IJSP Number 7, 2025

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 7, 2025 Page | 8 psychodynamic therapists to learn psychodynamic therapy), with the supervision process being uniquely stamped by the particular psychotherapy approach being learned. Developmental supervision perspectives emphasize (a) the developmental stages and developmental issues that evolving therapists experience and (b) the supervisor’s matching developmental responsiveness. Social role/process perspectives emphasize (a) supervisees’ evolving learning needs and (b) those supervisor roles that best address those evolving learning needs. Second-generation supervision models, while still grouped under the psychotherapy-focused, developmental, and social role/process umbrellas, have emerged increasingly across the past couple of decades, including combined models (i.e., model integration), target issue models (e.g., having a multicultural focus), and common factors/trans-theoretical models (i.e., identifying those core features that are common across perspectives) [5]. But common factors/trans-theoretical supervision models, until very recently, have been far more rarity than reality. And that rarity is indeed a most puzzling reality. Why has that been the case? Why have common factors/trans-theoretical supervision models been so slow to develop? Shortly over a decade ago, Bernard and Goodyear [8] --- identifying only four such models --- stated that, “Although there is frequent reference to similarities among supervision approaches, there is little published literature on the topic” (p. 60–61). What makes that “little published literature” on such a seemingly important topic even more puzzling would be these two accompanying Bernard/Goodyear quotes: (a) it may well be that, in becoming a supervisor, “to develop an integrationist perspective probably is inevitable” [9, p. 108)]; and (b) “Common factors models are especially important because they attempt to address the infrastructure of supervision” [5, p. 69)]. With any such identified infrastructure by definition being trans-theoretical and, thereby, having trans- theoretical supervisory salience and implications, it would again seem highly important to better understand those ever-present, practice-affecting commonalities so potentially important for us all. Furthermore, if “to develop an integrationist perspective probably is inevitable” [9, p. 108)], then developing a more defined portrait of supervision’s integrationist commonalities would seem most instructive in our being able to most informatively meet that inevitability. There has been sore need for more attention to be directed toward common factors/trans-theoretical supervision perspectives. Based on supervision scholarship across this past decade, some of that sorely needed attention has indeed been accordingly forthcoming: articulated common factors/trans-theoretical models have emerged [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] and increasingly appear to have become, or are in the process of fast becoming, part of the supervision mainstream [5]. Matching those conceptual/practical contributions, empirical efforts have also been increasingly made to identify critical commonalities across supervision characteristics and practices [17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. With those realities recognized, our fundamental contention is this: all psychotherapy supervision approaches are grounded in and guided by a nomothetic, nomological network of binding commonalities --- an ‘integrationist infrastructure’ (after [5, 9]) --- that enlivens and invigorates, directs and determines, and actuates and actualizes supervisory action [11, 14, 15, 22]. Through better understanding the specifics of that structural commonalities network, we as supervisors ideally are best positioned to be most informed about the foundations of, and bring more informed action to, our supervisory conceptualization and conduct, potentially benefiting the totality of our practice [5].