![]()
PART ONE
KEY THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
![]()
CHAPTER 1
What is supervision?
Hazel Reid
CORE KNOWLEDGE
This chapter will provide the opportunity to:
- consider definitions on the purpose and functions of supervision;
- explore ideas about the giving and receiving of supervision;
- reflect on the concept of a ‘safe space’ for effective supervisory practice.
INTRODUCTION
Supervision is a collaborative process in which the supervisor works with the supervisee to explore their work reflectively … Fundamental to the relationship is good rapport and a working alliance.
(Schuck and Wood, 2011, p15)
There are a number of words in the above quote that are key to our understanding of the practice of effective supervision within counselling: these are ‘collaborative’, ‘reflectively’, ‘relationship’, ‘rapport’ and ‘a working alliance’. In order to identify the purpose and functions of supervision, this chapter considers a number of definitions that are drawn from the literature across a range of professional contexts and that encompass these key words and terms. The terms themselves are examined more fully as we progress through the book, but starting with general definitions about supervision seems sensible. The chapter also discusses who receives supervision, who ‘gives’ it, who wants it and if it is necessary at all. In other words, should supervision be a requirement for all counsellors all the time, or are there differing views about this? The location where supervision takes place is an important consideration, and the requirement for a ‘safe space’ for effective supervision is also explored.
Before turning to the literature for definitions on the purpose and functions of supervision, we look at a sample of the reflections of practitioners gathered in a case study for a research project (Reid, 2010). These eleven practitioners worked in youth support and were undertaking a certificated programme to develop their role as supervisors. In the research case study below, they are discussing their experiences of both receiving and giving supervision. These reflections highlight a number of wide-ranging issues that are discussed within the book.
Case study 1.1 What are your thoughts about the practice and practicalities of supervision?
All the participants who took part in the research case study saw the purpose of supervision as providing an opportunity to discuss caseloads, particular clients and issues that arose in the work, and to develop their practice alongside an opportunity to attend to self-care: their support needs. This was summed up by one participant, who said:
Support needs are paramount, having the time and space to talk through difficult situations enables practitioners to function effectively, this in turn helps and supports clients.
Another, reflecting on what supervision was not, made reference to the boundaries within supervision. She indicated that too much focus on support needs can lead the supervisor into taking a counselling role:
There is a danger that some of the issues being addressed could overstep the boundaries in terms of the supervisor becoming the counsellor, which I would feel very uncomfortable with.
In stressing their views about the importance of supervision for their practice to remain effective, a major issue that they all raised was the allocation and effective use of time for supervision. Participants said that the effective use of this time is at risk when workloads and deadlines constantly clash. On this tension, one participant stated:
The busier someone is the more important it is for them to have space and time for reflection and support – to continue to be effective.
The participants in this group expressed a preference for one-to-one supervision over group supervision as they were more likely to set aside time and carry out the necessary effective work. Another participant added: Trying to get a mutually suitable time for groups has been very difficult and, in my experience, has meant most groups have failed.
They also talked about the importance of preparation by both supervisor and supervisee and of the sessions following a pattern or structure. Other comments were made about the location of supervision in order to manage the time effectively, for example, in a private place without distractions.
Summing up their views on what supervision had done for them, one practitioner in the group felt supervision had made little difference to their practice, but the other ten all responded differently to this. They claimed it had enhanced their work, leading to greater reflective practice, and had promoted sharing of good practice. It had been invaluable for sanity, professional integrity and effectiveness, had given confidence and ensured a safer working environment, and had promoted competence and evaluative practice – leading to greater autonomy.
One participant wished to emphasise the importance of training for the role of supervisor. Another described supervision as giving them permission to reflect fully, knowing that whatever issues I unearth, there is somewhere to take them. Finally, one practitioner made the following comment:
Supervision has helped me to develop my practice further – it has been an enabling process and has supported me to identify, accept and develop personal areas for development as a practitioner.
Having heard the voices of practitioners, we will now consider definitions from the literature on the purpose and functions of supervision.
THE PURPOSE OF SUPERVISION
While the literature will encompass the words emphasised earlier – i.e. collaborative, working reflectively, relationship, rapport and a working alliance – the literature from a number of helping services, including counselling, may indicate differences in emphasis on the purpose of supervision (i.e. what it tries to achieve). The exploration here will concentrate on the definitions within counselling, but across many sectors the aim is to highlight the importance of creating a reflective space for enhancing the work. As a fundamental component of supervision, it might be useful to explore the meaning of reflectivity as a first step.
ACTIVITY 1.1 DEFINING REFLECTIVITY AND REFLEXIVITY
Reflective practice is a term that you are likely to be familiar with, but can you define it succinctly in a couple of sentences? Try doing this now – without reading what follows – and write it down.
You may also have encountered the term reflexivity in your reading and practice – how is this different to reflectivity? Again, try to define this term.
Reflexivity within supervision is considered in more detail in the next chapter as part of ethical practice, but before moving on, how do your definitions compare with the following suggestions?
A reflective practitioner is someone who is able to reach potential solutions through analysing experience and prior knowledge in order to inform current and future practice. The internal process of reflection that is active and conscious could be described as reflectivity. Reflexivity is the process by which we are aware of our own responses to what is happening in a particular context (i.e. a counselling interaction) and our reactions to people, events and the dialogue taking place. A reflexive understanding will include an awareness of the personal, social and cultural context and its influence on both the speaker and the listener. Reflexive awareness in counselling practice leads to a deeper understanding of how we co-construct knowledge about the world and ways of operating within it that are more meaningful for those involved.
