IJSP Number 8, 2026

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 8, 2026 Page | 47 raises conceptual and ethical risks, especially in the absence of clear boundaries between therapeutic intervention and educational processes. The supervision literature warns of the risk of role confusion and the medicalization of formative processes when such boundaries are not explicitly formulated [7]. Based on these considerations, we argue for the need to reconceptualize supervision as a reflective educational space informed by the principles of integrative psychotherapy, while remaining distinct from clinical intervention. Such a reconceptualization allows the relational and self-regulatory dimensions of supervision to be leveraged without turning the supervisor into a therapeutic agent and without shifting professional training objectives into a clinical register. Accordingly, the paper addresses three interrelated questions: (1) How can supervision be conceptualized as an educational and developmental space beyond its traditional functions of evaluation and practice guidance? (2) What is the role of self-regulation in the process of professional identity formation within supervision? (3) How can the principles of integrative psychotherapy inform supervision practices in educational and psychosocial fields without transferring clinical intervention models? To answer these questions, we adopt a theoretical-conceptual approach that integrates contributions from supervision, reflective practice, self-regulation, and integrative psychotherapy. We introduce the concept of reflective holding to describe a specific educational function of supervision aimed at supporting emotional containment, guided reflection, and cognitive-identity integration in professional training processes. 2. INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPYAS A FORMATIVE PARADIGM 2.1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY Integrative psychotherapy emerged as a response to the theoretical fragmentation of the psychotherapeutic field and to the limitations of one-dimensional models of explaining human experience. Epistemologically, integration is not equivalent to technical eclecticism; rather, it represents a coherent effort to articulate multiple theoretical perspectives within a unified relational framework centered on process, meaning, and experiential coherence [14]. A defining element of the integrative paradigm is its relational orientation. From this standpoint, development and change are conceived as emergent processes within meaningful relationships, where contact, presence, and recognition of subjective experience play a central role [15]. The relationship is not viewed as a mere context for intervention, but as an active space for organizing and integrating experience, facilitating self-regulation and continuity of self. Experiential coherence constitutes another epistemological pillar of integrative psychotherapy. Integration is understood as the process through which fragmented, ambiguous, or insufficiently symbolized experiences are brought into a safe relational framework that allows them to be reflected upon and reorganized into a more coherent internal structure [16]. From this perspective, integration is not a discrete outcome but an ongoing process of meaning articulation with direct implications for identity development.