments of

aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology,14(1-2), 144-166.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Sexton, T. L., & Griffin, B. L. (1997). Constructivist thinking in counseling practice,

research, and training. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shapiro, J. G. (1966). Agreement between channels of communication in interviews.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 535-538.

Shariff, A.F. & Tracy, J.L. (2011). What are emotion expressions for? Psychological

Science, 20(6), 395-399.

Shelton, K. & Delgado-Romero, E.A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The

experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 210-221.

Singh, S. & Singh, N.K., (2011). Non-Verbal communication and gender. Voice of

Intellectual Man-An International Journal, 1(2), 99-108.

Slife, B. D., & Gantt, E. E. (1999). Methodological pluralism: A framework for

psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1453-1465.

Spence, S.H., Wilson, J., Kavanagh, D., Strong, J., &Worrall, L. (2001). Clinical

supervision in four mental health professions: A review of the evidence.

Behaviour Change, 18(3), 135-155.

164

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage

Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and

procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stevenson-Won, A., Bailenson, J., & Janssen, J. (2014). Automatic detection of

nonverbal behavior predicts learning in dyadic interactions. IEEE Transactions on

Affective Computing, 5(2), 112-125.

Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice.

Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tepper, T. D., & Hasse, F. R. (1978). Verbal and nonverbal communication of

facilitative conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 35-44.

Thorne, S., Kirkham, S., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004). The analytic challenge in

interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-21.

Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigor within a qualitative

framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388-396.

Waiflein, M. (2013). The Progression of the Field of Kinesics: Senior Thesis –

Anthropology. Paper 3. Retrieved from: http://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/sta/3.

Ward, L.G., Friedlander, M.L., Schoen, L.G., & Klein, J.C. (1985). Strategic self –

presentation in supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 111-118.

Worthington, E. L., & Roehlke, H. J. (1979). Effective supervision as perceived by

beginning counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26(1), 64-

165

73.

Whitman, J. S., & Bidell, M. P. (2014). Affirmative lesbian, gay, and bisexual counselor

education and religious beliefs: How do we bridge the gap? Journal of Counseling

& Development, 92, 162-169.

Wurtz, E. (2006). Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of

web sites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 274-299.

Yeh, C. J. & Inman, A. G. (2007). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation in

counseling psychology: Strategies for best practices. The Counseling

Psychologist,35, 369-403.

Yourman, D. B. (2003). Trainee disclosure in psychotherapy supervision: The impact of

Shame. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 601-609.

Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). Sex roles interruptions and silences in conversations.

In B. Thomas and N. Henly (eds). 105-129. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

166

Appendices

167

Appendix A

Nonverbal Communication in Clinical Supervision

INFORMATION SHEET

Missing Cues: An Exploration of Nonverbal Communication among Dyads in Constructivist

Clinical Supervision

Principal Investigator: Serina M.R. Tetenov, LCSW

Co-Investigators: Douglas Guiffrida, Ph.D., ACS, NCC This form describes a research study that is being conducted by Serina M.R. Tetenov, LCSW and Douglas Guiffrida, Ph.D., ACS, NCC from the University of Rochester’s Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development. The purpose of this study is to learn more about the meaning of nonverbal communication that occurs between counseling students engaged in clinical supervision and their clinical supervisors. In order to learn more about nonverbal communication between supervisors and supervisees, some of your supervision sessions will be video recorded. The purpose of video recording is to effectively observe body language that indicates nonverbal communication. The PI will subsequently view recordings in order to observe and identify key moments of nonverbal communication. The PI will then review the video recorded moments with you. If you decide to take part in this study, you give permission for three of your supervision sessions to be video recorded. Activities to be observed include gestures, eye gaze, and nonverbal speech such as tone of voice. Within 48 hours of each recorded session, you will meet with the PI for one hour to review and discuss your video-recorded experience. A portion of the one-hour meeting will be audio-recorded. You will not be video recorded during the one-hour meeting. The meeting will proceed in the order indicated below:

• 5 minute check-in at the beginning of the hour (Not Recorded) • 45 minute interview (Audio Recorded) • 10 minute debrief at the end of the hour (Not Recorded)

We estimate that approximately 10 subjects will take part in this study. Your participation will take place over the course of one semester. There is a small chance that some of the questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You may skip any questions you don’t want to answer. Because this study involves collecting personal,

