"Supervision" as a Gollaborative Learning Community
HarleneAnderson
At the heart of my philosophy and practice of "super-
vision"* as a collaborative learning community are three
Cs- connect, collaborate and construct: Superviseesand
supervisorsdeveloping relationships that invite jointly
creating knowledge (Anderson, 1998; Anders on, 1997;
Anderson & Goolishian, 1990; Anderson & Swim, 1997).
By knowledge I mean that which is new and unique to
each participant. This view is based in the premise that
knowledge is not imparted by another or a knower who
bestows on a not-knower. Rather, knowledge is fluid and
communal, yet personalized. When we share our knowl-
edge with one another, we cannot know what each brings
to the sharing; determine how each will interact with the
shared knowledge; nor predict what each will create with
it. Whatever the outcome, it will be something different
than either started with, something socially constructed.
I place my philosophy and practice under a
postrnodern umbrella (Anderson, 1997). Briefly, by
postrnodem I refer to an ideological critique ofthe
tradition of meta-narratives that represent universal
overarching truths and the inherent risks in this certainty
tradition. Postnodemism includes itself in this critique
and owns the same risks. A notion of postrnodemism is
language and knowledge as relational and generative.
Central to this notion is dialogue as a dynamic creative
conversationwith room for all voices, with each person
unconditionally present and with a fi.rll senseof belonging.
Dialogue also entails two-way exchangesand crisscross-
ing of ideas, thoughts, opinions, and feelings. What is put
forth in dialogue is interacted with and inteqpreted by the
other. New meanings, understandings, and knowledge are
inherent in dynamic dialogue.
Conceptualizing language and knowledge as generative
invite collaborative learning communities that maximize
new and individually tailored learning. I will briefly
describe and higirlight selectedaspectsofone collabora-
tive learning community- a seminar for supervisors. (See
Petersand Armstrong, 1998 for an excellent discussion
of collaborative learning communities.)
Connecting,Collaborating and Constructingin a
SupervisorsSeminar
Participants
Diversity among participants enhancesthe quality and
quantily oflearning that is produced.Each personbrings
differences in terms of age and life stage,personal and
professionalexperience,degree and discipline, theoretical
orientation, work and educational setting, learning style
and agenda, or any of the diversity "isms." Varieties of
voices provide a richness ofperspectives and realities. A
seminarmight include experiencedand rookie supervisors
supervising in various clinical and educational settings
with sundry degrees, each coming for distinct reasons.
Often half the participants have completed the "required
seminar" and continue in the next seminar because thev
value the experience.
Relationships and Conversations are Ins eparable
and Inflaence Each Other
Toinviteandmaximizecollaborative
learninsI must
act and talk consistent with my
philosophy. I must live it, being
genuinely and natr:rally collabora-
tive. This includes respecting,
inviting and valuing each voice,
being flexible and responsive,and
creatively doing what the occasion
calls for on the spot. Foremost, this
includes trusting the other and our process.
I want to createand facilitate learning relationships
and processeswhere participants can identifu, access,
elaborate,and produce their own rurique competencies,
cultivating their seedsof newnessin their personal and
professional lives outside our organized context. I want to
talk and act to invite and encourageparticipants to take
responsibility for and to be the architects oftheir learning.
I also want each participant to experience our task and
relationship differently from the familiar hierarchical and
dualistic teacher-studentrelationships and learning
processesthey may have experienced.
Being collaborative does not mean that I deny or
ignore my wealth of ideas and experiences,but that I too
must be a leamer, believing that I can learn as much as
the participants. Importantly, collaborative teaching and
learning challenge participants and me to reconstruct how
we think about teaching and learning.
Nor as critics and skepticsof postmodernismoften
believedoesthe perspectivediscountprevious knowledge
and experience.Participantsfind that this is not the case.
The differenceis the intention with which that knowledee
SuPERVtstoN BULLETIN . 7
and experienceis used
Towardstheseendscollaborativeleaming beginswith
the first conversationI have with eachparticipant
whether in personor by telephone.I show a keen interest
in leaming about the personand preview my expectations
and agendafor the seminar,being forthright about my
prejudicefor learningand knowledge from a postmodem
perspectiveare also important.
Inviting Collsboration by Doing
Collaborativerelationshipsand processesspontane-
ously emergeout of the experienceitself, leaming by
doing rather than through lecturing about or instructing
participantson how to be collaborative.At the first
seminar I say that I have many ideas and experiencesto
sharebut that I need their help in selectingwhat to share.
