The Supervisory Alliance: A Half Century of Theory, Practice, and Research in Critical Perspective

Abstract

Over the course of psychotherapy supervision history, the supervisor-supervisee alliance has increasingly emerged as a variable of preeminent importance in the conceptualization and conduct of the supervision experience: It has come to be embraced as the very heart and soul of supervision. But after a half century, what evidence do we actually have to justify that highly favorable outlook afforded to the alliance? What do we really know about the supervisory alliance? What do we need to know about it? As we mark the first 50 years of supervisory alliance and look toward its future, I thought it might be useful to examine those questions and provide a current status report about the construct itself In what follows, I (a) describe the two supervisory alliance visions that have been (and remain) dominant in the supervision literature and (b) provide a review of 20 plus years of supervision alliance research. While the supervisory alliance has accumulated solid clinical support, its empirical support appears to be more tentative and less robust. I consider why that is so, identify some missing elements in the alliance research conducted thus far and propose possible remedies to move inquiry in this area forward.

Building and Sustaining the Supervisory Relationship

“…These specifically concern the employment of rigorous methods such as those suggested by Ellis and Ladany (1997) and Milne (2009), and avoidance of the use of translational models and measures from psycho therapy, based on the assumption that clinical supervision is primarily an educational activity (Holloway & Poulin, 1995;Milne & James, 2000), albeit often with the purpose of improving therapeutic outcomes. Additionally, it begins to address the recent recommendation for programmatic research into the SR including "inves tigation of the alliance in process, including attention to the alliance rupture and repair process" (Watkins, 2014).…”

“…106)." Additionally, Watkins (2014) emphasized that "the supervisorsupervisee alliance has increasingly emerged as a variable of preeminent importance in the conceptualisation and conduct of supervision . .…”

“…The SR has also been found to be central in supervision across cultures (Son, Ellis, & Yoo, 2007;Tsui, 2004). However, what we actually know about the SR is limited (Watkins, 2014). Research into the SR is complex and in its infancy.…”

The Ruptured Supervisory Alliance and Its Repair: On Supervisor Apology as a Reparative Intervention

“…Considering that the vast majority of supervision alliance studies have actually appeared since that Inman and Ladany review (see Watkins, 2014a), their words have accumulated much more gravitas in a rather short period of time.…”

“…As Watkins (2014a) has indicated, "of the various elements that compose the supervision relationship, none seems to exert more power and influence on supervisor and supervisee than their jointly-forged supervisory alliance" (p. 20; italics in original). The alliance's preeminent value for supervision has strong clinical support (i.e., being internationally affirmed and practically embraced across supervisors, supervisees, and settings; Gonsalvez & Calvert, 2014); it also has a growing base of research support (e.g., Inman & Ladany, 2008;Watkins, 2014a). Thus, the alliance is recognized increasingly as being a crucial mediator, if not the crucial mediator, in the making or breaking of the entirety of the supervision experience itself (cf.…”