JCPSLP Vol 14 No 2 2012

Limitations As noted earlier, there has been limited research evaluating the processes of peer consultation in groups. It seems logical, however, that PGCs will not suit all learner styles or gender groups. There may be clinicians who do not like to solve problems by group discussion but prefer to actively participate in individual learning activities (Kolb, 1984). Research suggests that women and men have different styles of communication, and different views of power and preferences for decision-making styles (Rose & Best, 2005). As outlined by Hart-Smith (1985), Enyedy et al. (2003), and Hawkins and Shohet (2000), there are also other difficulties groups may encounter. These could include blustering (“my group is bigger and better than yours”) or lamenting (“isn’t it awful working for this organisation”), or reinforcing feelings of powerlessness, avoiding disclosure by “patting each other on the back”, entering a competition to be the “best contributor”, or identifying a group member to play the role of patient allowing other members to avoid self-disclosure. Personality conflicts, though not always a limitation, may nevertheless disrupt the flow and function of groups and thus group members may avoid giving constructive criticism to each other – hence the group needs to understand and deal effectively with personality and confrontation issues between group members (Sheehan, 1985). If the group has accepted group rules at the outset and developed a stable level of trust, members will not take confrontation personally, and as a result constructive criticism can be an effective part of developing participants’ self-awareness and learning. In addition, if group goals are constantly held in mind, competition and conflict between members can be managed effectively. Additional practical matters such as poor group time management can also discourage group members. Lengthy or uninspiring presentations or defensive consultees could lead to members dropping out and cancellations of meetings may also discourage members (Hart, 2010). These difficulties can be overcome through pre-planning (refer to tables 5 and 6) and should disappear as trust develops between group members over time. Another factor that can affect group cohesiveness and efficiency is in-depth personal sharing. Group members need to recognise that even though peer-group consultation may be cathartic and even therapeutic, it is not therapy. As the needs of group members change over time, group rules may need to be reviewed and/or reaffirmed. Members may also need to leave or join another group and thus all need to be mindful of the dynamics involved in these processes and to acknowledge members’ feelings surrounding times of change and transition (Shields et al., 1985). Indeed, in the current economic climate, where people change jobs frequently, the ability of members to commit to a long-term relationship within a group may not be viable – not because of the group members per se, but due to the increasing lack of stability in the contemporary workplace. Given many of these potential limitations, there is a need to support evidence based research to help assess and improve the quality of professional development gained from peer-group consultations and to ensure that inappropriate and outdated practices are not perpetuated. Future directions This article discussed peer-group consultation (PGC), some of the known dynamics involved in running a PGC, and the advantages and limitations of its use. The speech pathology profession has clearly stated the need for clinicians to continue their professional development. PGC may be an

effective model based upon adult learning theory and group process that can support professional development. The implementation and subsequent evaluation of PGCs would help provide evidence as to whether this model could be a beneficial option to assist professional development within the speech pathology profession. References Beavis, A., & Bowman, D. M. (1995). The implementation of peer-assisted leadership in Australia: A means of spanning the chasms that divide . Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, 1–22. Benshoff, J. J., & Paisley, P. O. (1996). The structured peer consultation model for school counsellors. Journal of Counselling and Development , 74 (3, Jan–Feb), 314–318. Carozza, L. (2011). Science of successful supervision and mentorship . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing. Chambliss, C. (1996). Peer consultation on the net: The problem of ex-clients who stalk therapists . ERIC Document No. ED393048. Pennsylvania. Cox, M. D. (1999). Peer consultation and faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 79 (Fall), 39–49. Dickman, G., Halloran, H., Cimoli, M., Gates, S., Shaw- Stuart, L., Stevens, A., & Stone, C. (2007). Parameters of practice: Guidelines for delegation, collaboration and teamwork in speech pathology practice . Melbourne: The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited. Enyedy, K. C., Arcinue, F., Puri, N. N., Carter, J. W., Goodyear, R. K., & Getzelman, M. A. (2003) Hindering phenomena in group supervision: Implications for practice. Professional Psychology , 34 (3), 312–317. Ferguson, K. (2005). Professional supervision In M. Rose & D. Best (Eds.), Transforming practice through clinical education, professional supervision and mentoring (pp. 309–323). London: Elsevier. Friere, P. (1983). Education for critical consciousness . New York: Continuum Press. Garrett, K. J., & Barretta-Herman, A. (1995). Missing links: Professional development in school social work. Social Work in Education , 17 (4), 235–243. Gavrin, J. M. (1985). How to present to your peers. In J. M. Shields, J. M. Gavrin, V. Hart-Smith, L. Kombrink, J. S. Kovach, M. L. Sheehan, K. F. Zagata, & K. Zander (Eds.), Peer consultation in a group context: A guide for professional nurses (pp. 39–59). New York: Springer. Hart, G. (1995). Teaching clinical reasoning in nursing: An environmental perspective. In J. Higgs & M. Jones (Eds.), Clinical reasoning in the health professions (1st ed.; pp. 289–300). Sydney: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hart, G., Clinton, M., Edwards, H., Evans, K., Lunney, P., Posner, N., … & Ryan, Y. (2000). Accelerated professional development and peer consultation: Two strategies for continuing professional education for nurses. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing , 31 (1), 28–37. Hart, G., Yates, P., Clinton, M., & Windsor, C. (1998). Mediating conflict and control: Practice challenges for nurses working in palliative care. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 35 (5), 252–282. Hart, V. A. (2010). Communication and peer group supervision. In V. A. Hart (Ed.), Patient–provider communications: Caring to listen (pp.283–308). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Hart-Smith, V. (1985). How to create and manage a successful peer group. In J. D. Shields, J. M. Gavrin, V. Hart-Smith, L. Kombrink, J. S. Kovach, M. L. Sheehan, K.

77

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 2 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au