Educational Psychology in Practice

theory, research and practice in educational psychology

ISSN: 0266-7363 (Print) 1469-5839 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cepp20

A relational model of supervision for applied

psychology practice: professional growth through
relating and reflecting

Emma-Kate Kennedy, Caroline Keaney, Chris Shaldon & Myooran

Canagaratnam

To cite this article: Emma-Kate Kennedy, Caroline Keaney, Chris Shaldon & Myooran
Canagaratnam (2018): A relational model of supervision for applied psychology practice:
professional growth through relating and reflecting, Educational Psychology in Practice, DOI:
10.1080/02667363.2018.1456407

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1456407

Published online: 02 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 159

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cepp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1456407

A relational model of supervision for applied psychology

practice: professional growth through relating and reflecting
Emma-Kate Kennedy, Caroline Keaney, Chris Shaldon and Myooran Canagaratnam
Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Supervision is a critical component of initial training and continuing Theory-to-practice
professional development for applied psychology practitioners, connections; supervision
and effective supervision is significantly related to the quality of theory and process;
the relationship between supervisor and supervisee. The core task supervisory relationship;
relational approaches
of supervision is to engage in a relational process that provides
containing and security, thus facilitating professional growth through
reflection on experience. Two key arguments are proposed in this
paper: (i) models that support theory-to-practice connections are
essential for both supervisees and supervisors and (ii) models informed
by psychological theory that place relating and reflecting at the heart
of the supervisory process promote practitioner development and
effective outcomes for clients. One model – the Relational Model of
Supervision for Applied Psychology Practice (RMSAPP) – is outlined,
and the systemic, psychodynamic and attachment lenses privileged
within it are explored. The paper concludes with the strengths and
challenges of the model, along with suggestions for future research
directions.

Introduction
Supervision of professional practice in applied psychology is of critical importance in deliv-
ering safer and effective services for clients (Dunsmuir, Lang, & Leadbetter, 2015; Dunsmuir
& Leadbetter, 2010; Falender, Shafranske, & Ofek, 2014; Hill et al., 2015; Hulusi & Maggs, 2015).
There is increasing empirical evidence for supervision, particularly because of its role in:

• promoting skill acquisition, transfer and application of learning across contexts;

• enhancing client outcomes through supporting adherence to high-quality practices;
and
• reducing worker burnout through fostering professional and personal engagement
(Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert, 2006; Harvey & Pearrow, 2010; Kavanagh
et al., 2003; Watkins, 2011).

Less frequently discussed is the degree of professional fulfilment that supervisors them-
selves may experience when relating to their supervisees, containing the uncomfortable

CONTACT Emma-Kate Kennedy [email protected]

© 2018 Association of Educational Psychologists
2 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

feelings often generated by this process in ways that allow the supervisee and client to
effectively attach, separate and re-connect (Skovholt & Trotter-Mathison, 2016).
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) is the UK statutory regulator of psycholo-
gists, drawing up a set of standards that qualified practitioners must meet. Psychologists,
regardless of discipline, must “apply psychology across a variety of different contexts using
a range of evidence-based and theoretical models, frameworks and psychological para-
digms” (Health & Care Professions Council, 2015, p. 20). Efforts to integrate theory and prac-
tice are not without challenge, however. One key integrating mechanism to support trainees,
educators and practitioners is the development of models that support theory application
in applied contexts. Simon, Cruise, Huber, Swerdlik, and Newman (2014) persuasively argued
this regarding school psychology supervision, highlighting that a comprehensive model of
supervision performs a host of helpful functions (see Table 1).

Table 1. Rationale for the use of models in applied psychology supervisory practice (Simon et al., 2014).
By serving to integrate theory, emerging evidence and practice, espoused models of supervisory practice...
... conceptualise and organise the supervisory process
… ground supervision in reflective and purposeful practice
… organise supervisory tasks
... aid supervisors in acquiring supervisory competency
... support supervisee engagement and participation through sharing the model

In addition, clear explication of a model opens up the possibility of enquiry into practice
and supports research-informed development and enhancement.
In this paper, two key arguments are made: (i) models that support theory-to-practice
connections are essential and (ii) theory-informed models that place relating and reflecting
at the heart of the supervisory process facilitate practitioner growth and effective outcomes
for clients. The paper begins by contextualising current approaches to supervision in psy-
chology. A model called the Relational Model of Supervision for Applied Psychology Practice
(RMSAPP) is described, which has been applied with trainee educational psychologists (TEPs),
qualified educational psychologists (EPs) and other disciplines (for example, teachers). The
implications for supervisory practice are considered, some limitations outlined and sugges-
tions are made for further developments.

Context
Supervision has been defined in a number of ways dependent on theoretical orientation,
expected function, intended outcome and epistemological and ontological positions. Recent
British Psychological Society (BPS) professional practice guidelines conceptualised it as “hav-
ing a space where it is possible to open up thinking to the mind of another with a view to
extending knowledge about the self” (2017, p. 12). The guidelines emphasised the place of
consultation and supervision in addressing knowledge atrophy over time, including the
stereotypes, biases and faulty reasoning present in the thinking of even the most experienced
practitioners (Dubbin, 1972; Institute of Medicine, 2010; Lichtenberg, 1997; Neimeyer, Taylor,
Rozensky, & Cox, 2014). By stating that one of the objectives of supervision is to contribute
to the continuing professional development of both supervisor and supervisee, this guidance
for all psychologists is now more in line with the Division of Educational and Child Psychology
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 3

