JCPSLP Vol 14 No 2 2012

23 / 56

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 2 2012 77
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.
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