another site text me saying there are rumours going around about you what you […] said wasn’t safe. I do really wonder if that ruptured my template, my blueprint. (Lou) Although subsequent relationships seemed to suffer as a result of her Lou’s “ruptured she did hint that this had started to change. Again, the influential factor template,” appeared to be the presence of a supervisor who demonstrated a relational style that Lou valued, and perhaps felt able to take a risk with. This included an explicit rather than secretive nature, taking an interest in Lou and promising to stay in the relationship long-term: I had my research supervision, it felt really different. It felt safe. I must admit …when this is the first time I have felt safe in supervision since because I know I have got the same from three years […] which feels quite supportive […] they have made it obvious they are interested in me as well as the research. I think their nature, they it’s are quite explicit. Its not secretive. (Lou) This The way I relate to a supervisor is different to other relationships. sub-theme captures the uniqueness of the supervisory relationship. Participants described the potential for new and different relationships to form with their supervisors, compared to relationships outside of supervision. Again, this seemed to be dependent on the way the supervisor behaved. Frankie hinted that despite usually attachments with people, she had a different type of attachment forming “secure” towards a supervisor who demonstrated a “disorganised” style: I know what attachment I had to her. I am not someone who has non-secure don’t (Frankie) attachments usually. Perrie also related very differently to a supervisor, compared to how she would with her parents, due to the dismissive nature of the supervisor:
another site text me saying there are rumours going around about you […] what you said wasn’t safe. I do really wonder if that ruptured my template, my blueprint. (Lou) Although Lou’s subsequent relationships seemed to suffer as a result of her “ruptured template,” she did hint that this had started to change. Again, the influential factor appeared to be the presence of a supervisor who demonstrated a relational style that Lou valued, and perhaps felt able to take a risk with. This included an explicit rather than secretive nature, taking an interest in Lou and promising to stay in the relationship long-term: …when I had my research supervision, it felt really different. It felt safe. I must admit this is the first time I have felt safe in supervision since because I know I have got the same from three years […] which feels quite supportive […] they have made it obvious they are interested in me as well as the research. I think it’s their nature, they are quite explicit. Its not secretive. (Lou) The way I relate to a supervisor is different to other relationships. This sub-theme captures the uniqueness of the supervisory relationship. Participants described the potential for new and different relationships to form with their supervisors, compared to relationships outside of supervision. Again, this seemed to be dependent on the way the supervisor behaved. Frankie hinted that despite usually forming “secure” attachments with people, she had a different type of attachment towards a supervisor who demonstrated a “disorganised” style: I don’t know what attachment I had to her. I am not someone who has non-secure attachments usually. (Frankie) Perrie also related very differently to a supervisor, compared to how she would with her parents, due to the dismissive nature of the supervisor:
Ethesis%201.docx