(DECP) guidance on supervision published in 2010. EPs have long recognised that the ability
to give and receive supervision is a core professional competence and that supervision is a
context for both reflecting on and learning from experience (Carrington, 2004). There is,
however, one striking dissimilarity between the DECP guidance (2010) and the BPS generic
practice guidelines (2017): the former explicitly references the supervisory relationship
throughout, while the latter makes no explicit reference to this critical relationship.
To complement their divisional guidelines on supervision, the DECP developed a super-
visor competency framework to “support reflection and appraisal of supervisory compe-
tence” (Dunsmuir & Leadbetter, 2010, p. 13). Competences included knowledge of “models,
theories, modalities and research on supervision” and skills in “setting up and maintaining
a constructive supervisory alliance”: models and relationships are clearly significant. EP
supervision is an “integral part of the regular discourse of EPs in terms of their daily routines,
and when addressing new developments and initiatives” (Leadbetter, Dunsmuir, & Gibbs,
2015, p. 6). Whilst the most recent national EP supervision survey data encouragingly indi-
cated that the majority of the sample (N = 246) were provided with supervision, nearly half
indicated that there was no supervision model evident (Dunsmuir et al., 2015).
Nearly 80% of the participants did not have a contract for supervision received, and 60%
did not draw up a contract for supervision provided. The international context is even more
mixed, with an American national survey of 700 early career school psychologists finding
that almost 60% reported no access to supervision (Silva, Newman, Guiney, Valley-Gray, &
Barrett, 2016). Similar to the UK data, 76% of their sample did not have a written supervision
contract and the majority did not (i) have processes in place to monitor the quality or effec-
tiveness of their supervision, (ii) did not document their supervision sessions, and (iii) did
not establish supervision goals. Interestingly, these US data did not include information on
supervision models, or the supervisory relationship.

Review of the literature

Currently, national and international trends in the literature highlight:

• the influence of the competency-based approach on supervision (Dunsmuir &

Leadbetter, 2010; Dunsmuir et al., 2015; Falender et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2016; Simon
et al., 2014);
• a burgeoning movement to identify, assess and enhance the specific attitudes, knowl-
edge and skills required.

There is a large body of work focusing on the developmental nature of supervision and
the ways in which it supports novices to develop competence across professional practice,
including in supervision itself (for example, Atkinson & Woods, 2007; Carrington, 2004; Gibbs
et al., 2016; Hill et al., 2015; McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2016; Silva et al., 2016; Woods et al., 2015).
Research in clinical practice has found that effective supervision is significantly related to
the quality of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee (Beinart, 2012; Carroll,
2014; Cliffe, Beinart, & Cooper, 2014; Inman & Ladany, 2008; Tangen & Borders, 2016). Cliffe
et al. (2014) argued that a good supervisory relationship “represents a safe, secure base
established by a consistent, responsive supervisor sensitive to their supervisees’ needs who
supports supervisees to ‘explore’ and develop their competencies” (pp. 77–78). They proposed
relational mechanisms (such as a safe base, commitment and structure) that facilitate the
4 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

Supervisory relationship as…

initiating reflective education

SUPERVISEE
DEVELOPMENT
safe base

Educative
components

Facilitative
components
supervisor as role model delivering formative
feedback

structure commitment

Figure 1. Conceptualising relating and reflecting in supervision (after Cliffe et al., 2014; Palomo, Beinart,
& Cooper, 2010).

educative components of supervision, leading ultimately to supervisee development and

growth (see Figure 1).
There have been a number of criticisms levelled at supervision research where there is
too much presumed similarity to the therapeutic relationship (Ellis & Ladany, 1997), and this
is especially true in educational psychology. Some researchers have argued that applications
of supervisory models developed from therapeutic practice risk confusing therapy with
supervision and lack sufficient breadth to address the comprehensive range of practices
school psychologists engage in (for example, organisational work) (Simon et al., 2014).
The supervisory relationship is a learning alliance and not a therapeutic one, even in
clinical contexts. Clinical supervisors are strongly encouraged to take steps to guard against
any confusion about this on the part of either supervisor or supervisee (for example,
Yerushalmi, 2014). Then there are the are pedagogical aspects of supervision, clearly distinct
from therapy, that sit within the broadest of systemic contexts. Finally, supervision uniquely
includes an evaluative component not present in therapy, more explicit perhaps in initial
training contexts but still relevant for qualified practitioners (where the supervisor has
responsibility for making judgements about the ethical practice and professional standards
of the supervisee).

Supervisory models and relationships in EP practice

In the past 20 years, there has been limited educational psychology-specific research on the
supervisory relationship, with the exception of certain small-scale reviews acknowledging
its importance (Carrington, 2004; Nolan, 1999). Methodologies employed have often made
use of questionnaires, when it could be argued that in-depth, small-scale phenomenological
inquiry is more suited to gaining a rich insight into the intricacies of such relationships
(Weaks, 2002; Worthern & McNeil, 1996). Atkinson and Woods (2007) surveyed qualified EPs
concerning the facilitators and barriers to effective supervision on initial training placements.
They subsequently developed a supervisory model highlighting the importance of the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 5

