This is a paragraph form assignment please follow the steps carefully and respond to each number properly. Please make sure all references are APA format. All writing must be at graduate level. Thank you.  Fall Semester 01 Discussion-Week #2   For this Discussion, you begin developing these skills through practice and analysis of practice. To prepare: Watch the Parker video. In the video, the clients express hostility toward each other, as well as toward the social worker. In addition, Stephanie asks the social worker for self-disclosure when she asks, “Wouldn’t you?” and “You really think you can fix that?” The scene ends with the client and social worker falling into silence. Consider the challenges depicted in the video. How would you respond? This assignment is in paragraph form. Please read and following directions carefully. Graduate level writing. I have provides the video transcript for the video.   1. Give an: (Give 8-10 sentences for this section) Please start with the first bullet to the last. ·         Explain when it would be appropriate to use self-disclosure. ·         Provide a specific example of the type of self-disclosure you might use in this scenario. ·         Identify an interviewing technique you learned from this week’s resources that you would use when working with this client. ·         Provide a specific example of the interviewing technique. For example, if you would use an empathetic statement or an open-ended question to elicit information, provide a specific example of the statement or question that you would use.                         Explain why you would use this technique.   2. Give a response to at least two colleagues: ( I will provide this part to you for you to respond) ·         Describe whether you agree or disagree with your colleague’s use of self-disclosure based on the guidelines to consider when using self-disclosure. (Give 3-5 sentences) ·         Provide an example of a 3rd technique not previously recommended by you or your colleague and explain why you believe that technique might also effective in this scenario. (Give 3-5 sentences)   References are provided and please use APA only Laureate Education (Producer). (2013g). Sessions: Parker (episode 1) [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H., Jr. (2018). Understanding generalist practice (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.  Chapter 2, “Practice Skills for Working with Individuals” (pp. 59–101)   Plummer, S. -B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Sessions: Case histories. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing Part 1 “The Parker Family” https://class.content.laureate.net/a86f657c7e258980f8d42a455fc1fb02.pdf   This is the Parker video transcript below: Parker Family Episode 1 Transcript MISS PARKER: I can’t believe you did this. MRS. PARKER: Shut up! You had it coming. MISS PARKER: Got what coming?  FEMALE SPEAKER: Please, Ms. Parker. I was telling your mother here that I was referred by the social worker in her day program. MISS PARKER: What did you say? What lies did you tell? MRS. PARKER: Not lies, the truth. You’re always yelling at me and throwing out my stuff. MISS PARKER: Like you can tell! All this mess! You’re choking me with it! I am not the one with the problem. She is. Just look! MRS. PARKER: That’s right. Go to your room and sulk baby girl and leave my cats alone. FEMALE SPEAKER: How many cats do you have, Mrs. Parker? MRS. PARKER: Six. One big family. FEMALE SPEAKER: Can you explain what’s happening here? I can see that you’re very angry with your daughter. Her name’s Stephanie, right? MRS. PARKER: Yes. Princess Stephanie. You want to help me? Tell the princess to stop throwing out my stuff.  FEMALE SPEAKER: Well that’s not something I am able to do. I think the best course is for me to assign an intensive case manager to help work with you on your home situation. MRS. PARKER: What do you mean? FEMALE SPEAKER: You’ll work together, set up goals for your relationship with Stephanie, how to deal with the two of you living here. Mrs. Parker? MRS. PARKER: Maybe. All this fighting has to stop. FEMALE SPEAKER: I want to go talk to Stephanie, Mrs. Parker. But first, I want to ask you some general questions. May I? MRS. PARKER: OK. FEMALE SPEAKER: OK. How long have you and Stephanie lived in this apartment?  [KNOCKING]    Hello, Miss. Parker?   MISS PARKER: Come on in out of that garbage dump. I knew you’d want to talk. It’s quite a difference, isn’t it? It’s the only place I can feel like I can breathe around here.   FEMALE SPEAKER: May I sit down? I understand that you’re very angry with your mother. I heard you say earlier that you want your home to be clean.   MISS PARKER: Wouldn’t you? You saw it.   FEMALE SPEAKER: How long has it been like this?   MISS PARKER: Since my dad died about three years ago. It’s gotten worse lately. Every time I try to clean anywhere outside of this room, throw something away, she freaks out. I have to keep this in here. The last time I tried cleaning up, she chased me with it, swinging it like some crazy woman. I don’t know how much more of this I can take. I just want to hit her with it.   FEMALE SPEAKER: I understand that this is very difficult for you because your mother gets so angry when you try to clean house. That’s why I’m making a referral for an intensive case manager. I’ve already spoken with your mother about this.   MISS PARKER: Do you really think that you and your case manager are going to make a difference? My mother is getting dementia and the princess is bipolar. She and I, we’re like gasoline and fire. You really think you can fix that?                                           