Advertisement

The supervisory relationship in psychodrama training: More than a process

  • Sue Daniel

Abstract

The supervisory relationship is a significant element in the development of the professional identity of a psychodramatist. It is a living relationship between two people and requires commitment, connection and mutuality. The focus of this chapter is on the relationship between the trainer and the trainee and the training journey. I define ‘training’ and ‘supervision’ and look at the three theoretical foundations of psychodrama: the spontaneity theory of learning, sociometry theory and role theory. It is vital that the trainer has a vision of what constitutes a psychodramatist, a philosophy of supervision and a contract of understanding.

Keywords

Training Group Learning Style Professional Identity Role Theory Supervisory Relationship 
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.

References

  1. Daniel, S. (1982). Building a healthy group culture: A psychodramatic intervention. Unpublished Monograph. The Zerka Moreno Library, Psychodrama Institute of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Daniel, S. (2009). Psychodrama, role theory and the cultural atom: New developments in role theory. In C. Baim, J. Burmeister, & M. Maciel (Eds.), Psychodrama: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 67-81). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. S. (1958/1972). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York: The International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  4. Moreno, J. L. (1934/1978). Who shall survive? (3rd ed.). Beacon, N.Y: Beacon House Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Moreno, J. L. (1946/1985). Psychodrama, Vol. 1. (7th ed.). Ambler, PA: Beacon House, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Moreno, Z. T. (1972). Note on psychodrama, sociometry, individual psychotherapy and the quest for “Unconditional Love”. Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, 4, 155-157.Google Scholar
  7. O’Loughlin, G. (2009). In private conversation. Psychodrama Institute of Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., pp. 67-71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sue Daniel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations