研究生: |
黎欣怡 Li, Hsin-Yi |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
後現代敘事合作對話取向團體督導歷程及其對受督者之影響研究 A study of group supervision process of postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach and its influence on the supervisee |
指導教授: |
田秀蘭
Tien, Hsiu-Lan |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
教育心理與輔導學系 Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling |
論文出版年: | 2020 |
畢業學年度: | 108 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 207 |
中文關鍵詞: | 紮根理論研究法 、團體督導歷程 、後現代敘事合作對話取向 、見證反思歷程 |
英文關鍵詞: | A grounded theory, Group supervision process, Postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach, Witness-reflecting process |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202000233 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:326 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在探究後現代敘事合作對話取向(the postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach)團體督導歷程中,督導者所展現的督導思維,及其所運用的督導策略技巧;並從受督者的觀點了解此取向團體督導對受督者的影響。本取向團體督導每個月進行一次,共進行八次,督導者為後現代敘事合作對話取向的資深臨床督導者,共有九位領有心理師執照之受督者參加。研究收集的資料包括八次團體督導歷程、見證反思歷程逐字稿,以及八位提案受督者之團督後個別訪談逐字稿,使用質性研究紮根理論分析法進行資料的分析。
研究結果發現,在本取向的團體督導歷程中,督導者展現了「尊重、欣賞與感謝;不視為理所當然;一般化;公開化;去專家化;持著未知的態度;認可與賦能;珍視在地性知識」等八大類後現代督導思維,並運用十三類的督導策略技巧,分別是「隱而未顯支線故事的探究;敘事解構/外化/命名;見證;後現代敘事合作對話諮商理論與技巧之教學/分享/示範;意義性提問;隱喻的使用」等六類本取向獨特之督導策略技巧;以及「傾聽、聽見、回應;非評價、正向好奇地提問;瞭解受督者的督導需求與提問;立即性核對;瞭解個案身處之脈絡;賦予新的理解框架;給予指引」等七類共通性的督導策略技巧。在督導思維與督導策略技巧的相互共構下,促進受督者隱而未顯支線故事與內在專家主體知識之現身。
本研究也發現,本取向團體督導結合了後現代見證反思歷程(witness-reflecting process)的運用,受督者們的學習分別領受到來自督導者與其他受督者的影響;來自督導者的影響有八類,分別是「後現代思維的深化;後現代諮商與督導歷程化技巧的學習;形塑與整合個人諮商風格、信念與價值;持續自我覺察、反思、面對與調整;珍惜團體督導的學習經驗;珍惜自己的專業角色與工作;重獲工作力量與意義感;督導正向影響的遷移」;來自其他受督者的影響有五類,分別是「被見證的支持力量;因有相似經驗,感到不孤單、普同感,關係更靠近;從彼此經驗中學習成長;共構在地性自我照顧與諮商專業知識;拓展觀點」。而各類別之間有著相互促進之影響存在,最後共同促成受督者自信與自我效能感的提升、生活上與工作上的重新得力、以及專業角色的認同與功能的發揮。
本研究結果可提供給有意將後現代社會建構理論思維、見證反思歷程運用在諮商督導以及心理師教育訓練上之參考指引。最後,研究者針對本研究結果作一討論,並對未來實務與研究提出建議。
The purpose of this study was to explore the supervisory mindsets, supervision strategies and techniques used by supervisors in the postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach group supervision, and to understand it's influence on supervisee. There were nine certified psychologist participated in this monthly group supervision, which supervised by a senior clinical supervisor for eight months, the supervisor’s supervision approach was also postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach. Eight verbatim drafts of the group supervision process, the witness-reflecting process, and the post group supervision individual interview of each supervisee were collected and analyzed by the grounded theory.
The results showed that the supervisor showed eight types of postmodern supervisory mindsets, that is showing appreciation, did not take it for granted, normalize, be public, de-expertization, not-knowing, validation, empowerment, and privilege local knowledge. The supervisor also using a total of thirteen types of supervision strategies/skills, including the six types supervision strategies/skills was unique to this approach, that is “explore the unique outcome, narrative deconstruction/externalization/naming, witnessing, teaching/sharing/modeling the philosophy and strategies of this approach, and use the meaning question and metaphor ”, and the seven types supervision strategies/skills was common to other supervision model, that is “the responsive-active listening, positive and non-judgmental question, understand the supervisee’s supervision needs, immediately checking, understand the context of the client, reframe, and give instruction”. With the mutual co-construction of supervisory mindsets and supervision strategies/skills, this group supervision promoted the emergence of the supervisee's absent but implicit story, unique outcome, and inner expert subjective knowledge.
