Bernard and Goodyear (2019) state that the goal of supervision is multi-pronged: to help junior therapists grow and develop their skills, to monitor that the clients being seen by junior therapists are getting adequate therapy and are not harmed, and to serve as a gatekeeping mechanism into the profession. Lee and Nelson (2021) discuss supervision in terms of being a goal-focused alliance between the supervisor and the supervisee. These are important considerations and the conceptualization they allow of a co-constructed and collaborative alliance also allows for the seamless use of Narrative, Collaborative, and Solution-Focused practices as a supervisor.
Supervision is Relational
There is a complexity of experiences and emotional experiences and expressions that inherently exists in systemic therapy and that are mirrored in systemic therapy supervision (Lee & Nelson, 2021). This is an intricate part of the reality of supervision being relational and must be both recognized and attended to by supervisors as they navigate the supervisor-supervisee relationship.
There is a complexity of experiences and emotional experiences and expressions that inherently exists in systemic therapy and that are mirrored in systemic therapy supervision (Lee & Nelson, 2021). This is an intricate part of the reality of supervision being relational and must be both recognized and attended to by supervisors as they navigate the supervisor-supervisee relationship.
Awareness of the Replication of Systems Within Supervision
I am a systemic therapist and, as a result, will be a systemic supervisor. I will do a poor job as a systemic supervisor if I do not attend to the reality of the larger systems of institutions, cultures, and society. Specifically, I recognize that supervisors should keep in mind the concept of isomorphism, that interactions in the supervisor-supervisee system will mirror or be mirrored in the therapist-client system (Thomas, 2013; Lee & Nelson, 2021), and that the occurrence of isomorphism should be recognized and transparently addressed. By definition, any change or effect that occurs in one part of a system will affect other parts of the system and all interconnected systems. Indeed, to some extent supervision has this as a goal. That is, supervision seeks to enact a type of change in supervisee therapists in the form of furthering the supervisee’s development and growth into a competent and confident therapist.
I am a systemic therapist and, as a result, will be a systemic supervisor. I will do a poor job as a systemic supervisor if I do not attend to the reality of the larger systems of institutions, cultures, and society. Specifically, I recognize that supervisors should keep in mind the concept of isomorphism, that interactions in the supervisor-supervisee system will mirror or be mirrored in the therapist-client system (Thomas, 2013; Lee & Nelson, 2021), and that the occurrence of isomorphism should be recognized and transparently addressed. By definition, any change or effect that occurs in one part of a system will affect other parts of the system and all interconnected systems. Indeed, to some extent supervision has this as a goal. That is, supervision seeks to enact a type of change in supervisee therapists in the form of furthering the supervisee’s development and growth into a competent and confident therapist.
Supervision in the Context of Intersectionality
The cultural and systemic reality of the United States gives privilege to those who belong to dominant social categories such as being white, cisgender, heterosexual, or male. Supervisors should be aware of these power dynamics and both the potential and manifested impacts they can have in the supervision and therapy process. Particularly given the reality that supervisor-supervisee relationships are inherently hierarchical, with the supervisor holding power over the supervisee outside of any other additional power granted by social location. This creates a moral imperative in which supervisors must do the work to address power imbalances and prejudices and to create genuinely safe spaces for all supervisees- especially those of vulnerable populations. Additionally, there is also a moral and ethical imperative to be aware of these multiple realities as a supervisor and to help supervisees see these dynamics and develop the ability to navigate and address prejudices and systemic injustices within their own practices with clients.
The cultural and systemic reality of the United States gives privilege to those who belong to dominant social categories such as being white, cisgender, heterosexual, or male. Supervisors should be aware of these power dynamics and both the potential and manifested impacts they can have in the supervision and therapy process. Particularly given the reality that supervisor-supervisee relationships are inherently hierarchical, with the supervisor holding power over the supervisee outside of any other additional power granted by social location. This creates a moral imperative in which supervisors must do the work to address power imbalances and prejudices and to create genuinely safe spaces for all supervisees- especially those of vulnerable populations. Additionally, there is also a moral and ethical imperative to be aware of these multiple realities as a supervisor and to help supervisees see these dynamics and develop the ability to navigate and address prejudices and systemic injustices within their own practices with clients.