Knight,  C. (2012). Social Workers’ attitudes towards and engagement in self-disclosure. Clinical Social work Journal, 40(3), 297-306. Doi:10.1007/s10615-012-0408-z   Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards and Engagement in Self-Disclosure Carolyn Knight Published online: 30 June 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract: This article reports on a study of social workers’ engagement in self-disclosure. Consistent with theory and research, participants limited their use of personal selfdisclosure but were more willing to be transparent with clients. Yet, the social workers in this study did not always feel prepared by their education to appropriately engage in self-disclosure nor did they believe their use of this skill was grounded in theory or research. Many of the participants also didn’t feel comfortable talking about self-disclosure in supervision or with colleagues. Findings suggest that more attention should be devoted to teaching social work students about appropriate use of self-disclosure, particularly its different manifestations and its indications and contraindications. The findings also underscore the need for more open and direct discussion of this set of skills in supervision and consultation. Keywords Use of self Therapist transparency Self-disclosure Introduction Self-disclosure with adult clients remains one of the more controversial and misunderstood aspects of social work practice. Authors generally concur that the self of the therapist is always present in the working relationship (Reupert 2007, 2008). Yet, others caution that the professional’s intentional use of self through behaviors such as self-disclosure is a therapeutic mistake, rather than a therapeutic intervention (Peterson 2002). Maroda (1999) asserts that a significant reason why selfdisclosure remains so controversial is that recognition of its therapeutic potential is a relatively new development, particularly in the psychoanalytic literature. ‘‘Self-disclosure exists outside of traditional analytic theory and practice. Having been off limits until recently, it has had no context’’ (1999, p. 474). She goes on to note that ‘‘…it is difficult for therapists to make the transition from deliberate inhibition to deliberate disclosure’’ (1999, p. 475). Authors on both sides of the self-disclosure debate point to ethical considerations as reasons why self-disclosure is either an ill-advised or an appropriate intervention. For example, critics argue that self-disclosure inevitably leads to boundary violations, transforming the professional relationship into a more personal one and discouraging transference (Gabbard and Lester 1995; Ivey 2009). Further, it is argued that self-disclosure reflects a lack of selfawareness on the part of the clinician and is a manifestation of countertrasnference. In contrast, other authors argue that therapist self-disclosure is consistent with and reinforces ethical conduct. Peterson (2002) observes that disclosures about the clinician’s training and practice support the client’s right to informed consent and reinforce client/consumer rights. Similarly, feminist theorists assert that clinician disclosures about basic demographic and background information are consistent with and expand the informed consent mandate since clients have the right to know the sort of person with whom they will be working (Mahalik et al. 2000; Simi and Mahalik 1997). Knox and Hill (2003) note that, based upon available theory and research, two types of self-disclosures can be identified: ‘‘here and now’’ and ‘‘there and then’’. Here and C. Knight (&) School of Social Work, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA e-mail: knight@umbc.edu 123 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 DOI 10.1007/s10615-012-0408-z now disclosures- also known as disclosures of immediacy or self-revealing disclosures- reflect the clinician’s thoughts and reactions to the client and what is occurring in the session. For the remainder of this article these types of disclosures will be referred to as transparency. There and then disclosures, on the other hand—also known as self-involving disclosures-reflect relevant experiences from the clinician’s life and circumstances outside of the session. Throughout this article, these disclosures will be referred to as self-involving. Self-disclosure typically is viewed as being synonymous with self-involving disclosures. Typically, it is these disclosures that have been criticized as being disruptive forces in the working relationship and have been questioned on ethical grounds (Domenici 2006; Gutheil 2010). Theoretical Foundation Traditional psychoanalytic theory strongly argued for therapist neutrality when working with adult clients. Such neutrality was considered essential for the client’s intrapersonal growth and her or his ‘‘uncontaminated pursuit of intrapsychic awareness and the gradual accumulation of self-knowledge and wisdom’’ (Maroda 1999, p. 475). Yet, more than a half century ago, Carl Rogers, in his personcentered theory asserted that a critical component of effective therapy is unconditional positive regard, which, in turn, depended upon the therapist’s genuineness in which her or his feelings and reactions were apparent to the client (1961). Therapist genuineness is consistent with Knox and Hill’s conceptualization of transparency. Rogers contended that effective use of this skill depended on clinicians’ awareness of their affective responses. Rogers also argued that personal self-disclosure that is therapeutically relevant-akin to self-involving disclosure- encouraged client self-disclosure and trust and conveyed empathic understanding (Farber 2006; Jouard 1971; Truax and Carkhuff 1965). More recently, Lawrence Shulman, in his interactional model of social work, argues for the importance of the skill of ‘‘sharing worker thoughts and feelings’’ (2008). Shulman’s conceptualization of this skill includes elements of transparency consistent with Rogers. ‘‘When clients experience the worker as a real person rather than mechanical, they can use the worker and the helping function more effectively…The client who does not know at all times where the worker stands will have trouble trusting that worker’’ (Shulman 2008, p. 140). Shulman observed that transparency facilitates the development of a working relationship, which, in turn, is a necessary, though not sufficient, requirement for client change. Shulman acknowledges the potential for countertransference and the disruption this can create in the working relationship. Like Rogers, he cautions that appropriate use of his skill requires a high level of selfawareness. Attachment and relational theories are an even more recent set of constructs that provide support for self disclosure (Arnd-Caddigan and Pozzuto 2008). From a relational perspective, the worker’s disclosures promote the working alliance and a positive attachment between the client and worker (Dewane 2006; Smolar 2003; Tantillo 2004). Relational theorists place greatest emphasis on therapist transparency though they do not rule out the therapeutic benefit of self-involving disclosures. One can be authentic, that is trying to represent oneself more fully in the relationship…without selfdisclosing. For example, authenticity can occur through verbal means…and through non-verbal means (e.g., being attentive and emotionally present in the moment to moment interplay of therapy). [W]hen self-disclosure is used, it does not equal full therapist self-revelation…it is used to help the patient recognize that the therapist has been moved in response to his or her experience or behavior (Tantillo 2004, p. 58). Relational theorists also observe that the clinician’s transparency can be utilized deliberately to foster client transference. This provides both client and clinician with a valuable opportunity to examine the client’s interpersonal relationships through the immediate relationship with the therapist (Ganzer 2007; Smolar 2003; Tantillo 2004). In a related vein, intersubjective theorists emphasize empathy and therapists’ capacity to understand and appreciate the perspective of the client, as distinct from their own subjective reality (Renik 1993; Smith 1999). While this theoretical orientation does not distinguish between the two types of disclosure, the focus is on transparency, which is presumed to affirm the client’s reality and the therapist’s honesty and humanness (Gediman 2006; Gorkin in Maroda 1999). Self-disclosure also helps the client see the impact that she or he has on the therapist and can be used when there is a therapeutic impasse. Intersubjective theorists also recognize the importance of transparency for modeling healthier, more functional behavior for clients and note that efforts to remain neutral actually have a negative impact this process. It appears that we may have been misguided in our attempts to appear cool, calm and in control at all times. Not only because we present an unrealistic model for our patients or because we may inadvertently squash their personal disclosures, but also because, over time, 298 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 123 we are likely to lose touch with who we really are. The issue of authenticity thus becomes an intrapsychic event for the analyst as much as an interpersonal one with the patient (Maroda 1999, p. 478). Intersubjective theorists observe that many- if not mostclients in need of therapy lack the ability to properly manage and express affect. In order to assist the client in this regard, the therapist needs to be prepared to engage in self-involving disclosure. From an intersubjective perspective, self-disclosure ‘‘is about the serious business of emotional re-education and development…[it] can be seen as a vitally important aspect of affective communication within the therapeutic relationship, rather than merely as a self-indulgence by the therapist who wishes to be known by her patient’’ (Maroda 1999, p. 479). A contemporary application of intersubjective theory to understanding the benefits of self-disclosure may be found in the phenomenon of shared trauma, in which both clinician and client are exposed- often simultaneously- to the same traumatic event, such as human-made or natural disasters. Intersubjective theorists would argue that selfdisclosure is not only necessary it is likely to be inevitable in these instances (Baum 2012; Tosone 2011; Tosone et al. 2011). While there is the danger of boundary violations, the clinician’s transparency and engagement in self-involving disclosures can be used intentionally to validate and normalize the client’s feelings and model ways that the client can manage her or his reactions to the traumatic event. Therapist self-disclosure also can serve to distinguish the clinician’s feelings from those of the client, which actually reduces the likelihood of boundary violations. Feminist and multicultural perspectives also support the use of professional self-disclosure (Brown and Walker 1990; Burkard et al. 2006; Henretty and Levitt 2009; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Yan and Wong 2005). These approaches place particular emphasis on self-involving disclosure as a way of normalizing and validating the client’s experiences and promoting a more egalitarian relationship between worker and client (Simi and Mahalik 1997). Selfinvolving disclosure also is assumed to be empowering to clients and to foster a sense of solidarity with the therapist (Brown and Walker 1990). Finally, cognitive-behavioral theorists acknowledge the benefits of transparency as a way of assisting the client with reality testing, promoting client growth, and modeling more adaptive behaviors (Goldfried et al. 2003). ‘‘[T]herapists are encouraged to self-disclose the personal impact that clients make on them. By differentially responding to the client’s ineffective and effective behaviors within the session, the therapist encourages the client’s use of adaptive interpersonal behaviors and discourages behaviors that are problematic’’ (Goldfried et al. 2003, p. 557). Evidence-Based Foundation A significant limitation of most of the research on selfdisclosure with adult clients is that it has focused only on self-involving disclosure. Given this limitation, it is not surprising that findings reveal that while the majority of clinicians report self-disclosing, they do so infrequently and express confusion over this behavior (Henretty and Levitt 2009; Kelly and Rodriguez 2007). Clinicians, including social workers, are more likely to engage in self-involving disclosure if the need for it is unambiguous. Yet, the need for such disclosure is rarely clear-cut (Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). Research also indicates that clinicians are particularly likely to self-disclose to clients similarities and parallel experiences to convey empathy and understanding and to disclose their qualifications and credentials to convey reassurance (Edwards and Murdock 1994; Hanson 2005). Some evidence suggests that inexperienced clinicians may disclose less about themselves than their more experienced counterparts but few other differences based upon therapist demographics have as yet been observed (Barrett and Berman 2001). One study did find that when compared to therapists from another discipline, social workers were less likely to engage in self-involving disclosure, citing boundary and ethical issues (Jeffrey and Austin 2007). Studies of the impact that self-disclosure has on clinical outcomes have produced contradictory findings, in part due to the narrow definitions of self-disclosure that typically have been employed. Most noteworthy is the finding that there and then, self-involving disclosures generally are less helpful than here and now transparency (Henretty and Levitt 2009; Knox and Hill 2003). Findings do reveal that in the early phase of work, disclosure about professional background and transparency contribute to the establishment of the working relationship (Hanson 2005; Hendrick 1988; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). Transparency also has been found to enhance the client’s feelings of trust in the clinician, convey normalization, validation, and understanding of client feelings, and result in a lessening of symptom distress (Barrett and Berman 2001; Knox et al. 1997). Self-involving disclosure may encourage client selfdisclosure, but evidence suggests that if too much attention is devoted to such disclosures, clients’ willingness to disclose actually can be lessened (Kelly and Rodriguez 2007; Knox and Hill 2003). On the other hand, evidence also reveals that non-disclosure also can have a disruptive influence on the working relationship. When the client asks for information about the clinician and this information is not provided, this undermines the client’s trust in the clinician (Hanson 2005). Finally, disclosures about sexual issues, particularly the clinician’s feelings about the client, Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 299 123 have been found to be unhelpful and distracting influences in the working relationship (Fisher 2004). Rationale for Study and Research Questions Given the confusion and controversy that surrounds selfdisclosure with adult clients, it is important to ascertain clinicians’ understanding of and engagement in this most basic of social work skills. There is evidence that this topic does not receive the attention it deserves in the social work classroom (Chapman et al. 2003; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). ‘‘During many practitioners’ training, therapist self-disclosure is either taboo or portrayed as a mistake’’ (Henretty and Levitt 2010, p. 70). Further, evidence suggests that clinicians remain confused and anxious about their engagement in self-disclosing behaviors (Knox and Hill 2003). This may impact their willingness and ability to discuss self-disclosure with colleagues and supervisors since the findings of several studies indicate that clinicians typically avoid discussing sensitive topics in supervision (Ladany et al. 1996; Pisani 2005; Rosenberger and Hayes 2002; Webb and Wheeler 1998; Yourman 2003). The present study focuses on professional social workers’ understanding of, preparation for, and engagement in the two sets of self-disclosing behaviors, transparency and self-involving. The investigation was guided by the following questions: 1. To what extent do social workers engage in two types of self-disclosing behaviors with adult clients? 2. What are social workers’ attitudes towards selfdisclosure with adult clients? 3. To what extent do social workers feel prepared by their social work education to engage in self-disclosure with adult clients? 4. To what extent do social workers feel comfortable talking to their supervisor, if relevant, and/or colleagues about self-disclosure with adult clients? Research Method Research Instrument The researcher constructed an instrument to measure social workers’ attitudes towards and engagement in self-disclosure with adults, incorporating elements of two instruments which have been used in the past to measure this phenomenon. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they engaged in behaviors identified in Hendrick’s Counselor Disclosure Scale (1988, 1990). Participants were asked how often they engaged in eight different types of self-involving disclosures on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘very frequently’’ to ‘‘never’’ (see Table 1). The author added three questions to this part of the questionnaire to measure transparency. These included how often respondents: allowed clients to see their affective responses to what clients share; discussed their thoughts and discussed their feelings about the things the client shares. These questions employed the same fourpoint Likert-type scale (see Table 1). Table 1 Frequencies: social workers’ engagement in self-disclosure Disclosure Never Infrequently Frequently Very frequently Total n%n % n %n % n% Self-involving disclosures Disclose personal relationships 36 19.1 124 66.0 26 13.8 2 1.1 188 100 Disclose personal feelings 51 27.1 109 58.0 27 14.4 1 .5 188 100 Disclose professional background 15 8.0 72 38.3 75 39.9 26 13.8 188 100 Disclose personal and professional successes and failures 67 35.6 102 54.3 17 9.0 2 1.1 188 100 Disclose personal beliefs 76 40.6 94 50.3 15 8.0 2 1.1 187 100 Disclose personal background 43 22.9 125 66.5 17 9.0 3 1.6 188 100 Disclose sexual feelings/behaviors 