Thermodynamic q-Distributions That Aren't

Bosonic q-oscillators commute with themselves and so their free distribution is Planckian. In a cavity, their emission and absorption rates may grow or shrink---and even diverge---but they nevertheless balance to yield the Planck distribution via Einstein's equilibrium method, (a careless application of which might produce spurious q-dependent distribution functions). This drives home the point that the black-body energy distribution is not a handle for distinguishing q-excitations from plain oscillators. A maximum cavity size is suggested by the inverse critical frequency of such emission/absorption rates at a given temperature, or a maximum temperature at a given frequency. To remedy fragmentation of opinion on the subject, we provide some discussion, context, and references.Comment: 7 pages, UW/PT-93-05, ANL-HEP-CP-93-39, Latex-Revtex [ Augmented list of references, sound and not.

BUILDING BRIDGES: SUPERVISORS’ MANAGEMENT OF COMPETENCY QUESTIONING

Clinical supervision is an opportunity for supervisors to influence and shape the education of counselors-in-training. Exchanging feedback between supervisees and supervisors can be a challenging aspect of supervision and can have profound impact on the efficacy of supervision, the safety of clients, and the supervision relationship. Understanding the experience and process that supervisors go through when their competence is questioned could be critical to understanding the supervision relationship. Successful management of competency questioning contributes to the efficacy of the supervision relationship, better protection of clients, and positive development of supervisees. Using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014), this qualitative study addresses the experience and process supervisors have when their competence is questioned by a supervisee. Ten supervisors shared about how they manage competency questioning in supervision, and the outcomes that occur after their competence is questioned. Two rounds of interviews were conducted, with six participants participating in the first round of interviews, three participants participating in the second round of interviews, and one participant participating in both rounds. Results indicate that supervisors perceive questioning and then continue managing four essential components to return to the tasks of supervision: grounding in psychological safety, bracketing, attuning to supervisee needs, and attending to power. If the process of managing the essential components is interrupted, outcomes include: programmatic mistrust, leaving the field, and persistent rupture. This theory provides a framework for how supervisors can manage the rupture of competency questioning in the supervision relationship, as well as systemic factors critical for supervision to flourish