I do not want to unilaterally select. To leam about them
and allow them to leam about each other, I invite partici-
pantsto form small conversationalclusters.I might pose
beginning questions such as: What are your expectations
of supervision and of me? What is your learning agenda?
How do you leam? What do you think is important for us
(I tend to use collective language)to know about you and
your everydaycontextsthat would help us best meet
your leaming needs?I do not expect answers;the
questionsserveas starters.Clustersmight respondto all
questions,addressonly one, or talk about something
different. I ask each to record the generated-ihdterialon a
largetablet a small pragmaticaction that enhances
engagementand conveysmy seriousinterestin their
voices.
The clustersreconveneand sharethe highlights of
their conversations.I post their tablet sheetson the wall.
We might ask questionsto make sure that we understand
their thoughtsor participantsmight clarifu with each
other.Through this process,and at each meeting thereat
ter, participantsadd to our agendaand prioritize agenda
items and ways to addressthem.
Selecting and Addressing Content
Collaborativeleaming occurswithin a broad context
of expectations,including credentialingand licensing
bodies,professionalassociations,work settingsand the
discourseof top-down knowledge. I keep in mind that
multiple investorshold distinct assumptionsaboutthe
leamingpurposeand how learningwill be accomplished.
I alsorealizethat my role bestowspower and authorify
on me as a teacherand supervisor,placingme in hierar-
chicalposition.I hold the personalfreedom,however,to
8 . FALL 2OOO
choosehow to exercisethat power and authority. What I
am most interestedin is how can I position myself within
theseconfexts and assumptionsto best offer what I have
to offer, and for the leamer to summoncontrol over his
or her own leaming.
I give participantsseminarsyllabi that include a
variety oftopics requiredby externalinstitutionsand
thosedeemedimportant by me. Participantshave a voice
regardingagendaand forum. One may volunteer,or I
might invite someoneto sharea supervisionexperience
relatedto a content areaand to choosethe way to
addressthe experienceand content.For instance,she
may seeka consultation,or requestanotherparticipant
interview her, followed by a generaldiscussion,a reflect-
ing processin which the participantslisten "as if' they
were a part ofthe cast ofcharacters in the supervisory
dilemma (Anderson, 1997;Anderson& Rambo, 1987).
Participantsmay bring their superviseesto a session.The
supervisorand superviseedirect us in how we might be
helpful to them- whetherperforming their supervisionas
usual with us as reflectors,or being interviewedby
anotherparticipant.They might simply want a fresh
perspectiveor they might have a specific question.If
there is no preferencewe might offer suggestionsand
they tailor a choice to suit their needs.
A primary vehicle for contentis dialogue,sometirhes
occurring in relation to a reading,videotape,experiential
exercise,consultation,or sharedinformation by facilitator
or participants.Contentis seldom entirely coveredin a
discretetime frame or as a discreteentif. Instead,a
variety ofcontent weavesthroughouteach sessionand
throughout the seminarin various ways. The content
agendais always so full that participantsdo working
lunches,clustering aroundcontenttopics. As one
participantput it, "Agendabuildingis a greattool... ro
statewhat is important,puzzling,exciting... so that
everyone'sneedsare stated,even though there may be
too many items to address!"
ReJlecting Promotes Self- and Other Dialogue
An importantpart of learningis reflectingwith oneself
and others,putting silent thoughtsinto spokenor written
words. I incorporatereflectionsin a variefy of ways.
Throughout each sessionI openly reflect on our process
and relateit to my postmodembiasand their leaming.I
havedesignedvariousexperientialandconsultation
exerciseswith reflectingcomponents.
I give participantsa reflectionsheetat the end ofeach
session,askingthem to sharetheir after thoughtsat the
next session.Reflectionsmight focus on their experience
of the last session,how they used their leaming, new
thoughtsor questions,new agendaitems, or recommen-
dationsfor my role as facilitator. Participantssay the
reflection sheetsare a valuablelearningtool. Writing the
reflectionsprovides a way to keep the seminarprocess
alive and a forum for self-dialogue.The reflection
processfurthers several interrelatedpurposes.It consis-
tently builds in continuousself, other, seminar,and
teacherevaluation.It encourageslearnersto be active and
purposefulin their learningand in determiningits direc-
tion. It encouragesreflection as part ofeveryday practice
among supervisorand supervisee,and among therapist
and client.
