Training and research in supervision – an introduction

  • Hannes Krall


In the psychodrama community there is a broad consensus about the importance of supervision for the professional development of trainees, which is emphasised by the european training standards (FEPTO, n.d.). As the previous chapters in this book illustrate, supervision in psychodrama training has created divers practices and traditions over time. From the knowledge about psychodrama training in different institutes and from this book one can assume, that supervision is well based on different theoretical and philosophical concepts, and it also has a very rich basis in terms of different experiences and practices. On the other hand there is still not enough empirical research about the effects of supervision on trainees, their learning and development in their psychodrama practices with individuals and groups. Therefore, the following section in this book will look at examples in supervision which address training, evaluation and research.


Professional Development Broad Consensus Practitioner Research Philosophical Concept Basic Research Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Buer, F. (Ed.) (2001). Praxis der psychodramatischen Supervision. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buer, F. (2008). Erfahrung – Wissenschaft – Philosophie. Drei Wissenssorten zur Konzipierung von Supervision und Coaching. In H. Krall, E. Mikula, & W. Jansche (Eds.), Supervision und Coaching. Praxisforschung und Beratung im Sozial- und Bildungsbereich (pp. 223-238). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  3. Chesner, A. (2008). Psychodrama: A Passion for Action and Non-Action in Supervision. In R. Shohet (Ed.), Passionate Supervision (pp. 132-149). London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. FEPTO (Federal European Psychodrama Training Organziation) (n.d.). Retrieved from, (January 4, 2011).Google Scholar
  5. Fürst, J. & Krall, H. (2011). TRAIN -Towards Research Applied in International Networks of Trainees. In Book of Abstracts of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR), June 29 to July 2, 2011, Bern, Switzerland (p. 72).Google Scholar
  6. Gladynski, K. &. Kühl, S. (Eds.) (2009). Black-Box Beratung? Empirische Studien zu Coaching und Supervision. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  7. Gray, L. A., Ladany, N., & Walker, J. (2001). Psychotherapy Trainees' Experience of Counterproductive Events in Supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48 (4), 371-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krall, H., Fürst, J., & Doganer, I. (2009). TRAIN - Towards Research in an International Network of Trainees. In Minutes of the Catania FEPTO RC Meeting October 16-18, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Krall, H. & Fürst, J. (2009). Research in Psychodrama Training. Paper presented at the Congress International Association for Group Psychotherapy and Group Processes (I.A.G.P.), Rome August 24-29.Google Scholar
  10. Krall, H. & Schulze, S. (2004). Psychodrama in der Supervision und im Coaching. In J. Fürst, K. Ottomeyer, & H. Pruckner (Eds.), Psychodrama-Therapie. Ein Handbuch (pp. 412-423). Wien: Verlag Facultas.Google Scholar
  11. Krall, H., Mikula, E. & Jansche, W. (Eds.) (2008). Supervision und Coaching. Praxisforschung und Beratung im Sozial- und Bildungsbereich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für SozialwissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
  12. Krall, H. (2009). Sprache und Szenische Arbeit in der Supervision. Supervision. Mensch, Arbeit, Organisation,2, 19-24.Google Scholar
  13. Nelson, M. L. & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A Close Look at Conflictual Supervisory Relationsships: The Trainee's Perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology 48 (4), 384-395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reichelt, S. & Skjerve, J. (2002). Correspondence between Supervisors and Trainees in their Perception of Supervision Events. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (7), 759-772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ronnestad, M. H. & Skovholt, T. M. (1993). Supervision of Beginning and Advanced Graduate Students of Counseling and Psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and Development 71, 396-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ronnestad, M. H. & Skovholt, T. M. (1997). Berufliche Entwicklung und Supervision von Psychotherapeuten. Psychotherapeut (5), 299-306.Google Scholar
  17. Ronnestad, M. H., Orlinsky, D. E., Parks, B. K., Davis, J.D., Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) Collaborative Research Network (1997). Supervisor of Psychotherapy: Mapping Experience Level and Supervisory Confidence. European Psychologist 2 (3), 191-201.Google Scholar
  18. Ruskin, R. (1994). When Supervision May Fail: Difficulties and Impasses. In S. E. Greben & R. Ruskin (Ed.) Clinical Perspectives on Psychotherapy Supervision (pp. 213-261). Washington: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  20. Schigl, B. (2008). Supervision: Ergebnisse aus der Forschung oder was brauchen ForscherInnen und PraktikerInnen voneinander? In H. Krall, E. Mikula & W. Jansche (Ed.), Supervision und Coaching. Praxisforschung und Beratung im Sozial- und Bildungsbereich (pp. 39-52). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  21. Wheeler, S., & Richards, K. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists, their practice and their clients: a systematic review of the literature. Lutterworth: British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, A. (1995). Visual and Active Supervision. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. Worthen, V. u. McNeill, B. W. (1996). A Phenomenological Investigation of ‘Good’ Supervision Events. Journal of Counseling Psychology 43 (1), 25-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannes Krall

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations