1.This student met/ met with conditions (specified in section 2)/ did not meet (delete as appropriate) the academic and clinical requirements of a submission at Doctoral Level. She met/ met with conditions (specified in section 2)/ did not meet (delete as appropriate) the learning outcomes specified for this module and outlined below:
1.Respond to the complex demands of clients with a high degree of sensitivity and autonomy in finding creative solutions to new and unpredictable situations
2.Critically evaluate relational concepts in terms of their suitability to conceptualise difficulties and effective interventions for individual clients
3.Provide highly specific formulations and interventions for complex client presentations, based on an integration of a considerable range of relational concepts at the forefront of theory, research and practice
4.Communicate clearly and coherently about their client work and justify their approach
5.Integrate relational theory and practice at an advanced level of complexity
6.Reflect critically on their work, drawing on different theoretical perspectives, research and immediate experience and critically evaluate their work in relation to process and outcome.
Internal Examiners’ Feedback with reference to the ECS learning outcomes:
I.Structure, clarity and economy of expression (LO 4):
You seem to have struggled at times to express yourself clearly. Although there were some passages that were relatively clear, overall the case study was unfortunately impaired by some significant problems with the quality of the writing and presentation, which are currently well below the academic standard required for doctoral level. This also inevitably has a knock-on effect on your ability to consistently demonstrate the sophistication of thinking and practice required at this level. It would have been helpful to thoroughly review and proof read your work (and if necessary enlist someone to help you with this task).
II.Awareness of client’s presenting issues, background, self, relationship issues and process issues (LO 1 and 4):
Given Rosa’s obvious expectations and repetition of abuse in her own relationships, detailed exploration of her perception of her mother’s relationships with her biological father and step-father would have been central to understanding Rosa’s unconscious relational template. Moreover, it would have been useful you to explore in detail the dynamics involved in her own relationships with men, other than characterising Rosa as a masochist. What does she get out of her ‘submission’ to them? Perhaps, you need to think much more carefully about Rosa’s ‘victimisation’ within the context of these very complex dynamics in which she appears to be unconsciously identifying alternately with an abused and helpless child and an angry, abusive, attacking adult. It seems that this dynamic was played out in her relationships with men.
Much of your formulation seemed rather speculative, perhaps because you didn’t really explore in any depth with Rosa how she experienced her family, nor how she really thinks about herself. Rosa may have experienced her mother as unavailable and unemotional, but her relationships are far more complex than merely developing a dismissive attachment style. How did she experience, think about, understand her Italian mother’s relationships with men? How might that have influenced Rosa’s own view of relationships? Or her worth as a woman? With what, or whom, is she unconsciously identifying? It is noticeable that you state the importance of your own ethnicity and your own experience of the role of women in the family, and yet this is not subsequently elaborated or woven into your understanding of Rosa whose obvious feelings of abuse and psychological oppression are arguably central to understanding her behaviour.