ABSTRACT
The previous chapters described the requirements for presenting case studies and process reports. Numerous examples of actual work were included to give the reader a clearer idea of the level and breadth required of this work in postgraduate academic settings. Once having grasped what is required of you in a case study or process report, there may still be some uncertainty about how best to describe your clinical experience. Indeed, many students perform well in the counselling context with clients and are able to give a balanced account of their clinical practice in supervision sessions, but are let down by the poor quality of their written work. Most often this is due to one or more of the following faults:
Failure to fully justify one’s actions or interpretation of psychological process.
Making claims that are not borne out in the transcript or case study.
‘Forcing’ one theoretical model on to case material that is quite clearly presented from another theoretical perspective.
Making extravagant (and usually unbalanced) claims that do not accurately reflect the complexity of the situation.
Resorting to generalisations and gross assertions in order to simplify process and,presumably, impress the reader.
Using technical terms (including diagnostic categories) inappropriately, or resorting to psychobabble.
Being overly descriptive of psychological process without adequate critical reflection on what is happening in the session.
Having no clear rationale or objective for the session, and consequently providing no focus for the person assessing the work.
Poor grammar, typographic errors and untidy presentation of written material or inaudible audio tapes for process reports.