131 69.3 51 27.0 5 2.6 2 1.1 189 100 Disclose current issues in personal life 78 41.7 96 51.3 13 7.0 0 0 187 100 Transparency Allow clients to see feelings and reactions 15 8.2 90 48.9 76 41.3 3 1.6 184 100 Discuss thoughts about what client shares 9 4.8 48 25.7 110 58.8 20 10.7 187 100 Discuss feelings about what client shares 15 8.1 60 32.4 102 55.1 8 4.3 185 100 300 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 123 Another section of the revised instrument built upon research conducted by Edwards and Murdock (1994) that identified five attitudes towards and reasons for using selfdisclosure with adult clients. Four-point Likert scales, ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’ were employed (see Table 2). Items added to this section of the instrument included respondents’ comfort engaging in self-disclosure and their views about whether: self-disclosure led to boundary violations; they disclosed too much or too little to clients; and their use of self-disclosure was grounded in theory and research (see Table 2). Respondents also were asked how prepared they were by their education to engage in selfdisclosure and how comfortable they were discussing selfdisclosure with colleagues and/or supervisors (see Table 3). All of these questions employed the same fourpoint Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’. All respondents were asked to provide background information. This included age, race, gender, years of practice experience, and practice setting. The research instrument was pre-tested on twenty professional social workers who did not participate in the study. These individuals attended a continuing education workshop conducted by the author and were asked to complete the survey as if they were participating in the study. They also were asked to provide any suggestions or comments they had about the accompanying cover letter and the questions themselves. Feedback from these social workers suggested the letter and the questions were generally clear and unambiguous. Several minor changes in wording for three questions were made. Sample Five hundred members of the Maryland chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) were randomly selected to serve as subjects in this study. Chapter members were considered for inclusion if they reported on their membership form that they were engaged in some form of direct practice and were currently employed full- or part-time in social work practice. The national NASW provided the researcher with the randomly selected names. In no case was an individual who participated in the pre-test randomly selected to participate in the actual study. Table 2 Frequencies: social workers’ attitudes toward self-disclosure (SD) Attitude Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Total n% n % n % n% n % SD enhances professional attractiveness 10 5.4 13 7.0 112 60.5 50 20.7 185 100 SD encourages client SD 9 4.9 26 14.1 108 58.7 41 22.3 184 100 SD encourages client trust 4 2.2 24 12.9 134 72.0 24 12.9 186 100 SD conveys expertness 12 6.6 76 41.8 81 44.5 13 7.1 182 100 SD enhances perceived similarity to client 6 3.2 52 28.1 109 58.9 18 9.7 185 100 Comfortable disclosing (self-involving) 2 1.1 12 6.3 101 53.2 75 39.5 190 100 Comfortable letting clients see affective reactions (transparency) 1 .5 10 5.3 120 63.5 58 30.7 189 100 SD leads to boundary violations 27 14.1 118 61.5 31 16.7 10 5.4 186 100 Not sure when to engage in SD 70 36.8 106 55.8 13 6.8 1 .5 190 100 Disclose too much to clients 27 14.2 91 47.9 69 36.3 3 1.6 190 100 Disclose too little to clients 27 14.2 105 55.3 56 29.5 2 1.1 190 100 SD grounded in theory and research 43 22.9 112 59.6 30 16.0 3 1.6 188 100 Table 3 Frequencies: social workers’ preparation for selfdisclosure (SD) Variable Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Total n%n % n% n% n % Education prepared to engage in SD 5 2.6 90 47.4 38 20.0 57 30.0 190 100 Comfortable seeking guidance from supervisor and/or colleague regarding SD 14 7.4 108 56.3 67 34.9 0 0.0 189 100 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 301 123 Distribution of the Research Instrument As noted, the research instrument was initially pre-tested on twenty professional social workers. This resulted in minor changes in wording of three questions. In April, 2010, respondents received a copy of the instrument via regular mail along with a cover letter that explained the purpose of the study as an attempt to examine social workers’ understanding of and engagement in selfdisclosing behaviors. The letter affirmed that the study had received IRB approval from the author’s academic institution and guaranteed anonymity. The letter also clarified issues of informed consent; participants were advised that they were under no obligation to take part in the study and that completing and returning the survey constituted their consent to participate. A postage paid return envelope was included. Respondents were not identified in any way, and all responses were anonymous. Due to cost, no follow-up mailings could be sent. Results Characteristics of Respondents A total of 192 social workers completed and returned the research instrument. Twenty-one instruments were returned with incorrect addresses. Thus, the response rate among the social workers who received the survey was 40.08 %. Almost 80 % of the respondents were female (79.2 %, n = 152). Slightly more than 90 % of the social workers characterized themselves as white (91.0 %, n = 162), while fifteen (8.4 %) described themselves as African-American. The average age of the social workers who participated in this study was 48.9, and their ages ranged from 23 to 75. More than 90 % of the respondents had an MSW (93.2 %, n = 177). The average year in which respondents graduated with their highest degree was 1985; the year in which the highest degree was achieved ranged from 1967 to 2006. The average number of years of practice experience among the respondents was 22.3 and ranged from 2 to 39 years. Almost all of the social workers in this study held