English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Supervisors’ duties within supervision include assisting the development of the supervisee and ensuring client welfare (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). In order to fulfill these duties, supervisors must train, evaluate, and potentially gatekeep supervisees (Fitch, Pistole, & Gunn, 2010). Such responsibilities can distract supervisors from maintaining a focus on the working alliance with their supervisee (Fitch et al., 2010), which may increase proneness to ruptures in rapport that can in turn lead supervisees to experience shame in supervision (Alonso & Rutan, 1988). Supervisors may contribute to supervisee shame by not processing the shame, having negative personal aspects (e.g., being judgmental of the supervisee) that lead to supervisees not being able to cope with shame, and directly contributing to shame by criticizing the supervisee (Holloway, 2016). Supervisee shame can lead to withdrawal, depression, anxiety, negative self-evaluation, and nondisclosure (Black, Curran, & Dyer, 2013; De Rubeis & Hollenstein, 2009; Dyer et al., 2017; Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996; Mehr, Ladany, & Caskie 2010), which can further rupture the supervisory working alliance (Buechler, 2008; Ladany, Klinger, & Kulp, 2011). For example, supervisees experiencing shame may attack supervisors to protect themselves from negative self-evaluation (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006). This attack on the supervisor creates a deficit in personal reflection, which may hinder professional development (Moss, Gibson, & Dollarhide, 2014). Nathanson’s (1992) Compass of Shame describes several other responses that supervisees may use to reduce feelings of shame, such as withdrawal, avoidance, and attack self. This compass is useful for identifying experiences that might suggest the presence of shame in a supervisory interaction. Given the impact shame has upon counseling supervisees, it is important that supervisors gain greater understanding of how to work with supervisees who feel shame. Understanding ways to mitigate, counteract, or repair supervisory interactions that produce shame is an essential task of supervisors as they balance developing professional counselors and protecting clients. Shame Resilience Theory (SRT; Brown, 2006) describes a model for reducing the transmission of shame. SRT highlights four shame resilience continuums (SRCs) that contribute to an individual’s overall ability to decrease feelings of shame (Brown, 2006): acknowledging personal vulnerability, critical awareness, reaching out, and speaking shame. In Integration of Shame Resilience Theory and the

Integration of Shame Resilience Theory and the Discrimination Model in Supervision