partnership between trainee and supervisor as the supervisor undertook the core supervi-
sory tasks of “guidance/monitoring”, “problem solving” and “support”. At the time, they argued
that further research was required to explicate “how the somewhat nebulous concept of
‘relationship’ relates to supervisory function” (p. 308).
Since then, there have been other studies of trainee EPs that have made use of focus
groups (Hill et al., 2015; Woods et al., 2015) and questionnaires (Gibbs et al., 2016). These
related projects identified the importance of supervisory models rooted in specific theoret-
ical frameworks and the crucial nature of the supervisory relationship in creating feelings
of professional safety and trust. For example, participants highlighted the supervisor’s role
in containing the sometimes unsettling emotional experience of taking up a new profes-
sional role (Woods et al., 2015). Drawing on these data and additional surveys, a framework
for supervision was developed (Gibbs et al., 2016). Unsurprisingly, relational and reflective
components, alongside developmental and contextual/systemic factors, were core features.
All of these studies were, however, conducted with UK trainee EPs; Gibbs and colleagues
questioned their transferability outside of the context within which they had been
developed.
In 2015, a special issue of the DECP journal Educational & Child Psychology highlighted
trends in supervisory practices. Of note were the number of papers pertaining to group and
peer supervision (for example, Bartle & Trevis, 2015; Corlett, 2015; Mills & Swift, 2015; Rawlings
& Cowell, 2015; Soni, 2015). This prevalence is perhaps unsurprising, given the time and
resourcing pressures faced by EPs, and the degree of collegiality apparent in many services.
There may also be additional compelling reasons, including the degree to which EPs report
receiving supervision that fulfils line management functions (as opposed to professional
development functions) (Dunsmuir et al., 2015). With some notable exceptions (for example,
Ayres, Clarke, & Large, 2015), it is the authors’ practice experience that many qualified EPs
feel frustrated that line management tasks consume supervision. Also potentially present
are feelings of anxiety concerning the intimacy and dependency that may come with a
dyadic supervisory relationship, as well as discomfort with relating where there are significant
differences in authority and accountability.

The Relational Model of Supervision for Applied Psychology Practice

(RMSAPP)
When the authors began developing the RMSAPP, it was from a foundation established by
former colleagues who had had a specific focus on the diverse supervisory dynamics present
in the supervisory relationship. By reflecting on such dynamics in an induction seminar with
trainees and their supervisors, the authors hoped to provide a common language to explore
what may happen in supervision. In particular, the seminar focused on what may be expe-
rienced by the supervisee when the supervisor behaves as either (i) theory-bound and in
control, (ii) laissez-faire or (iii) active, curious and relationship-focused; and the potential
impact of such behaviour on the supervisee. While the approach had value for supervisees
and supervisors alike, it did not provide sufficient structure and guidance on how to establish,
maintain and end effective supervisory relationships. Nor did it adequately address super-
visory process and technique, or allow more in-depth relational exploration of how the
supervisee may behave and be experienced by the supervisor, and the potential impact of
this.
6 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

past present future

Ecologies of applied practice

contracting

INPUTS
OUTCOMES
from SUPERVISEE
supervisee and for supervisee
supervisor and supervisor
CLIENTS
SUPERVISOR

psychological
containing processes

relating to one another in role

Figure 2. Relational Model of Supervision for Applied Psychology Practice.

The model
The RMSAPP is predicated on conceptualising supervision as a work-based learning rela-
tionship, characterised by relating and reflecting. Reflection in this context refers to how
aware practitioners are of their own personal feelings, thoughts, values and attitudes, and
the degree to which they appreciate how these affect their behaviours and responses when
relating to others in role (Tomlin, Weatherston, & Pavkov, 2014). Such capacity for reflection
on experience comes from, and is fundamentally predicated on, the quality of relationship
between supervisee and supervisor. Those involved must explicitly contract with one
another:

• for a commitment to purposefully engage in learning from experience;

• for a work-based psychological process that involves material entering into the supervi-
sory space, for the processing of such experiences and for outcomes to emerge from this;
• to begin, maintain and ultimately end a relationship characterised by interpersonal
connection, containment and challenge.

The RMSAPP is outlined in Figure 2.

Supervision takes place in the broader systemic contexts of the political, legal, profes-
sional, national and local priorities for the individuals concerned, represented in Figure 2 on
the left-hand side and personalised as appropriate. Within these broad ecologies of practice,
the supervisee and supervisor each bring “inputs” to the supervisory encounter. These may
be experiences from the recent or more distant past that engender a range of conscious and
unconscious feelings, thoughts, values and attitudes. The contract for supervision contains
the boundary around the supervisory space (represented by the circle in the middle), delin-
eating what may and may not be brought for reflection (represented by the perforated line).
Inside the space, a range of different processes are engaged in by the supervisee and super-
visor. This relating to one another eventually leads to outcomes that, dependent on the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 7

relationship and nature of the material brought, may take repeated supervisory encounters
to achieve. These outputs potentially include new or transformed questions, insight into the
self/psychological practice and (where relevant) plans for work with the client(s). The pro-
cesses of supervision are informed by the various psychological theories pertinent to the
task, individuals and context; evidence drawn from research into supervisory approaches;
and andragogic and psychotherapeutic technique.

Theoretical underpinnings, their application and implications

The authors’ application of the RMSAPP in their supervision of both trainees and qualified
practitioners will now be considered. Three theoretical lenses are privileged: systemic, psy-
chodynamic and attachment. These were chosen in part because of their historical and
current relevance to the practice of psychology but more importantly because of the degree
to which they have relevance and utility to the practice of supervision in applied contexts.

Wider systems and systemic lenses

What has been particularly striking to the authors over the last 12–18 months, especially
when supervising qualified practitioners, is the degree to which the latter bring their expe-
riences of “the system” to supervision. This has taken any number of forms, for example:

• burdensome work environments where email, “paperless” approaches, hot-desking and

reductions of administrative support prevail;
• the impact of teacher stress and burnout on psychological practice in school-based
consultation, assessment and intervention;
• the management of organisational anxieties regarding austerity measures, inspection,
local and national political priorities;
• fears that commissioners of psychological services lack understanding regarding the
importance of supervision in enhancing client outcomes.