a license to practice (95.3 %, n = 183), and the majority of these social workers held the highest level of license, licensed certified social worker-clinical (93.7 %, n = 149). Slightly more than half of the social workers indicated they worked in private practice (52.4 %, n = 88) while almost 30 % reported they worked in agency-based practice (29.8 %, n = 50); thirty respondents stated they were engaged in both agency-based and private practice (17.9 %). More than one-half of the social workers who participated in this study indicated they typically saw clients for more than fifteen sessions (51.5 %, n = 88), while16.4 % (n = 28) stated they saw clients for an average of eleven to fifteen sessions. Respondents’ Engagement in Self-Disclosure Eighty-five percent or more of the social workers in this study reported they ‘‘infrequently’’ or ‘‘never’’ disclosed information about seven of the eight self-involving topics: personal relationships; personal feelings; personal and professional successes and failures; personal beliefs and attitudes; personal background; sexual issues; and current issues in personal life. In contrast, more than one-half stated they ‘‘frequently’’ or ‘‘very frequently’’ disclosed information about their professional background to their clients (see Table 1). With respect to transparency, more than 40 % indicated they ‘‘frequently’’ or ‘‘very frequently’’ allowed their clients to see their reactions to the things clients shared with them. Approximately 60 % of the participants reported they ‘‘frequently’’ or ‘‘very frequently’’ discussed with clients their thoughts and their feelings about the things clients shared with them (See Table 1). Respondents’ Attitudes Towards Self-Disclosure The social workers in this study generally displayed positive attitudes towards self-disclosure (see Table 2). For example, 80 % or more of the respondents ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that: they were comfortable disclosing information about themselves (self-involving disclosure) to clients when appropriate and letting their clients see their affective reactions (transparency). Similar proportions of respondents ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that disclosure enhanced: their professional attractiveness to clients; their clients’ willingness to self-disclose; and their clients’ trust in them. More than one-half ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that: their use of self-disclosure conveyed their expertness to clients and enhanced their perceived similarity to their clients. Less than one quarter of the participants ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that self-disclosure led to boundary violations, and less than 10 % indicated they weren’t sure when to engage in self-disclosure (see Table 2). Yet, approximately one-third ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that there were times they disclosed too much or too little to clients. Further, more than 80 % ‘‘disagreed’’ or ‘‘strongly disagreed’’ that their self-disclosing behavior was grounded in theory and research. Education and Supervision One half of the respondents ‘‘disagreed’’ or ‘‘strongly disagreed’’ that their education prepared them to engage in 302 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 123 self-disclosure (see Table 3). More than 60 % of the respondents ‘‘disagreed’’ or ‘‘strongly disagreed’’ that they were comfortable seeking guidance from a supervisor and/or a colleague regarding self-disclosure. Impact of Respondent Characteristics on Self-Disclosure Correlation matrices utilizing Kendall’s tau-b as a measure of association were constructed to assess the influence that nine determinant variables had on the frequency with which respondents engaged in self-disclosure: race, gender, age, and years of experience and graduation of respondent, number of sessions with the client, educational preparation, comfortable seeking guidance, and practice setting (private practice or agency-based). To facilitate this analysis, race of respondent was limited to white and African American; the few respondents who described their ethnicity differently were not included in this analysis. Two dependent measures were created. Overall selfinvolving disclosure was constructed by summing the scores of the eight items which reflected different types of there and then self-disclosures. Overall transparency was created by summing the three items related to this construct. Women were more likely to report engaging in selfinvolving disclosures (s = 0.173, p.009) and to be transparent (s = 0.165, p.013). African American workers were more likely to engage in self-involving disclosure (-0.189, p.007). The more sessions the respondent reported having with clients the more likely she or he was to report engaging in self-involving disclosure (s = 0.183, p.009) and to be transparent (0.178, p.012). Respondents who reported being prepared by their education were more likely to engage in both types of self-disclosure (selfinvolving: s = 0.201, p.000; transparency: s = 0.212, p.000). Respondents who reported being comfortable seeking guidance from their colleagues and/or supervisor were more likely to be transparent (s = 0.177, p.012). Neither age, years of experience, date of graduation, or practice type was associated with either measure. Discussion Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards and Engagement in Self-Disclosure Participants generally expressed positive attitudes towards self-disclosure. However, more than one-third of the participants indicated there were times when they disclosed too much to clients and 30 % reported they disclosed too little. Participants’ reasons for engaging in this skill set mirror what have been found in previous studies to be its therapeutic benefits (Hanson 2005; Hendrick 1988; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). These include enhancing the worker’s professional attractiveness and the client’s trust in the worker and willingness to self-disclose and be honest. Theorists