Furthermore, this study also showed that this approach group supervision combined with the postmodern witness-reflecting process, the learning of the supervisee was influenced by the supervisor and the other supervisee. There are eight types of influences from the supervisor, including deepening of postmodern thinking, learning of postmodern counseling and supervision process skills, shaping and integrating personal counseling styles/beliefs/values, continuous self-awareness and reflection, cherish the learning experience of this approach and their professional work and role, regain the power and meaning of their work, positive influences transfer to their counseling and supervision work. In addition, there are five types influences were came from the other supervisee, including feel supported, feel not alone and getting close, learn from each other's experiences, co-constructing local self-care and counseling-practice knowledge, and their perspective was expanded. Each types of influences had positive effect on the other influences, respectively. Moreover, this study also showed that the supervisee’s confidence and self-efficacy was improved, life and work was refreshed, and their professional identity and function was promoted after this group supervision.
The finding of this study can be used as a reference information for those who interesting in applying the postmodern narrative-collaborative dialogical approach supervision and witness-reflecting process in clinical supervision and counselor education. Useful recommendations and guidelines based on the findings were also provided and discussed in this study.
一、中文部分
心理師法(2001年11月21日)。心理師法。取自全國法規資料庫入口網站https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=L0020098,2018年12月18日。
方嘉琦(2016)。循環督導模式督導歷程中督導意圖與反應模式之分析研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。
王麗斐、杜淑芬(2009)。臺北市國小輔導人員與諮商心理師之有效跨專業合作研究。教育心理學報,41,295-320。
田秀蘭(2000)。紮根理論在諮商心理學研究中的運用。輔導季刊,36(4),35-40。
吳秀碧(2012)。受督者知覺有益學習的督導關係內涵之探究,中華輔導與諮商學報,33,87-118。
吳熙琄(2010)。後現代哲學觀的七個假設。後現代敘事取向家族治療督導團體講義,未出版。台北。
吳熙琄(2017)。後現代敘事諮商。載於陳秉華(主編),多元文化諮商在台灣(369-408)。新北市:心理出版社。
吳熙琄(2018)。古典敘事在跨文化中的流動與蛻變。故事結構再建構:麥可懷特敘事治療精選集中的審閱者序(9-15)。台北市:心靈工坊文化。
吳熙琄(2019)。108年10月22日,訪談對話筆記。
李明峰(2017)。台灣諮商督導研究主題與方法之分析-以2000~2015年為例。諮商心理與復健諮商學報,30,97-119。doi:10.6308/JCPRC.2017.30.04
李韻如(2011)。促進反思的督導團體對諮商員影響之初探研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,台北市。
卓紋君、徐西森(2002)。完形治療取向督導模式及其督導歷程實錄分析。中華輔導學報,12,73-116。doi:10.7082/CARGC.200209.0073
周志建(2002)。敘事治療的理解與實踐:以一個諮商個案為例之敘說研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
周志建(2008)。點亮一盞明燈:後現代敘事取向的督導概念與作法。諮商與輔導,269(2),2-7。
林杏足(2014)。敘事取向督導的理念與實務運用。輔導季刊,50(4),58-68。
林家興、趙舒禾、方格正、黎欣怡、李露芳、葉安華(2011):諮商督導實務。臺北市:雙葉。
林淑華(2019)。學校輔導教師督導者之督導經驗與學校輔導督導系統建構(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北。
施香如(1996)。諮商督導過程的建構:循環發展督導模式之分析研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化。
施香如(2015)。諮商實務課程團體督導之學習經驗初探--循環發展督導模式及反饋小組的應用。中華輔導與諮商學報,43,127-157。
徐西森(2003)。諮商督導歷程中督導角色與督導焦點之分析研究-以區辨模式為架構。諮商輔導文粹:高師輔導所刊,8,1-33。doi:10.6308/CG.08.01
徐西森(2005)。諮商師諮商督導受訓歷程中專業需求與情緒覺察之分析研究。高應科大人文社會科學學報,2,209-226。