As noted, confusion over the nature of supervision and line management/appraisal is

another common theme. This has at times verged on perceptions that supervision itself is
either ineffectual or, on rarer occasions, harmful. A systemic approach operates at the inter-
section of the supervisory dyad or group and the wider systems within which they are
embedded; a capacity to take up a systemic position that locates supervisory relating and
reflecting in the broader organisational, societal and cultural context is essential.
Systemic principles provide a crucial theoretical underpinning for the RMSAPP, where a
“systems way of thinking” refers to:
… a view of individual behaviour that takes account of the context in which it occurs … accord-
ingly, the behaviour of one component of the system is seen as affecting, and being affected
by, the behaviour of others. (Dowling, 1994, p. 3)
Relating to one another in role, reflecting on the experiences that the superviser and
supervisee bring into the supervisory space, is inseparable from the broader systemic and
organisational contexts within which such experiences take place. Other important principles
embedded in the RMSAPP include highlighting circular as opposed to linear causality, the
central place of feedback in systems and attention at all times to the “system of concern”
regardless of the level at which the work is taking place (individual in context, group or
8 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

pathologising
pressuring interpersonal resisting
patterning

healing
interpersonal
inquiring patterning responding

Figure 3. Shifting from pathologising to healing patterns of interpersonal interaction (after Couture &
Tomm, 2014).

organisational). Working systemically also encourages supervisees and supervisors to

account for their own (and client and consultee) differences in family systems, identities and
experiences of power and oppression.
Burnham developed the acronym Social Graces (GRRAACCEESS) to represent aspects of
difference in beliefs, power and lifestyle that may be more or less attended to in professional
relationships (for example, Burnham, 2012). The Graces include gender, race, ethnicity, sex-
uality, faith, culture and class and provide a framework to explore how these may be voiced
(or unvoiced) and visible (or invisible) in supervision; for example, how does a white, female,
atheist supervisor invite a thoughtful exploration of the experiences of a black, female
Christian teacher in a supervisory dialogue with a white, male Jewish supervisee? The
RMSAPP highlights the importance of considering intersectionality and the danger of
assumed similarities, which can lead to a well-meaning but inappropriate minimisation of
the experience of the individuals involved.
Harrell (2014), in the context of race in supervision, highlights that “both supervisor and
supervisee are tasked with confronting and exploring emotionally charged subject matter
while maintaining an atmosphere of compassion and empathy for the anxiety, pain, ambiv-
alence and anger that [can] accompany [such] discussions” (Harrell, 2014, p. 85).
Tomm, St George, Wulff, and Strong (2014) considered how, in family therapy, practitioners
can make the shift from viewing problems and their solutions as being located within indi-
viduals to recognising them as being relational patterns occurring in an interpersonal space.
This understanding can be also usefully applied in the RMSAPP, in that it offers a way of
understanding how supervisor and supervisee negotiate learning through their patterns of
interaction. Creating reflective spaces through establishing circular interpersonal patterns
of inquiry that invite responding (rather than interactions of pressurising that invite resisting)
is not only a key supervisory process, but also has distinct implications when there are diffi-
culties in the relationship (see Figure 3).
Language is critical; the difficulty located in “the space between” individuals, rather than
in a “bad” supervisor or an “incompetent” supervisee, promotes creativity and freedom in
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 9

exploring solutions. This does not absolve supervisors from appropriately taking up their
authority, however; or indeed for retaining the responsibility for acknowledging and effec-
tively managing the power dynamics inherent in the supervisory relationship.

Psychodynamic lenses
There is a growing awareness of the benefits of psychodynamic ideas in EP practice – this is
particularly true in relation to supervision (Bartle, 2015; Hulusi & Maggs, 2015). Key theoretical
concepts drawn upon in the RMSAPP from the psychodynamic tradition include the central
place of emotion in human experience and the significance of development (especially in
terms of how the “there and then” may play out in the “here and now”). When supervisees
have provided feedback on the effective implementation of the RMSAPP, they emphasise
how supervision can be an effective "holding" of their emotional experience, and on the
containing function of supervision in this regard.
The RMSAPP draws heavily on the work of Bion in this regard, who argued that one aspect
of the parental function was to be that of container; a thinker with the capacity not only to
care about but crucially also to think about the child’s experience (Bion, 1963). He drew heavily
on the concept of inter-subjectivity, noting that emotions constantly pass between people
and that sometimes experiences are too painful to tolerate due to the feelings associated
with them. The supervisor acts as a container who can tolerate and receive the feelings,
confusion and uncertainty brought by the supervisee to mentally “digest” what is being
brought and give it meaning. The supervisor is therefore not only a container of feelings but
a mind that can hold thoughts, helping the supervisee to manage the anxieties and tolerate
the uncertainties that come with learning.
Recognised within the RMSAPP and indeed within the effective supervisory practices
literature more generally (for example, Falender et al., 2014) is the use of transference and
counter-transference as tools in the supervisory space. At the heart of Freudian theory is the
notion that feelings which have been experienced in the past can be transferred into present
relationships (Freud, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1920). This tendency to repeat past patterns is a
universal phenomenon that recurs in any important relationship, especially so when one is
relating to an authority figure. A supervisee whose past important relationships contained
high expectations of achievement may perceive their supervisor as constantly judging and
scrutinising their performance, which may reduce the likelihood that the supervisee brings
uncertainty or feelings of perceived failure to the supervisory space.
Supervisors can be the recipients of powerful feelings that seem unwarranted by the
situation, by what they know of themselves and how they usually behave. Without adequate
training and supervision on their own supervision, supervisors can struggle to understand
such feelings and their origin. They may become confused, flattered (if highly idealised by
the supervisee) or hurt (if attempts to be helpful and curious about the supervisee’s expe-
riences are rebutted). Faced with a supervisee who positions the supervisor either as
all-knowing or as incompetent, supervisors may underestimate the impact these uncon-
scious communications have on the supervisory relationship.
In terms of implications, supervisors do not need to unravel a person’s past to understand
them for their own sake. However, by paying attention to what is being transferred, insight is
gained into implicit assumptions and beliefs that affect how the professional role is taken up.
Awareness of the transference also enables the taking up of a more reflective view of relational
10 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