Returning to definitions of supervision within counselling, Bradley et al. (2001) discuss purpose via the principles, process and practice of supervision. Supervision can be divided into two words, ‘super’ and ‘vision’. In other words, the experienced person looks from above (super) on the work of a less experienced person and has a view (vision) of the work. This resonates with Hawkins and Shohet’s statement (1989, p37) that a supervisor requires ‘helicopter ability’ – i.e. the ability both to move in close and to pull away to get a broader perspective. For a beginner supervisor, no matter how experienced as a practitioner, that can be difficult to accomplish when trying to keep in balance a number of sometimes competing goals within the practice of supervision (Wiener et al., 2003). Supervision, like counselling, is a complicated process – more complex, perhaps, as the supervisor does not work directly with the client and the supervisee selects what to ‘bring’ to supervision. In their more recent work, Hawkins and Shohet (2006) stress the collaborative nature of the work and emphasise the importance of encouraging a learning culture in the practice of supervision.
Holloway and Aposhyan (1994) define supervision for trainee counsellors as the means both to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for effective practice and to engage in a learning climate that enables them to experience their own interpersonal power (p194). To accomplish this, the supervisor takes on the roles of ‘teacher’, model and mentor. Harris and Brockbank (2011) pay particular attention to the place of learning theory within their integrative approach, which has been developed for both new and experienced therapists and supervisors. The suggestion is that supervisors need to examine the working context and their own experience of supervision, identifying the learned philosophy and potential bias in their own supervisory practice. In other words, are they making assumptions about the universality of the approach they use based on what they received in their own supervision, or are they open to critiquing this and trying different methods? As Harris and Brockbank state (2011, p57), without this reflexivity, the implicit model is passed on to the supervisee, without the supervisor being aware of it. What is emphasised here is that supervision takes place within a learning climate where participants are prepared to learn and work collaboratively.
REFLECTION POINT
In a similar way to Harris and Brockbank, this book takes an integrative approach to supervision, but what is your view about an integrative approach? What is the counselling orientation that shapes your practice? What might be the implications for you if, for example, you were supervising a counsellor whose theoretical and practical approach differed from yours?
Dryden et al. (1995) highlight the difficulties where supervisor and supervisee may have been trained within different theoretical models of counselling. An argument could be made that exploring the differences can help us to question our assumptions and ensure meanings are shared in what should be a collaborative process. But that might ignore the realities of what happens in practice, and this highlights the importance of considering the theoretical perspectives that inform the work of both supervisor and supervisee at, or even before, the contracting stage of the work.
One of the requirements of an effective supervisor is to be open to challenge, to refrain from an expert stance and to be able to live with uncertainty and negative capability – and to learn from the experience. This is not about incompetence, but being in a position of not knowing may make us feel uncomfortable and not in control. Gallwey expresses this as a willingness to be a beginner:
The willingness to be a beginner is an essential ingredient to being a good learner – no matter what your level of expertise. It is the willingness to ‘not know’ and to be comfortable with not knowing that makes children and adults able to learn without fear.
The purpose and functions of supervision will differ according to the context in which counsellors are working and the groups and/or individuals they work with. These differences may also reflect whether they are in training, experienced, working in private practice or within a public service; and will also be influenced by whether participation is compulsory or voluntary.
(cited in Hawkins and Shohet, 2006, p17)
In answering the question ‘What is supervision?’ Harris and Brockbank draw on the work of a number of writers (see Harris and Brockbank, 2011, p153) and list the descriptions given for supervision. These include: support, a series of tasks, a developmental process, training, a consultative process, a reflective process, an interpersonal interaction, an impossible profession, keepers of the faith (they suggest the last one is a bit grand!).
There is general agreement about what supervision is not, i.e. it is not therapy. Like one of the participants in the research case study above, most writers would separate supervision from therapy. Wiener et al. (2003) and Harris and Brockbank (2011) give useful overviews of the historical development of supervision and its separation from therapeutic analysis, but the boundaries may not be as clear as we think. Experience of personal counselling may be a requirement for counsellors in training, and this will be a practice separate from supervision – but if the supervision process is truly engaging, collaborative and developmental, it is likely to have therapeutic effects. As stated earlier, supervision is a relationship, and it is not a straightforward process.
REFLECTION POINT
What do you think? Are the two practices (personal counselling as a practitioner and supervision as a counsellor) distinct? If so, how? If there are therapeutic effects, what might these be? Could you list them?
Knight, writing about the therapist–supervisor relationship within clinical settings, says the following:
In the world of analysis, psychotherapy and casework, supervision has evolved from its original meaning of over-seeing and controlling, although there is an element of ‘watching with authority over a process’. A context of enablement and support and the facilitation of learning from experience has developed with the personal engagement between supervisor and supervisee. It is a cooperative activity between an analyst or a student analyst with a supervisor who can bring to this meeting a view of the work with the patient untrammelled by direct emotional involvement. However, emotional involvement, transference both to the supervisee and to the patient, is inevitably evoked in the supervisor.
(Knight, 2003, p35)
It seems that it is the supervisor...