Supervisory Methods
Lee and Nelson (2021) make a point of how even the newest trainees who may believe they do not know anything substantial about therapy actually do have significant experiences, from the relationships they have had in their lives, that can be extrapolated to the concepts of therapy. Moreover, even the newest therapy trainees have ideas about the purpose of therapy and what therapy should accomplish. While my own methods of therapy are heavily postmodernist, this will not be the case for many of those whom I supervise. As a supervisor, I believe that part of my role is helping supervisee therapists recognize these pre-existing strengths they have and help them craft those into their own narrative of therapeutic practice.
Lee and Nelson (2021) make a point of how even the newest trainees who may believe they do not know anything substantial about therapy actually do have significant experiences, from the relationships they have had in their lives, that can be extrapolated to the concepts of therapy. Moreover, even the newest therapy trainees have ideas about the purpose of therapy and what therapy should accomplish. While my own methods of therapy are heavily postmodernist, this will not be the case for many of those whom I supervise. As a supervisor, I believe that part of my role is helping supervisee therapists recognize these pre-existing strengths they have and help them craft those into their own narrative of therapeutic practice.
Theoretical Orientation
My postmodernist and trauma-informed perspectives of therapy, research, society, and systems in general heavily carry into the supervision process. I believe that supervision should be a place where supervisee therapists feel safe and supported, as it is my belief that growth is best supported by the individual knowing they have a safe space to learn, discover, and exist in. Additionally, I strongly favor a collaborative approach to supervision where both supervisor and supervisee voices are integrated into the overall narrative of supervision (Anderson & Swim, 1995). Thus, my supervision methods center around the use of Narrative, Collaboration, and Solution-Focused practices. Research by Hair and Fine (2012) suggests that supervisors having postmodernist and constructivist perspectives create an opportunity for supervisees to be “curious, reflective, transparent, and sensitive to and the valuing of multiple possibilities” (pp. 612). These are opportunities I very much want to allow for my own supervisees.
My postmodernist and trauma-informed perspectives of therapy, research, society, and systems in general heavily carry into the supervision process. I believe that supervision should be a place where supervisee therapists feel safe and supported, as it is my belief that growth is best supported by the individual knowing they have a safe space to learn, discover, and exist in. Additionally, I strongly favor a collaborative approach to supervision where both supervisor and supervisee voices are integrated into the overall narrative of supervision (Anderson & Swim, 1995). Thus, my supervision methods center around the use of Narrative, Collaboration, and Solution-Focused practices. Research by Hair and Fine (2012) suggests that supervisors having postmodernist and constructivist perspectives create an opportunity for supervisees to be “curious, reflective, transparent, and sensitive to and the valuing of multiple possibilities” (pp. 612). These are opportunities I very much want to allow for my own supervisees.
Beginning the Supervision Process
I agree with Kahn and Monk (2017) that the supervision of therapy should be a co-construction of knowledge. This fits well with Lee and Nelson's (2021) suggestion to begin supervision with “an appreciative interview” and “an investigation of both supervisors’ and supervisees’ expectations of each other” (pp. 8). Starting off with these events allows for a co-constructed, strengths-based beginning to the supervision process where the supervisor and the supervisee explicitly learn about each other’s perspectives and understandings of what supervision is and, as importantly, what they each believe supervision should be. This creates a solid foundation of background information from which the supervisor and supervisee will be able to co-construct the ongoing narrative of supervision.
I agree with Kahn and Monk (2017) that the supervision of therapy should be a co-construction of knowledge. This fits well with Lee and Nelson's (2021) suggestion to begin supervision with “an appreciative interview” and “an investigation of both supervisors’ and supervisees’ expectations of each other” (pp. 8). Starting off with these events allows for a co-constructed, strengths-based beginning to the supervision process where the supervisor and the supervisee explicitly learn about each other’s perspectives and understandings of what supervision is and, as importantly, what they each believe supervision should be. This creates a solid foundation of background information from which the supervisor and supervisee will be able to co-construct the ongoing narrative of supervision.
Another consideration that must be taken into account explicitly at the beginning of supervision, as well as attended to throughout the supervision process, is an awareness of operations of power and a negotiation of power relations (Markham & Chiu, 2011; Sparks 2014). This must be done transparently with recognition of social justice issues in relation to supervisors’ and supervisees’ salient identities and intersectionality in the context of the realities of systems of power and oppression (Neal, 1996; Kahn & Monk, 2017).
As Supervision Progresses
For my main supervision process, I borrow heavily from postmodern supervision frameworks developed by Kahn and Monk (2017), Sutherland and colleagues (2013), and Thomas (2013). Kahn and Monk’s (2017) “Framework for Narrative Supervision” includes knowledge positioned as discourse through the use of deconstruction and transparency, expansive conversation being valued, co-constructing knowledge, using questions rather than directives, and using tentative language to offset power dynamics as key components of narrative-oriented supervision process (pp. 12). Sutherland and colleagues’ (2013) suggestions for a “Social Constructionist Orientation in Supervision” includes being reflexive and attentive to power, having a collaborative stance, the fostering of generativity and polyphony- such as through multipartiality and being attentive to systemic complexity, and having a focus on resources and competencies (pp. 378). Finally, Thomas’ (2013) approach to supervision incorporates a Solution-Focused stance (pragmatism, tentativeness, no pathology, curiosity, and respect) to engage in strength-based practices meant to be collaborative, highlight successes and explore exceptions, ask questions that bring client perspectives and voices into supervision, invite supervision feedback from supervisees, and promote self-supervision.
For my main supervision process, I borrow heavily from postmodern supervision frameworks developed by Kahn and Monk (2017), Sutherland and colleagues (2013), and Thomas (2013). Kahn and Monk’s (2017) “Framework for Narrative Supervision” includes knowledge positioned as discourse through the use of deconstruction and transparency, expansive conversation being valued, co-constructing knowledge, using questions rather than directives, and using tentative language to offset power dynamics as key components of narrative-oriented supervision process (pp. 12). Sutherland and colleagues’ (2013) suggestions for a “Social Constructionist Orientation in Supervision” includes being reflexive and attentive to power, having a collaborative stance, the fostering of generativity and polyphony- such as through multipartiality and being attentive to systemic complexity, and having a focus on resources and competencies (pp. 378). Finally, Thomas’ (2013) approach to supervision incorporates a Solution-Focused stance (pragmatism, tentativeness, no pathology, curiosity, and respect) to engage in strength-based practices meant to be collaborative, highlight successes and explore exceptions, ask questions that bring client perspectives and voices into supervision, invite supervision feedback from supervisees, and promote self-supervision.
Accounting for Critiques and Dilemmas
A common critique of postmodern approaches is that they can encourage the same sort of “delusions of certainty” that O’Hanlon (1991) discussed as being too common in therapists from all styles of therapy. In supervision, I would be concerned this would run the additional risk of missing inadequate or even harmful therapeutic practices being engaged in by a supervisee. For this reason, I particularly appreciate the practice of inviting client perspectives and voices into the supervision process. This allows for transparently assessing whether the supervisee's practices are sufficient and competent for the clients being seen by them in therapy.
A common critique of postmodern approaches is that they can encourage the same sort of “delusions of certainty” that O’Hanlon (1991) discussed as being too common in therapists from all styles of therapy. In supervision, I would be concerned this would run the additional risk of missing inadequate or even harmful therapeutic practices being engaged in by a supervisee. For this reason, I particularly appreciate the practice of inviting client perspectives and voices into the supervision process. This allows for transparently assessing whether the supervisee's practices are sufficient and competent for the clients being seen by them in therapy.
Another critique is that it can be confusing for student therapists to have to navigate opposing epistemologies (Philp et al., 2007). This is particularly prone to be the case for students with more modernist or objectivist training or therapeutic perspectives when working with a postmodernist or constructivist supervisor. This is a space where multipartiality and an awareness of multiple realities becomes necessary for a supervisor to engage in and model. This allows for the supervisor to work with and from the supervisee’s perspective and views of therapy so as to keep the supervision narrative collaborative and co-constructed, without the supervisor’s perspective becoming the dominant one in the supervision narration.