徐西森(2007)。區辨督導模式。載於徐西森與黃素雲(2007),諮商督導理論與研究(283-290)。臺北市:心理。
徐西森、黃素雲(2007)。諮商督導理論與研究。臺北市:心理。
翁令珍、廖鳳池(2005)。諮商督導歷程中人際行為與受督導者知覺之分析研究。教育心理學報,37(2),99-122。doi:10.6251/BEP.20051018
翁令珍、廖鳳池(2007)。督導介入對受督導者之衝擊:以區辨模式為架構之歷程分析。教育心理學報,39(2),241-261。doi:10.6251/BEP.20070509
高淑清(2008)。質性研究的十八堂課~首航初探之旅。高雄:麗文。
張玉鈴、蔡秀玲(2012)。完形取向督導中受督者知覺之督導重要事件與督導者之介入的初探分析。教育心理學報,43(3),591-612。doi:10.6251/BEP.20101206
張淑芬、廖鳳池(2007)。諮商督導結盟歷程之初探研究:以一對督導為例。輔導與諮商學報,29(1),67-86。
張淑芬、廖鳳池(2010)。受督導者知覺之諮商督導關係歷程及督導關係事件研究。教育心理學報,42(2),317-337。
張淑芬、廖鳳池(2011)。督導雙方對諮商督導關係知覺之配對研究。中華輔導與諮商學報,30,101-132。
許育光(2011)。碩士層級實習學校諮商員督導團體之關切議題、學習因素與參與經驗分析,中華輔導與諮商學報,31,61-100。doi:10.7082/CJGC.201112.0062
許雅惠、廖鳳池(2005)。不同階段個別諮商督導歷程中督導議題與督導策略之分析研究。輔導與諮商學報,27(1),65-82。
許雅惠、廖鳳池(2007)。諮商督導歷程中督導者回饋介入事件、回饋介入時機與意圖之分析研究。諮商輔導學報,16,23-67。
許維素(2007)。焦點解決督導成效之研究。教育心理學報,38(3),331-354。
許維素、蔡秀玲(2008)。高中職輔導教師焦點解決團體督導成效之研究。教育心理學報,39(4),603-622。doi:10.6251/BEP.20080213
許韶玲(2003)。督導者知覺受督導者影響諮商督導過程之因素。應用心理研究,18,113-144。
許韶玲(2004a)。受督導者於督導過程中的隱而未說現象之探究。教育心理學報,36(2),109-125。doi:10.6251/BEP.20040811
許韶玲(2004b)。受督導者對諮商督導過程的影響因素—從受督導者的知覺檢視。諮商輔導學報:高師輔導所刊,10,31-49。doi:10.6308/JCG.10.02
許韶玲(2007)。為什麼受督導者隱而不說?中華輔導學報,21,167-200。
郭秝語(2011)。焦點解決督導對高中職輔導教師輔導自我效能內涵之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
陳育瑮(2014)。諮商督導對新手諮商員知覺轉換與專業成長影響之研究─以循環督導模式為例(未出版之博士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。
陳秉華(1995)。諮商中大學生的心理分離個體化衝突改變歷程研究。教育心理學報,28,145-176。
黃素菲(2018)。敘事治療的精神與實踐。臺北市:心靈工坊文化。
黃素雲(2006)。人際歷程回憶的督導模式。諮商與輔導,251,2-7。doi:10.29837/CG.200611.0001
黃素雲(2007)。發展取向督導模式。載於徐西森與黃素雲(2007),諮商督導理論與研究(225-282)。臺北市:心理。
黃素雲(2007)。團體督導。載於徐西森、黃素雲(2007),諮商督導理論與研究(313-340)。臺北市:心理。
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究方法。台北市:心理。
黃慧森(2015)。敘事取向迴響團隊模式團體督導歷程與經驗之分析(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
楊雅雯(2009)。焦點解決團體督導對高中職輔導教師之賦能內涵研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
廖本富(2002)。敘說治療之訓練與督導模式。諮商與輔導,200,23-32。
廖佳慧(2016)。循環督導模式歷程中督導要素之內涵與流動(未出版之博士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。
劉志如(1997)。循環發展模式督導歷程中督導員與受督導諮商師口語行為之分析研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
蔡秀玲(2012)影響督導工作同盟發展之要素:督導雙方之觀點。教育心理學報,43(3),547-566。
蔡秀玲、陳秉華(2007)。受督導者在諮商督導情境中的情緒覺察歷程研究。教育心理學報,38(3),311-329。
蔡秀玲、陳秉華(2009)。諮商督導任務中受督者情緒覺察之督導介入初探分析。教育心理學報,41,205-221。
鄭如安(2004)。督導區辨模式之督導內涵分析—以一位受督導者爲例。諮商輔導學報,10,83-109。
鄭麗芬(1997)。循環發展模式督導歷程中受督導諮商師知覺經驗之分析研究(未出版市博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化。
黎欣怡、田秀蘭(付梓中)。同行與轉化:心理治療歷程中雙方參與者的轉化。生命敘說與心理傳記學研究。
蕭文(1999)。循環督導模式的理念建構。輔導季刊,35(2),1-7。
二、英文部分
Allen, G. J., Szollos, S. J., & Williams, B. E. (1986). Doctoral students' comparative evaluations of best and worst psychotherapy supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 91-99.
Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26 (4), 415-428. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00415.x
Andersen, T. (1992). Reflections on reflecting with families. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 54-68). London: Sage. 宋文里譯(2017)。翻轉與重建:心理治療與社會建構。臺北市 : 心靈工坊。
Andersen, T. (1995). Reflecting processes: Acts of informing and forming: You can borrow my eyes, but you must not take them away from me ! In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy (pp. 11-37). New York: The Guilford Press. 李淑珺譯(2005)。行動的反思團隊:家族治療中的合作式應用。台北市:張老師文化。
Andersen,T. (2007). Human participating: Human Being is the step, for human Becoming in the next step. In H. Anderson & D. Gehart (Eds.), Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference (pp. 81-93). New York: Routledge. 周和君、董小玲譯(2010)。合作取向實務:造成改變的關係與對話。臺北市:張老師文化。
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York: Basic Books. 周和君譯(2008)。合作取向治療:對話、語言、可能性。臺北市:張老師文化。
Anderson, H. (2009). Collaborative practice: Relationships and conversations that make a difference. In J. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Family Psychology (pp. 300-313). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Anderson, H. (2011). Reflections on Kenneth Gergen’s Contributions to Family Therapy. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES- UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, 57(2), 142-149.
Anderson, H. (2012). Collaborative relationships and dialogic conversations: Ideas for a relationally responsive practice. Family Process, 51(1), 1–17.
Anderson, H. (2013). Collaborative learning communities: Toward a postmodern perspective on teaching and learning. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Theories (pp. 515-528). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Anderson, H. (2015, September 18-20). Collaborative supervising, consulting & training. Workshop handout in Taipei, Taiwan.
Anderson, H., & Gehart, D. (2007). Collaborative therapy Relationships and conversations that make a difference. New York: Routledge. 周和君、董小玲譯(2010)。合作取向實務:造成改變的關係與對話。臺北市:張老師文化。
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: a not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25-39). London: Sage. 宋文里譯(2017)。翻轉與重建:心理治療與社會建構。臺北市 : 心靈工坊。
Attridge, W. C. (2007). Advancing the dialogue: A grounded theory analysis of reflecting team group supervision in counseling practicum (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University – Commerce. Available from Digital Dissertation Consortium. (3295370). Retrieved from http://0-pqdd.sinica.edu.tw.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/doc/3295370
Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C. E. Watkins Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310–327). New York: Wiley.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Bob, S. R. (1999). Narrative approaches to supervision and case formulation. Psychotherapy, 36(2), 146-153. doi:10.1037/h0087641
Bobele, M., Biever, J. L., Solorzano, B. H., & Bluntzer, L. H. (2014). Postmodern Approaches to Supervision. In C. L. Storm & T. C. Todd (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 255-273 ). Chichester, [England] : Wiley-Blackwell.
Borders, L. D., & Rainey, L. M. (1996). A impact of a counseling supervision course on doctoral students' cognitions. Counselor Education And Supervision, 35(3), 204-218.