dynamics, instead of acting out what is being transferred (for example, becoming the super-
visee’s overly protective, critical or even neglecting parent or previous supervisor). Use of the
model reduces the risk of for example, reinforcing expectations that one will always be judged
and found wanting, promoting instead a capacity to bring ambiguity and uncertainty.
Supervisors are curious, for example, about the supervisee who feels they are a burden
and frequently apologises for taking up the supervisor’s time, even when it is their allocated
supervision session. They are interested in the supervisee who does not bring the difficult
aspects of their work, and in the supervisee who wants the supervisor to do the thinking or
where there is an ongoing high level of dependency. Countertransference (Freud, 1910,
1958), a practitioner’s conscious and unconscious feelings and emotional responses to their
client, is a tool that can be used tentatively and sensitively by the supervisor to make sense
of how the supervisee may be presenting in supervision. Used effectively, it may also aid the
supervisee in developing their own skills in using the emotions as data in their work with
children, young people, families and schools.
As stated earlier, learning in its many forms is an emotional experience that is often anxiety
provoking. Vaillant spent a lifetime exploring how adults develop across the lifespan, high-
lighting the importance of seeking social support and active cognitive problem solving
when encountering threat or stress (Vaillant, 2000, 2012). He also evidenced the role of
unconscious coping strategies that are normatively employed as a way of managing threat-
ening emotional pain. Such mechanisms occur beneath the surface, in the depths of one’s
unconscious life, and can be used adaptively or maladaptively to manage the anxiety expe-
rienced. Each person develops their own individual constellation of defences, based on
previous experiences of situations and relationships. The more difficult the task that one is
presented with and the greater the difficulties one experiences in making sense of a situation,
the more likely it is that one finds ways of coping that aim to avoid the unbearable and
reduce anxiety. Supervision then becomes not only an important source of social support
and conscious cognitive problem solving, it is also a place for supervisee and supervisor to
understand and perhaps reframe the “involuntary mental mechanisms that distort our per-
ception of internal and external reality to reduce subjective distress” (Vaillant, 2000, p. 89,
emphasis in original).
Defences may be evident in supervision when, for example, the supervisee frequently
seeks out certainty and an excessive desire to be “fed” knowledge as a defence against
bearing the unknown. They may move away from exploration of their own emotional
responses to casework and working relationships, perhaps projecting these feelings into
the supervisor, other colleagues or their clients as a way of avoiding acknowledging them
as their own. Practice implications include noticing and paying attention to these manoeu-
vres in supervision, serving to bring them to conscious awareness in a containing way. This
allows them to be thought about and better understood in the service of the supervisee
and the clients with whom they work.

Attachment lenses
In education, attachment theory and its value in helping to conceptualise and address chil-
dren’s social and emotional well-being is familiar to applied psychologists. Less so is adult
attachment; for example, how EPs might consider each teacher’s own autobiography, their
attachment patterns and how they acknowledge and process children’s emotions in the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 11

classroom (for example, Weiss, 2002a, 2002b). More generally, attachment theory in the
workplace has not been extensively researched, although there is a growing literature in
this area (for example, Harms, 2011; Hepper & Carnelley, 2010) and in attachment-informed
supervision in particular (for example, Bennett & Deal, 2009; Bennett, Szoc, Mohr, & Saks,
2008; Fitch, Pistole, & Gunn, 2010; Gunn & Pistole, 2012; Hill, 2009; Watkins & Riggs, 2012).
Indeed, more recently it has been posited that attachment provides an empirically informed
theory for understanding the supervisory relationship across a range of modalities (Wrape,
Callahan, Rieck, & Watkins, 2017). In the context of the RMSAPP, there are a number of linked
components of attachment theory that are drawn upon: the secure base, the care-giving
system, and dispositional representations.
Theory–practice application begins with Bowlby’s fundamental assumption that, across
the lifespan, we establish preferential bonds of attachment and that these are expressed
behaviourally, including:

• an accessible and thoughtful other, enabling exploration, thus furthering learning and
development (the secure base);
• in times of distress, seeking comfort and support (the safe haven) (Bowlby, 1988;
Castellano, Velotti, & Zavattini, 2014; Crowell et al., 2003).

Dispositional representations are fundamentally linked to the underlying dimensions of

attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety (Bennett et al., 2008; Hill, 2009; Watkins &
Riggs, 2012). They help make some sense of adults who, when experiencing anxiety, tend
to (i) cling, become entangled in others such that distinguishing whose thoughts and feelings
are whose is difficult, and who often feel helpless or powerless, (ii) swing between over-
whelming desires for closeness and separation, experiencing intense neediness and require
continuous confirmation that they are “getting it right” or (iii) become overly self-reliant,
detaching and avoiding contact with others (Hill, 2009).
Adult caregiving and care-seeking systems are related interpersonal processes and again
can provide a helpful language within which to consider the possible dynamics between
supervisee and supervisor. For example, if a supervisee’s expression of their need for care is
minimal, unclear or inconsistent, the supervisor may not deal with it appropriately or miss
it entirely. On the other hand, the supervisor’s response to supervisee anxiety may appear
either overly harsh or controlling or as if the supervisor is unwilling to develop the closeness
characteristic of a productive supervisory relationship. There may also be instances where
the supervisor becomes hypervigilant, rigidly responding to all supervisee communication
as if it were a request for help, thus appearing to undermine the latter’s reasoned independ-
ent actions. Making use of these concepts helps illuminate the relational dimension of super-
vision, and again to avoid exclusively attributing responsibility for a quality supervisory
relationship to a “good” supervisee or a “bad” supervisor, or vice versa.
Applying these components of attachment theory to supervision promotes theorising
at a more conceptual level about the processes of supervision in the context of adult work-
based relationships. Fitch and colleagues provided a helpful model for visually conceptual-
ising this, offering a way of understanding the interplay between attachment and care-giving
in supervision (Fitch et al., 2010) (see Figure 4).
It must be recognised that there are individual differences in attachment avoidance and
attachment anxiety, as well as in the supervisor’s experience of threat and attachment system
activation, that require further consideration. It is also essential to recognise that no claim
12 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

Figure 4. Attachment-Caregiving Model of Supervision (from Fitch et al., 2010, p. 24).

is made that all adult relationships are attachment relationships, and to be alert to the danger
of over-including every close affiliation (Mallinckrodt, 1995). Not every situation encountered
by supervisees will activate their safety-seeking system, and such activation may be less
likely to occur in contexts where the supervisee has developed their own professional inde-
pendence and autonomy. Indeed, attachment behaviours, such as proximity seeking, can
be directed at individuals who may not yet be or never will be attachment figures. This is
consistent with the work of Bennett et al. (2008), who highlighted that “supervision-specific
attachment may be more influenced by factors unique to that particular supervisory rela-
tionship” (p. 77).
In a related fashion, Watkins and Riggs (2012) argued that attachment dynamics may be
of more value to consider in the context of the supervisory relationship. They posited that
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 13

in supervision Ainsworth’s stages of “pre-attachment” or “attachment in the making” may be

more pertinent (Ainsworth, 1972). There is clearly a rich vein of professional enquiry to be
mined when exploring the RMSAPP.

Strengths, limitations and suggestions for future developments

The RMSAPP provides supervisors and supervisees with a model for applying theory to
practice, illuminating the processes through which relationships for reflection can be estab-
lished and maintained. It places psychology at the core of supervisory practice, explicitly
linking the learning that takes place in the supervisory space “in here” to practice with clients
“out there” and vice versa. It clearly separates line and performance management from super-
vision, whilst recognising the complexity of authority and supervisory judgement in uphold-
ing ethical and professional standards. It highlights the significance of the
self-in-role-in-relationship with others and facilitates the enhanced development of reflex-
ivity through the emphasis on knowing and understanding oneself in professional life.
Recognising the constant systemic interplay between supervisee and supervisor, and
between them and the wider systems within which they operate, both promotes professional
development for the supervisor and supervisee and provides a framework within which
difficult supervisory dynamics can be acknowledged and thought about.
There are, however, significant challenges associated with implementing the model. It
requires, on the part of the supervisor, a meaningful degree of self-awareness and insight
into their own internal process and patterns of interpersonal relating. A capacity to attend
to and appropriately contain the dynamic inherent in reflective relating – both above and
below the surface – is essential to avoid any misplaced confusion with a therapeutic space.
The application of psychodynamic and attachment theory to the supervisory relationship
is not easy and even key terms necessitate careful unpicking. For example, “safe haven” and
the use of the term “safe space” must be very carefully considered – is supervision ever a
truly safe space? Learning implies risk. The vulnerability inherent in exposing one’s failures
and shortcomings, and bearing such vulnerability in ways that promote growth and devel-
opment, is not easy. For supervisees “who often spend much energy trying to be best at
their best strength and maturity” (Yerushalmi, 2014, p. 231), the supervisor’s sensitive attune-
ment to their professional endeavours can be experienced as if it were therapeutic or even
at times parental. Supervisors may unconsciously seek out this therapist or parental identity,
perhaps in part because it leaves little room for supervisee anger, criticism or challenge.
Continuing professional development in the area of supervision – training, reading, super-
vision and so on – is essential for supervisors who wish to apply the RMSAPP to their
practice.
The most significant limitation of the model is the current lack of evidence regarding
implementation, especially the impact of the model on the quality of the relationship as
experienced by the supervisee and supervisor. Further research is required to determine the
effectiveness of the RMSAPP and the authors are exploring the feasibility of investigating
effectiveness through a variety of mechanisms, for example analysing quantitative data
collected through an adapted version of the Leeds Alliance in Supervision Scale (LASS)
(Wainwright, 2010) and the Short Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (S-SRQ) (Cliffe et
al., 2014). It is hoped that these data will inform more qualitative explorations with super-
visees and between supervisors, especially experienced supervisors across disciplines.
14 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

Other future research directions include those pertaining to supervision-specific attach-

ment processes in beginning and ending the supervisory relationship, and whether there
are differences dependent on the various applied contexts within which practitioners work:
training institutions, local services, schools, multi-disciplinary mental health services and so
on. Another line of enquiry is whether and how the supervisor’s own attachment and car-
egiving style influences supervision. Empirical exploration of the proposition that the quality
of the supervisory relationship enhances reflective functioning, and examining any related
impact on outcomes for children, young people, families, schools and wider systems, would
also be welcome. There are additional potential implications and areas for research in super-
vision training. For example, how can supervisors and supervisees who make use of avoid-
ance strategies when faced with threat or conflict be better supported in training and work
contexts? The breadth and depth of such enquiry indicates the potential for the RMSAPP
within applied psychology.

Conclusion
As work in human services becomes increasingly complex and ill-defined, and practitioners
are faced with significant vulnerabilities in the clients with whom they work and in those
who support them, the place of supervision in ensuring effective practice has never been
more important. There is no doubt that practitioners require supervision, regardless of devel-
opmental stage or career point. It is unhelpful to espouse with trainees, and with one another,
the importance of connecting theory with practice, or the centrality of the supervisory rela-
tionship and its associated processes in professional growth, and then operate in ways that
negate this.
When EPs do not explicitly link work undertaken to robust psychological theory, paying
limited attention to the centrality of human relating in professional helpfulness, when super-
vision is allowed to be “the first thing to go” in the context of increased pressure on time and
budgets, when EPs do not advocate for the importance of supervision training and ongoing
development, and when the profession does not commit to investigating whether the
intended outcomes are actually achieved, EPs fail to live up to the application of psychology
as “the difference that makes a difference”. The relational model of supervision, and further
research on applying the model to practice, is one way of committing to the ideal of the
scientist-practitioner model and building sound bridges between science and practice in
applied psychology.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution and comments from colleagues, and from the
trainees and other practitioners that they have worked with, in particular Dr. Vikki Lee, Caoimhe McBay
and Batul Al-Khatib.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 15

