Clinical Supervision and its Strengths and Weaknesses

Annie Pettifer and colleague Lynn Clouder explain in the peer-reviewed journal Learning in Health and Social Care that clinical supervision is commonly used in professional contexts as a way to "guide reflection with the purpose of advancing practice" (Pettifer, 2008, 169). Clinical supervision "…enables critical practice and development of personal knowledge, professional expertise and competence" (Pettifer, 169).

Pettifer mentions that there is no hard and fast rule as to how the clinical supervision model should be presented. There are many interpretations, the author explains, and there is "conceptual ambiguity" as well; but the ambiguity can be explained because there can be no single model that meets all the professional needs of principals. But that said, there is a basic definition of clinical supervision that is presented by the authors:

"…[clinical supervision] is a formal process of support and learning which enables individual practitioners to develop knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice…it is central to the process of learning and to the expansion of the scope of practice and should be seen as a means of encouraging self-assessment and analytic and reflective skills" (Pettifer, 169).

How does it actually work? The Reclaiming Journal explains that the "Circle of Courage" is a tool in a clinical supervision session that evaluates a series of lies that students sometimes come up with. Instead of degrading the child, the "circle" helps to view a different reason for the lies. Perhaps the student lacks a sense of "belonging" and hence lacks trust of adults; a student might feel inadequate and tells lies to "gain friends"; also a lying student may be covering for other peers; or he may be lying for "personal gain" (Pfeifer, 2011).

In a clinical supervisor session, the supervisor is encouraged to use "Socratic questions" because those kinds of questions help the staff "…think and be quick on their feet," which helps their level of confidence and competence, Pfeifer explains on page 33. The answers to the questions...

The weakness in this approach is that unless the supervisor / principal is well qualified to lead a session -- or if staff are unable to openly engage with the process -- it can come down to a "bitch session" where little if anything is accomplished.
Conclusion

In conclusion, each model offers something of value to the supervisory process, if carried out professionally according to models that have proven value. The peer coaching model, in this writer's opinion, contributes more in terms of learning on the job for principals. To have a pair of principals of high schools teaming up as coaches for each other is a powerful and potentially very valuable strategy for supervision. On the other hand, clinical supervision also has huge potential to improve relationships between supervisors and staff, but because there so many models of clinical supervision, and the empirical studies that are available vary widely, it's difficult to judge their actual value.

Works Cited

Gibble, J.L., and Lawrence, J.D. (1987). Peer Coaching for Principals. Educational Leadership.

Huston, T., and Weaver, C.L. (2008). Peer Coaching: Professional Development for Experienced Faculty. Innovations in Higher Education, Vol. 33, 5-20.

Pettifer, A., and Clouder, L. (2008). Clinical supervision: a means of promoting reciprocity between practitioners and academics. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(3), 168-177.

Pfeifer, D. (2011). Transforming Staff through Clinical Supervision. Reclaiming Journal,

20(2), 29-33.