Butler, S., Guterman, J. T., & Rudes, J. (2009). Using Puppets with Children in Narrative Therapy to Externalize the Problem. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 31, 225-233.
Carlson, T. D., & Erickson, M. T. (2001). Honoring and privileging personal experience and knowledge: Ideas for a narrative therapy approach to the training and supervision of new therapists. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23(2), 199-220.
Carter, J. W., Enyedy, K. C., Goodyear, R. K., Arcinue, F., & Puri, N. N. (2009). Concept mapping of the events supervisees find helpful in group supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 1-9.
Day, K. W. (2009). Violence survivors with posttraumatic stress disorder: Treatment by integrating existential and narrative therapies. Adultspan: Theory Research & Practice, 8, 81-91.
Enyedy, K. C., Arcinue, F., Puri, N. N., Carter, J. W., Goodyear, R. K., & Getzelman, M. A. (2003). Hindering phenomena in group supervision: Implications for practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 312-317.
Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. 高慧芬譯(2007)。臨床督導:專業知能本位督導模式。臺北市:心理。
Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the supervisory styles inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 541-557.
Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1995). The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. New York: Guilford. 李淑珺譯(2005)。行動的反思團隊:家族治療中的合作式應用。台北市:張老師文化。
Gehart, D.R. (2018). The legacy of Tom Andersen: The ethics of reflecting processes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(3), 386-392.
Gergen, K. J. (2009a). An invitation to social construction. London: SAGE. 許婧譯(2014)。醞釀中的變革:社會建構的邀請與實踐。臺北市:心靈工坊。
Gergen, K. J. (2009b). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University. 宋文里譯(2016)。關係的存有:超越自我,超越社群。臺北市:心靈工坊。
Guindon, Mary H. (2010). A Counseling Primer: An Introduction to the Profession. New York: Routlege. 陳增穎譯(2012)。諮商概論 : 諮商專業的第一本書。臺北市:心理。
Hair, H. J. & Fine, M. (2012). Social constructionism and supervision: Experiences of AAMFT supervisors and supervised therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(4), 604-620. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00255.x
Halligan-Avery, E. M., Guiffrida, D. A., & Lynch, M. F. (2017). Development and validation of the constructivist supervisor scale. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 28(1), 40–52. doi:10.1080/10720537.2016.1246992
Hanford, A. D. (2004). The development of a therapist through participation in a reflecting team (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsndl&AN=edsndl.oai.union.ndltd.org.netd.ac.za.oai.union.ndltd.org.unisa.oai.uir.unisa.ac.za.10500.1832&lang=zh-tw&site=eds-live
Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in the helping professions: An individual, group and organizational approach. Phildelphia, Pa.: Open University. 王文秀、李沁芬、謝淑敏、彭一芳譯(2003)。助人專業督導:個別、團體和組織取向。臺北市:學富。
Hoffman, L. (1992). A reflexive stance for family therapists. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 7-24). London: Sage. 宋文里譯(2017)。翻轉與重建:心理治療與社會建構。臺北市 : 心靈工坊。
Hoffman, L. (1995). Foreword. In Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1995). The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. New York: Guilford. 李淑珺譯(2005)。行動的反思團隊:家族治療中的合作式應用。台北市:張老師文化。
Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. 王文秀、施香如、沙大荒譯(1999)。臨床督導工作的理論與實務。臺北市:張老師文化。
Jenkins, D. (1996). A reflecting team approach to family therapy: A Delphi study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22,(2), 219-238. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1996.tb00200.x
Kellum, K. E. H. (2009). Structured reflecting teams in group supervision: A qualitative study with school counseling interns (Order No. 3368916) (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304901225). Retrieved from https://0-search.proquest.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/docview/304901225?accountid=14228
Lax, W. D. (1995). Offering reflections: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy (pp. 145- 166). New York: The Guilford Press. 李淑珺譯(2005)。行動的反思團隊:家族治療中的合作式應用。台北市:張老師文化。
Lemberger M. E., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2006). Encouraging the supervisee's style of counseling: An adlerian model for counseling supervision. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 62(2), 106-125.
Mahrer, A. R. (1988). Discovery-oriented psychotherapy research: Rationale, aims, and methods. American Psychologist, 43(9), 694-702.
