ABSTRACT
In thinking about supervision, my particular interest is in the part that images play in the process of re¯ecting on the clinical work presented. In order to explore this I am going to approach it from the two points of view of what I experience when I am a supervisee in supervision, and what I experience when I give supervision as a supervisor. Good supervision can leave me feeling excited, my mind buzzing with ideas and a sense of satisfaction at having got to the bottom of something; ®red with enthusiasm to go back to the client, feeling renewed in some way. The next session with the client has usually got a different quality re¯ecting a shift in understanding when one has been stuck and a freeing up of thought that is nonverbally communicated to the client. Supervision that is not successful can leave one with feelings of restriction, misunderstood and rather despairing about one's lack of ability to practise. I think that this can happen with a didactic approach where there is one perceived way of working that is being taught, rather than an exploration of the dynamics of the situation, together with a consideration of possible approaches. Pedder (1986) discusses the jug, potter and gardener models of supervision: the jug is where information is poured into a passive recipient; the potter is where the supervisee is fashioned after one's own image; and the gardener provides, prunes and trusts in the innate processes of growth and development. It may not be possible to get everything that is needed from a particular supervisor, which may lead to a sense of emptiness rather than having been fed in some way. Possibly one has to be realistic about what chemistry one relationship produces. The whole process of supervision needs to be able to breathe. We need a containing space to play in, which has many similarities to the therapeutic space.
