Paralel süreç kavramı, psikoterapi süpervizyonu sürecinde, hem terapi hem de süpervizyon ikililerindeki ilişkisel örüntülerin bilinçdışı bir şekilde tekrarlanmasına denmektedir. Birçok terapist ve süpervizör paralel süreci süpervizyonda önemli bir araç ve değerli bir iletişim biçimi olarak görmektedir. Paralel süreç kavramı alanda dikkat çeken bir konu olmasına rağmen, görgül bir şekilde yeterli olarak desteklenmemiştir. Bu makale paralel süreç kavramı üzerine bir literatür derlemesi ve örnek olarak bir vaka sunumu içermektedir.

The concept of “Parallel Process” is widely recognized in psychotherapy supervision literature (Morissey & Tribe, 2001; Raichelson, Herron, Primevera, & Ramirez, 1997; Grey & Fiscalini, 1987). Supervision of psychotherapy is essentially a triadic process where a therapist is supervised in his/her work with one or more clients (Tracey, Bludworth, & Glidden-Tracey, 2012). The concept refers to unconscious replication of relational patterns both in therapeutic dyad (consisting of therapist and the patient) and supervisory dyad (consisting of supervisor and supervisee/therapist) (McNeill & Worthen, 1989). Many authors perceived parallel process as an important tool in supervision and a valuable form of communication (McNeill & Worthen, 1989; Morrissey & Tribe, 2001). Interventions focused on parallel process may improve the quality of supervisory process (Morrissey & Tribe, 2001). Parallel process received attention in the field, though, empirical support was relatively deficient (Grey & Fiscalini, 1987; Raichelson, et al., 1997; Tracey, et al., 2012). Parallel process has its origins in psychoanalytic concepts of transference and countertransference (Sumeral, 1994; McNeill & Worthen, 1989; Morissey & Tribe, 2001). However, some authors avoided to render parallel process within the realm of countertransference (e.g. Searles, 1955). On the other hand, existence of parallel process is confirmed without affirming the unconscious aspects (Raichelson, et al., 1997; Tracey, et al., 2012). Parallel process is defined as a unidirectional process in which the process is triggered by the unconscious of the patient (Grey & Fiscalini, 1987; Searles, 1955). However, some authors refer it as a bidirectional process, where the starting point may be either the patient or the supervisor (Doerhman, 1976; Tracey, et al., 2012). In conjunction with the complex nature of supervision and therapy, parallel process is to be portrayed as a circular dynamic rather than a process with a start point (Morissey & Tribe, 2001). Some authors claim that it is an interlocking processes of the supervisor, therapist, and patient triad, a "game" that the triad play (Grey & Fiscalini, 1987). Mr. T is 38-year-old male patient who works as a physician in private sector. He started therapy for his phobia of planes. However, before he started therapy, he tried to get on plane under the effect of mild tranquilizers. He stated that he would like to manage enplaning without the help of drugs. His fear of planes disabled him to go Netherlands while his wife was on a sabbatical for four months. After that incident, he came to realize this was a problem he has to deal with. Over the course of a few sessions, it was revealed that his fear about plane was actually related to his overall controlling attitude. Mr. T is a person who lives according to his schedule, and always has alternative plans if anything goes amiss. The fear of planes, in his case, is due to his “not being able to do anything” if something unexpected happens during the flight. He reported “if something goes wrong in a car, you stop; if something happens on a ship, you jump out and swim” and added “when something happens on a plane, there is nothing you can do about it.” The most prominent features in Mr. T’s therapy process are clustered around the control related issues. For instance, digressions from the ongoing agenda within sessions were common. Mr. T willingly agrees upon on a topic to explore in sessions; on the other hand, sessions end up without deepening on that particular subject. In supervisory sessions, therapist and supervisor wished to focus on different aspects when this case was handled. For example, the therapist wanted to probe more about the current effects of controlling attitude on patient’s work and social life, the supervisor gave directions intensifying on the relationship between the therapist and the patient. The supervisory and therapeutic processes were parallel in a manner that in both dyads no de facto consensus was reached on process’ agenda; although, in both relationships it was agreed upon to work on some particular issues. Therapist felt misunderstood, and assumed that supervisor did not wanted to listen to what he tried to recount. Hence, the therapist thought the supervisor was critical of him. As this was verbalized in supervisory process, an insight about the fact that the patient might have felt misunderstood and criticized by the therapist, surfaced. In the light of this insight, therapist commented on how in sessions the conversation went off topic and his efforts to stay on topic make the situation worse, Mr. T expressed he felt forced when he actually has difficulties even talking about the subject matter. After that confrontation, digressions within the sessions gradually decreased, and the alliance on exploration of topics boosted. As illustrated in the case example, parallel situations occurred in both therapeutic dyad and supervisory dyad. As Searles (1955) highlighted, an anxiety originating from patient introduced into the therapeutic relationship (the one directional model), and conveyed through therapist to supervisor. Working on parallel process issues on supervisory dyad paid well, and a progress have been made in the therapeutic relationship. The case illustration fitted well to parallel process model of Searles (1955).