McLeod, J. (2003). Doing counselling research. London: SAGE Publication. 連廷誥、連廷嘉、連秀鸞譯(2006)。認識諮商研究。台北市:心理。
McNamee, S. & Gergen, K. J. (ed.). (1992). Therapy as social construction. London: Sage. 宋文里譯(2017)。翻轉與重建:心理治療與社會建構。臺北市 : 心靈工坊。
Mehr, K. E., Ladany, N., & Caskie, G. I. L. (2015). Factors influencing trainee willingness to disclose in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9(1), 44-51. doi:10.1037/tep0000028
Monk, G., & Gehart, D. R. (2003). Sociopolitical activist or conversational partner? Distinguishing the position of the therapist in narrative and collaborative therapies. Family Process, 42(1), 19-30.
Neal, J. H. (1996). Narrative therapy training and supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15(1), 63-77. doi:10.1521/jsyt.1996.15.1.63
Reichelt, S., & Skjerve, J. (2013). The reflecting team model used for clinical group supervision without clients present. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39,(2), 244–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00298.x
Rønnestad, M. H., Orlinsky, D. E., Schröder, T. A., Skovholt, T. M., & Willutzki, U. (2019). The professional development of counsellors and psychotherapists: Implications of empirical studies for supervision, training and practice. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. 19(3), 214-230. doi:10.1002/capr.12198
Santos, A., Goncalves, M., Matos, M., & Salvatore, S. (2009). Innovative moments and change pathways: A good outcome case of narrative therapy. Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 82, 449-466.
Sheila, N. (2018, March 10-11). The responsibility and ethics of the relationship. Workshop handout in Taipei, Taiwan.
Skovholt, T. M. & Starkey, M. T. (2010). The three legs of the practitioner’s learning stool: Practice, research/theory, and personal life. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 125–130. doi:10.1007/s10879-010-9137-1
Skovholt, T. M. (2001). The resilient practitioner: Burnout prevention and self-care strategies for counselors, therapists, teachers, and health professionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 劉小菁譯(2001)。助人工作者自助手册:活力充沛的秘訣。臺北市:張老師。
Stoltenberg, C. D. (2005). Enhancing professional competence through developmental approaches to supervision. American Psychologist, 60, 857–864. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.8.85
Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B. W. (1997). Clinical supervision from a developmental perspective: Research and practice. In C. E. Watkins Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 184–202). New York: Wiley.
Storm, C. L., & Todd, T. C. (2009). The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and pragmatics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 洪志美、廖婉如、許嘉月、張書森、簡意玲、黃宣穎譯(2011)。系統取向督導完全指南。臺北市:心靈工坊。
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). London: Sage. 吳芝儀、廖梅花譯(2001)。質性研究入門 : 紮根理論研究方法。嘉義市 : 濤石文化出版。
Vespia, K. M., Heckman-Stone, C. & Delworth, U. (2002). Describing and facilitating effective supervision behavior in counseling trainees. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39(1), 56-65.
Vromans, L. P., & Schweitzer, R. D. (2011). Narrative therapy for adults with major depressive disorder: Improved symptom and interpersonal outcomes. Psychotherapy Research, 21, 4-15.
Watkins, C. E. (2017). Convergence in psychotherapy supervision: A common factors, common processes, common practices perspective. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27(2), 140-152. doi:10.1037/int0000040
Weingarten, K. (2016). The art of reflection: Turning the strange into the familiar. Family process, 55(2), 195-210. doi: 10.1111/famp.12158.
White, M. (2016). Narrative therapy classics. Dulwich Centre Publications. 徐曉珮譯(2018)。故事解構、再建構:麥可懷特敘事治療精選集。台北市:心靈工坊。
Whiting, J. B. (2007). Authors, artists and social constructionism: A case study of narrative supervision. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 139-150. doi:10.1080/01926180600698434
Wiley, M. O., & Ray, P. B. (1986). Counseling supervision by developmental level. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(4), 439-445.
Worthen, V., & McNeill, B. W. (1996). A phenomenological investigation of "good" supervision events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 25-34.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. & Roehlke, H. J. (1979). Effective supervision as perceived by beginning counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 64-73.