ABSTRACT
There has been a developing expectation across professions in health, education and social services in the UK that ongoing supervision throughout a professional career be mandated. Explanations for the proliferation of supervision in these settings have looked to factors such as the introduction of clinical governance. This is a mechanism ‘by which organisations ensure the provision of quality clinical care by making individuals accountable for setting, maintaining and monitoring performance standards’ (Department of Public Health, 1998). Davy (2002) argued that the drivers for the proliferation of supervision have been the prevailing political and social conditions, and that it merits much more critical attention through research. Some authors are sceptical about the evidence base supporting the value of the enterprise:
In my view there is curiously little evidence, but much emotional rhetoric, supporting the value or clarifying the purposes of supervision. Even Roth and Fonagy (1996) resort to purely rhetorical support for supervision in their otherwise evidence-obsessed study. Supervision, I submit, is highly problematic terrain. And any consideration of the problems of supervision implicitly reminds us of the problems simmering throughout the entire counselling and psychotherapy enterprise.