References
Ainsworth, M. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In J. L. Gewirtz (Ed.), Attachment
and Dependency (pp. 97–137). Washington, DC: Winston.
Atkinson, C., & Woods, K. (2007). A model of effective fieldwork supervision for trainee educational
psychologists. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(4), 299–316.
Ayres, J., Clarke, A., & Large, J. (2015). Identifying principles and practice for supervision in an Educational
Psychology Service. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 22–29.
Bambling, M., King, R., Raue, P., Schweitzer, R., & Lambert, W. (2006). Clinical supervision: Its influence
on client-rated working alliance and client symptom reduction in the brief treatment of major
depression. Psychotherapy Research, 16(3), 317–331.
Bartle, D. (2015). Deception and delusion: The relational aspect of supervision explored through Greek
mythology. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 41–50.
Bartle, D., & Trevis, A. (2015). An evaluation of group supervision in a specialist provision supporting
young people with mental health needs: A social constructionist perspective. Educational & Child
Psychology, 32(3), 78–89.
Beinart, H. (2012). Models of supervision and the supervisory relationship. In I. Fleming & L. Steen
(Eds.), Supervision and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives (pp. 36–50). Hove: Brunner
Routledge.
Bennett, S., & Deal, K. (2009). Beginnings and endings in social work supervision: The interaction
between attachment and developmental processes. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(1), 101–
117.
Bennett, S., Szoc, K., Mohr, J., & Saks, L. (2008). General and supervision-specific attachment styles:
Relations to student perceptions of field supervisors. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 75–94.
Bion, W. R. (1963). Elements of psychoanalysis. London: Heinemann.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York:
Basic Books.
British Psychological Society (BPS). (2017). Practice guidelines (3rd ed.). Leicester: BPS.
British Psychological Society (DECP). (2010). Professional supervision: Guidelines for practice for
educational psychologists. Leicester: BPS.
Burnham, J. (2012). Developments in Social GRRRAAACCEEESSS: Visible-invisible and voiced-unvoiced.
In I. B. Krause (Ed.), Culture and reflexivity in systemic psychotherapy: Mutual perspectives (pp. 139–160).
London: Karnac.
Carrington, G. (2004). Supervision as a reciprocal learning process. Educational Psychology in Practice,
20(1), 31–42.
Carroll, M. (2014). Effective supervision for the helping professions (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Castellano, R., Velotti, P., & Zavattini, G. C. (2014). What makes us stay together? London: Karnac.
Cliffe, T., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. (2014). Development and validation of a short version of the
Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 23(1), 77–156.
Corlett, L. (2015). Future models of supervision: Supporting practice and promoting professional growth
and well-being in educational psychology through Collaborative Peer Support (CPS). Educational
& Child Psychology, 32(3), 90–104.
Couture, S., & Tomm, K. (2014). Teaching and learning relational practice. In K. Tomm, S. St George, D.
Wulff, & T. Strong (Ed), Patterns in interpersonal interaction (pp. 57–81). London: Routledge.
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., Pan, E., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., & Waters, E. (2003). Assessing secure base behaviour
in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 679–693.
Dowling, E. (1994). Theoretical framework: A joint systems approach to educational problems with
children. In E. Dowling & E. Osbourne (Eds.), The family and the school: A joint systems approach (pp.
1–29). London: Karnac.
Dubbin, S. (1972). Obsolescence or lifelong learning: A choice for the professional. American Psychologist,
27(5), 486–498.
Dunsmuir, S., Lang, J., & Leadbetter, J. (2015). Current trends in educational psychology supervision in
the UK. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 8–21.
16 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

Dunsmuir, S., & Leadbetter, J. (2010). Professional supervision: Guidelines for practice for educational
psychologists. Leicester: BPS.
Ellis, M., & Ladany, N. (1997). Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in clinical supervision: An
integrative view. In C. E. Watkins (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 447–507). New
York: Wiley.
Falender, C., Shafranske, E., & Ofek, A. (2014). Competent clinical supervision: Emerging effective
practices. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27(4), 393–408.
Fitch, J., Pistole, M., & Gunn, J. (2010). The bonds of development: An attachment-caregiving model of
supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 29(1), 20–34.
Freud, S. (1910). The future prospects of psychoanalytic therapy. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Standard Edition 11 (pp. 139–151). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud. Standard Edition 12 (pp. 99–108). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1914). Remembering, repeating and working-through: Further recommendations on the
technique of psycho-analysis II. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud. Standard Edition 12 (pp. 145–156). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1915). Observations on transference-love: Further recommendations on the technique of
Psycho-Analysis III. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Standard
Edition 12 (pp. 159–171). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete psychological works
of Sigmund Freud. Standard Edition 18 (pp. 7–64). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1958). Types of onset of neurosis. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud. Standard Edition 12 (pp. 227–238). London: Hogarth.
Gibbs, S., Atkinson, C., Woods, K., Bond, C., Hill, V., Howe, J., & Morris, S. (2016). Supervision for school
psychologists in training: Developing a framework from empirical findings. School Psychology
International, 37(4), 410–431.
Gunn, J., & Pistole, M. (2012). Trainee supervisor attachment: Explaining the alliance and disclosure in
supervision. Training & Education in Professional Psychology, 6(4), 229–237.
Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review,
21(4), 285–296.
Harrell, S. (2014). Compassionate confrontation and empathic exploration: The integration of race-related
narratives in clinical supervision. In C. Falender, E. Shafranske, & C. Falicov (Eds.), Multiculturalism and
diversity in clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (pp. 83–110). Washington, DC: APA.
Harvey, V. S., & Pearrow, M. (2010). Identifying challenges in supervising school psychologists. Psychology
in the Schools, 47(6), 567–581.
Health & Care Professions Council. (2015). Standards of proficiency for applied psychologists. London:
HCPC.
Hepper, E. G., & Carnelley, K. (2010). Adult attachment and feedback-seeking patterns in relationship
and work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 448–464.
Hill, E. W. (2009). Confronting anxiety in couple and family therapy supervision: A developmental
supervisory model based on attachment theory. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 30(1), 1–14.
Hill, V., Bond, C., Atkinson, C., Woods, K., Gibbs, S., Howe, J., & Morris, S. (2015). Developing as a
practitioner: How supervision supports the learning and development of trainee educational
psychologists in three-year doctoral training. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 119–131.
Hulusi, H., & Maggs, P. (2015). Containing the containers: Work discussion group supervision for teachers
– a psychodynamic approach. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 30–40.
Inman, A. G., & Ladany, N. (2008). Research: The state of the field. In A. K. Hess, K. D. Hess, & T. H. Hess
(Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 500–517). New York: Wiley.
Institute of Medicine. (2010). Redesigning continuing education in the health professions. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
Kavanagh, D. J., Spence, S. H., Strong, J., Wilson, J., Sturk, H., & Crow, N. (2003). Supervision practices in
allied mental health. Mental Health Services Research, 5(4), 187–195.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 17