168

identifiable information about you, there is a potential for invasion of privacy or breach in confidentiality. To minimize this risk none of the information disclosed during interviews will be shared with your supervisor. There are no other expected risks to you for participating in this study. There are also no expected benefits. You will receive a $50 Amazon gift card for participating in this study. You will receive the gift card, in-person, at the end of the final interview. There will be no cost to you to participate in this study. The University of Rochester makes every effort to keep the information collected from you private. In order to do so, we will (1) not identify you by name, (2) not share your information with other subjects, and (3) will encrypt all information related to this study. All video-recorded information will be destroyed within one semester following completion of the dissertation. All audio recorded interviews will be transcribed using pseudonyms and will then be destroyed within 6 years after the study has been completed. Sometimes, however, researchers need to share information that may identify you with people that work for the University or regulators. If this does happen we will take precautions to protect the information you have provided. Results of the research may be presented at meetings or in publications, but your name will not be used. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free not to participate or to withdraw at any time, for whatever reason. No matter what decision you make, there will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

Page 1 of 2 Nonverbal Communication in Clinical Supervision

Participating in this study will not affect your class standing or grades at the University of Rochester. You will not be offered or receive any special consideration if you take part in this research. For more information or questions about this research you may call Serina Tetenov at 585.259.0994 or via email at stetenov@u.rochester.edu.

169

Please contact the University of Rochester Research Subjects Review Board at 265 Crittenden Blvd., CU 420628, Rochester, NY 14642, Telephone (585) 276-0005 or (877) 449-4441 for the following reasons:

• You wish to talk to someone other than the research staff about your rights as a research subject; • To voice concerns about the research; • To provide input concerning the research process; In the event the study staff could not be reached.

RSRB Case Number: 00065374 Page 2 of 2 Version Date: 10/27/2016

170

Appendix B

Email Script - Supervisees

PI: Serina Tetenov,

LCSW Hello Counseling Supervisees:

My name is Serina Tetenov. I am a doctoral student and a graduate assistant at the University of Rochester conducting a research study entitled Missing Cues: An Exploration of Nonverbal Communication among Dyads in Constructivist Clinical Supervision.

The purpose of this study is to learn about the ways in which nonverbal communication is experienced during clinical supervision sessions. In your role as supervisee, you can provide valuable insight to this research project, as I would like to invite you to take part in this study.

The study involves video-recording three of your clinical supervision sessions. Within 48 hours of each recorded session, you will meet with the PI for one hour to discuss your video-recorded experience. Participation in interviews and recording of sessions is voluntary.

Please review the attached study information letter detailing what your participation would involve.

If you are interested in participating in the study or have questions, please contact me by

responding to this email.

Sincerely,

Serina Tetenov, LCSW

Page 1 of 1

171

Appendix C

Email Script – Supervisors

PI: Serina Tetenov,

LCSW

Hello Doctoral Supervisors:

My name is Serina Tetenov. I am also a doctoral student and a graduate assistant at the University of Rochester conducting a research study entitled Missing Cues: An Exploration of Nonverbal Communication among Dyads in Constructivist Clinical Supervision. The purpose of this study is to learn about the ways in which nonverbal communication is experienced during clinical supervision sessions. In your role as supervisor, you can provide valuable insight to this research project, as I would like to invite you to take part in this study.

The study involves video-recording three of your clinical supervision sessions. Within 48 hours of each recorded session, you will meet with the PI for one hour to discuss your video-recorded experience. Participation in interviews and recording of sessions is voluntary.

Please review the attached study information letter detailing what your participation would involve.

If you are interested in participating in the study or have questions, please contact me by

responding to this email.

Sincerely,

Serina Tetenov, LCSW

Page 1 of 1

172

Appendix D Script for Classroom Presentation

PI: Serina Tetenov, LCSW

Hello everyone! My name is Serina Tetenov and I am a graduate assistant and Ph.D. student here at the Warner School. I am nearing the end of my program and came today to talk about my dissertation research study. For my study, I would like to explore the different ways that nonverbal communication is experienced in supervision between supervisors and supervisees. I plan to conduct the study over the course of one semester and ask for your consideration in participating as study subjects.

To be more specific and clear about what I will do, I brought an information letter for each of you that explains what my research is about and what would be expected from you if you choose to participate. In just a few minutes we will read through the information letter together. As I explain the study further, you are free to ask questions or to express any concerns. Your participation in this research is voluntary and you can discontinue participation in this study at any time without any impact on your grades or course enrollment. Reviewing information about my research will take no more than 15 minutes. Before I continue, are there any questions?

**At this point PI will answer questions and immediately read Information

Letter** Thank you for listening. Are there any questions?

**PI will answer questions**

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me either through email or phone. My contact information is included in the Information Letter. If you decide to participate, you can contact me using the email or phone number indicated in the letter. I look forward to working with you for my dissertation project. Thank you.

Page 1 of 1