and researchers alike assert that disclosures about the clinician’s life beyond the session- self-involving disclosures- are generally less helpful than those that reveal her or his reactions to and thoughts about the client in the here-and-now (transparency) (Knox and Hill 2003). The exception to this is the worker’s disclosures about her or his professional background. Similarly, theory and research emphasize the role that therapist transparency plays in fostering client engagement and trust in the worker. The social workers in this study were less likely to engage in self-involving disclosures, with the exception of those that related to their professional background, and more likely to be transparent. Yet, a number of the social workers in this study indicated they did not rely upon theory or research to guide their actions in this regard. Ironically, then, participants in this study engaged in self-disclosure in ways that are consistent with theory and research, but appeared not to use either to guide their practice. Social workers need to develop strategies, based upon theory and research, to discern when and what they should reveal to clients. Smolar (2003) argues, for example, that the potential benefits of self-disclosure must outweigh the risks. Essentially, Smolar is suggesting that clinicians engage in a version of cost/benefit analysis. Four questions can assist practitioners in conducting this analysis and also help ensure that their self-disclosing behavior is ethically appropriate (adapted from Peterson 2002). 1. Is self-disclosure necessary to protect the client’s informed consent? 2. Who benefits, the client or me? 3. Will the client be able to use the information I disclose and/or affective reaction I share in a way that is helpful? 4. Will disclosing information and/or sharing a reaction interfere with our progress and with the working alliance? Rather than being a spontaneous ‘‘from the gut’’ intervention, self-disclosure should result from a thoughtful assessment of client need and worker intention. As discussed in the section that follows, both education and supervision have a role to play in this regard. Previous research has not adequately addressed the impact that personal characteristics have on clinicians’ engagement in self-disclosure even though there is wide agreement that the ‘‘self’’ of the clinician is always present in the working relationship (Reupert 2007, 2008). In the present study, women were more likely to engage in Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 303 123 self-involving disclosure and transparency, and AfricanAmerican workers were more likely to use self-involving disclosure. These findings suggest that decisions regarding self-disclosure reflect more than just professional judgment. Socialization and culture also may play a role in determining when and how clinicians use themselves in professional ways with their clients. Not surprisingly, self-disclosure also was associated with the number of sessions clinicians reported having with clients. Specifically, the more sessions the social workers in this study reported having with clients, the more likely they were to engage in self-involving disclosure and be transparent. As workers gain more experience with the client, they may feel more confident self-disclosing, perhaps because they have a better sense of the clients’ needs and worker-client boundaries are more clearly established. Role of Education Approximately one-half of the social workers in this study did not believe that their social work education prepared them to engage in self-disclosure. Further, almost one-half disagreed or strongly disagreed that their use of self-disclosure was grounded in theory and research. These findings certainly are cause for concern and suggest that social workers are not receiving adequate preparation for self-disclosure. While the reasons for this are not altogether clear, findings of previous research suggest that self-disclosure does not receive the attention it deserves in the social work curriculum, perhaps because of educators’ own lack of understanding of and/or comfort with this skill set (Chapman et al. 2003; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). It is important for educators to create an environment in the classroom in which students are able and encouraged to talk openly and honestly about their self-disclosures with clients. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to create this sort of environment given curricular demands, class sizes, and the like (Chapman et al. 2003; Reupert 2009). Yet, it is necessary if students are to learn to identify and manage personal feelings and manifestations of countertransference, each of which has the potential to undermine students’ ability to engage in appropriate self-disclosure with their clients. Such an environment requires that the instructor ‘‘reach’’ for students’ feelings and deliberately ask students to discuss their use of self-disclosing behaviors and reflect on their personal reactions to their clients. The instructor also can serve as a model, engaging in self-disclosing behaviors in the classroom. For example, in a study previously conducted by the author that examined teaching skills in the practice/methods sequence, one of the most helpful was the instructor’s willingness to share mistakes and missteps in her or his own work with clients (Knight 2002). This sort of intentional self-disclosure also was found to provide reassurance and encourage students to engage in honest discussion. Building upon the work of Chapman et al. (2003), five learning objectives can guide students’ learning in the classroom and clinicians’ learning in supervision about self-disclosure. Students/practitioners can be helped to: 1. articulate the theoretical and evidence-based perspectives that underpin self-disclosure; 2. identify and discuss the impact that clients have on their personal reactions; 3. develop strategies for managing their personal reactions; 4. critically examine their own professional