Leadbetter, J., Dunsmuir, S., & Gibbs, S. (2015). Guest editorial: Supervision. Educational & Child
Psychology, 32(2), 6–7.
Lichtenberg, J. W. (1997). Expertise in counseling psychology: A concept in search of support.
Educational Psychology Review, 9(3), 221–238.
Mallinckrodt, B. (1995). Attachment theory and counselling psychology: Ready to be a prime time
player? The Counselling Psychologist, 23(3), 501–505.
McNeill, B., & Stoltenberg, C. (2016). Supervision essentials for the integrative developmental model.
Washington, DC: APA.
Mills, F., & Swift, S. (2015). What can be gained through peer supervision? Educational & Child Psychology,
32(3), 105–118.
Neimeyer, G., Taylor, J. M., Rozensky, R. H., & Cox, D. R. (2014). The diminishing durability of knowledge
in professional psychology: A second look at specialization. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 45(2), 92–98.
Nolan, A. (1999). Supervision for educational psychologists: How are we doing? Educational Psychology
in Practice, 15(2), 98–107.
Palomo, M., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory
Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 49(2), 131–149.
Rawlings, E., & Cowell, N. (2015). Educational psychologists’ experiences of taking part in group
supervision: A phenomenological study. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(3), 51–64.
Silva, A. E., Newman, D. S., Guiney, M. C., Valley-Gray, S., & Barrett, C. A. (2016). Supervision and mentoring
for early career school psychologists: Availability, access, structure, and implications. Psychology in
the Schools, 53(5), 502–516.
Simon, D., Cruise, T., Huber, B., Swerdlik, M., & Newman, D. (2014). Supervision in school psychology:
The developmental/ecological/problem-solving model. Psychology in the Schools, 51(6), 636–646.
Skovholt, T. M., & Trotter-Mathison, M. (2016). The Resilient Practitioner: Burnout and compassion fatigue
prevention and self-care strategies for the helping professions (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Soni, A. (2015). A case study on the use of group supervision with learning mentors. Educational &
Child Psychology, 32(3), 65–77.
Tangen, J. L., & Borders, L. D. (2016). The supervisory relationship: A conceptual and psychometric
review of measures. Counselor Education & Supervision, 55(3), 159–181.
Tomlin, A. M., Weatherston, D., & Pavkov, T. (2014). Critical components of reflective supervision:
Responses from expert supervisors in the field. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(1), 70–80.
Tomm, T., St George, S., Wulff, D., & Strong, T. (Eds). 2014. Patterns in interpersonal interaction. London:
Routledge.
Vaillant, G. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 89–98.
Vaillant, G. (2012). Triumphs of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wainwright, N. A. (2010). The development of the Leeds Alliance in Supervision Scale (LASS): A brief sessional
measure of the supervisory alliance (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Leeds: University of Leeds.
Watkins, C. E. (2011). Does psychotherapy supervision contribute to patient outcomes? Considering
thirty years of research. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(2), 235–256.
Watkins, C. E., & Riggs, S. A. (2012). Psychotherapy supervision and attachment theory: Review,
reflections and recommendations. The Clinical Supervisor, 31(2), 256–289.
Weaks, D. (2002). Unlocking the secrets of good supervision: A phenomenological exploration of
experienced counsellors’ perceptions of good supervision. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research,
2(1), 33–39.
Weiss, S. (2002a). How teachers’ autobiographies influence their responses to children’s behaviours:
Part 1. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 7(1), 9–18.
Weiss, S. (2002b). How teachers’ autobiographies influence their responses to children’s behaviours:
Part 2. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 7(2), 109–127.
Woods, K., Atkinson, C., Bond, C., Gibbs, S., Hill, V., Howe, J., & Morris, S. (2015). Practice placement
experiences and needs of trainee educational psychologists in England. International Journal of
School & Educational Psychology, 3(2), 85–96.
18 E.-K. KENNEDY ET AL.

Worthern, V., & McNeil, B. W. (1996). A phenomenological investigation of “good” supervision events.
Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43(1), 25–34.
Wrape, E. R., Callahan, J. L., Rieck, T., & Watkins, C. E. (2017). Attachment theory within clinical supervision:
Application of the conceptual to the empirical. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 31(1), 37–54.
Yerushalmi, H. (2014). On regression and supervision. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 23(4),
229–237.