IJSP Number 2, 2020

19 3. PART II: PROVIDING A THEORETICAL ANCHOR FOR OUR COMMONALITIES FRAMEWORK But here is the problem that plagues: Commonalities alone are not enough. If the contribution of commonalities to supervision practice is to be most appreciated, those very commonalities need some sort of theoretical anchor. The lack of such an anchor has been a reasonable criticism lodged against a common factors view of psychotherapy [79],[80],[81], the key question being: “Isn’t all this nothing more than a theoretical amalgamation — unending, unmoored lists of seemingly desirable characteristics that are endlessly strung together?”. That same question could also be posed about a common factors vision of supervision. But I believe that substantive, countervailing answer can be provided in response: Supervisory a theoretical amalgamation can be turned away by amalgamated, theory-driven meaning making. Across these last several years, I have primarily considered four anchoring models of supervision and their potential for capturing the common, broad-band essentials of supervisory action, those models being: a learning-based model [3], the supervision pyramid [4], the generic model [5], and the contextual supervision relationship model [2],[6],[7],[40],[82]. 3.1. FOUR MODELS: ONE VOICE? The essentials of those four models might best be summarized as follows. First, the learning-based model [3], analogized from Scaturo’s [83] tripartite psychotherapy formulations:(a) posits three broad-band supervision structures — relationship, interventions, and supervisee learning/re-learning — within which the more specific supervision commonalities (e.g., empathy) are situated; and (b) draws on educational/learning understandings [84], [85] to inform supervisory conceptualization and conduct. The model’s broad-band structures and more specific commonalities are indicated in Table 11. Second, the supervision pyramid [4], analogized from Fife et al.’s therapeutic pyramid [86], is yet another broad- band, commonalities-based structure; it is composed of five levels, three being about the supervision relationship and two being about desired outcomes. Fig. 1 provides a view of the pyramid. Third, the generic supervision model [5], analogized from Orlinsky and Howard’s [87] generic psychotherapy model, gives greater voice to the complexity of, and connectedness within, the supervisory situation. Fig. 2 provides a view of that model, reflecting the reverberation of system, relational, and developmental process considerations from top to bottom. Fourth, the contextual supervision relationship model [2], [6], [7], [40], [82], analogized from Wampold’s contextual psychotherapy relationship model [79], [80], [81], provides yet another way of theoretically grounding a commonalities- based perspective. Fig. 3 displays that model, emphasizing the importance of the alliance, real relationship, expectations, interventions, and actions in making supervisee and client change increasingly likely.