use of self; and 5. distinguish the two forms of self-disclosure and indications and contraindications for their use with different clients. Role of Supervision More than one-half of the respondents indicated they were uncomfortable talking with colleagues and/or a supervisor about self-disclosure. This finding suggests that social workers are not availing themselves of the guidance of others when it comes to self-disclosure. This actually is consistent with research that indicates that in general, clinicians avoid discussing sensitive topics in supervision (Ladany et al. 1996; Pisani 2005; Rosenberger and Hayes 2002; Webb and Wheeler 1998; Yourman 2003). Given the controversy that surrounds self-disclosure and the lack of attention it receives in the academic classroom, it is possible that the participants viewed it as ‘‘taboo’’ and therefore off-limits for discussion with colleagues and supervisors. Like the classroom instructor, the supervisor will need to be proactive and ask supervisees to discuss their use of self-disclosure. This discussion can be guided by the same five learning objectives that were identified previously. The supervisor also must reach for supervisees’ personal feelings and reactions to their work. This discussion enhances supervisees’ self-awareness, thereby minimizing the risks of countertransference. This, in turn, increases the likelihood that supervisees’ self-disclosures will be appropriate and helpful to clients. Analogous to the classroom instructor, the supervisor also can model the appropriate use of self-disclosure by engaging in this behavior in the supervisory relationship (Ganzer and Ornstein 1999). In fact, the supervisor’s transparency has been found to foster the supervisory alliance and encourage supervisee honesty (Nelson et al. 2008). Research also suggests that when the supervisor reveals therapeutic mistakes and challenges, this facilitates honest discussion and supervisee openness (Ladany and 304 Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297–306 123 Lehrman-Waterman 1999). This is particularly likely to occur when the supervisor discloses mistakes she or he may have made in the supervisory relationship, itself (Gray et al. 2001). Limitations While the findings of this study provide insight into clinicians’ use of self-disclosure as well as their perceptions of their preparation for engaging in this skill set, limitations in its design and implementation must be considered when interpreting the findings. A notable limitation of this research is that it is based upon self-report data. Thus the accuracy of the findings must be considered. Further, while the response rate of 40 % was acceptable for survey research, one must consider what the results would have looked like had a larger sample of respondents participated. It is possible for example, that social workers who were more comfortable with or knowledgeable about self-disclosure were more likely to participate in the study; the opposite possibility also exists. A related limitation is the nature of the sample. The participants in this study were similar with respect to age, race, and gender to members of NASW nationally (NASW 2003). Their representativeness to social workers, generally, however, is open to question. The social workers in this study were older, mostly female, white, and highly experienced; whether the findings would have been the same had a younger, less experienced and more diverse group of social workers participated is unknown. While the research instrument appears to have good face validity, another limitation is that its reliability and validity are unknown. Further, respondents were only asked about their use of self-disclosure with adult clients. Finally, while there were several statistically significant relationships, none were particularly strong. Conclusion Two different types of self-disclosing behaviors have been identified in the literature: self-involving and transparency. Consistent with what both theory and research suggest, the participants in this study limited their use of self-involving disclosure and were more willing to be transparent. Future research, using larger, more diverse samples of social workers, should be devoted to replicating and extending the findings of the present study. As noted earlier, a noteworthy limitation of the present study was the lack of diversity of the sample. Thus, future research should focus particular attention on ascertaining the role that culture and personal characteristics play in therapists’ use and clients’ experience of self-disclosure. In a related vein, future research should examine how therapist attitudes towards and engagement in self-disclosure differs depending upon, among other things the age of the client, nature of client population, and practice context since this study only focused on adult clients and casework. In this study, engaging in self-disclosure was based upon self-report; participants, themselves, estimated how often they engaged in self-disclosing behaviors. Few studies have examined self-disclosure from the client’s perspective. Thus, future research should examine not only how often clinicians engage in self-disclosure, as estimated by clients, but also the impact that these clinical skills have on clients’ perceptions of therapeutic outcomes. Perhaps the most noteworthy findings of this study had to do with educational preparation and use of supervision. The social workers in this study did not always feel prepared by their education to engage in self-disclosure nor did they believe their use of this behavior was grounded in theory and research. Many of the participants in this study also didn’t feel comfortable talking about self-disclosure in supervision or with colleagues. Thus, more attention must be devoted to identifying appropriate teaching and supervision strategies that encourage accurate and honest discussion about self-disclosure. The goal is to help students and social workers become more intentional and thoughtful in their use of self-disclosure.