I silently read their reflectionsat the beginning ofeach
sessionand incorporate what I learn. Importantly, the
reflection processhelps me continually learn the partici-
pants' changingneeds.Their reflections provide an
opportunity for me to improve my teaching/facilitating
and adjustmy style to bestservetheir individual and
combined needs- to accommodate to what each group,
occasion,circumstance,and relationship calls for at any
one time.
Mat We Have Learned About Colluborative
Learning
Although collaborativelearningis often mistakenas
unstructuredleaming, participantsfind it is simply
anotherkind of structure.Participantsoverwhelmingly
report that ttre learning processis more imporfant than
the content.Participantsconsistentlyreport amazementat
the richnessand meaningfulnessof the process.They
commenton the generativity of the conversations,the
emergenceofnew learning,and the surprising changesin
their thoughtsand practices.They expressgratefulness
for the opporhrniry,althoughat first unfamiliar and
challenging,to be thoughtful active learners.They
appreciateand developthe richnessofpossibilities as they
move from a need for certainty and closure to a senseof
being comfortablewith uncertainfyand the yet-to_come.
In one participant'swords,giving..a new senseof self_
confidence."As a leamerin groupsupervisionput it,
"The atmospherebeckonedto me, .Take a chance'."
Participantsreport that the new learning is useful in
their everydaywork. They learn to appreciatewhat their
superviseesbring to the table- listening and hearingit
differently.As one participantsaid, ..respectfor tne
supervisor-supervisee relationshipas well as for eachof
their positions-that no one positionis of greaterimpor_
tancethan another."One said shevaluedleaming to talk
aboutsuperviseesand clients with "critical thinking and
compassion"ratherthan with a pejorativeandjudgmental
attitude.Another said, "l am constantly amazedat how
my superviseeschange,as they are willing to leam morp
abouttheir client's lives, their struggles,their histories.
Their negativiryusually reducesin proportionto their
openness.I amazemyself when I am willing to be more
open-mindedas well." And anotherreported,"My
superviseeshave reportedthat my non-hierarchicaland
collaborativemodel of supervisionis refreshingcompared
to previoussupervisionin which the superviseefelt
intimidatedandjudged." Theseexperienceswith supervi-
sion as a collaborativeleaming communify reportedby
supervisionseminarparticipantsand their superviseesare
consistentwith other accountsof supervisionfrom a
postrnodemperspective(Caldwell, Becvar,Bertolino &
Diamond" 1997;Anderson,London & Punsky,2000).
Also noteworthyis that participantsexpresspride of
ownershipin the seminarand accountabilityfor their
learning.They also describea new senseofresponsibility
to each other, congruent with McNamee and Gergen's
(1999) notion ofrelational responsibility.That is, as one
positionsoneselfdifferently with another- as I position
myself differently with learners-we boldly experience
that no one holds sole responsibility.When responsibility
is shared- as participantsconnect"collaborate,and
constructwith eachother- the leaming relationshipand
processare more mutually gratirying and rewarding.
*I prefer to use "consulting with" or "having
a
conversationabout" in my daily practice,rather than the
words "supervision" or "therapy".
Harlene Anderson, PhD, is an AAMFT Approved
Supervisorand a founding memberandfaculty of the
Houston Galveston Institute and TaosInstitute. She has
publishedseveralarticles on supervisionfrom a
postmodernperspective and is doing research in this area.
Along with Saliha Bava,she will be presentingthe
session "'Supervision' : A Collaborative Language
SystemsApproach" at AAMFT's Annual Conference.
References
Anderson, H. (1998).Collaborativelearningcommunities.In
McNamee,S. & Gergen,K.J. (Eds.),Relationalresponsibil-
ity: Sources for susrainable
dialogue.(pp. 65-i0). Thou-
sandOaks,CA: Sage.
Anderson,H. (1997).Conversation, language,and pos.sibili-
ties: A poslmodernapproachto theropy.New york: Basic
Books.
SUPERVISION BULLETIN . 9
Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1990). Supervision as
collaborative conversation: Questions and reflections. In
H- Brandau (Ed,.), Von der Supervision zur Systemischen
hsion, $tp.69-78). Salzburg: Ofro Muler Verlag.
Anderson, H., London, S. & Punsky, N. (2000). Postrnodem
Supervision in Two Countries. Presentation at the Texas
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy annual
conference, lan. 27 -30, 2000, Houston, TX.
Anderson" H. & Rambo, A. (1987). An experiment in systemic
family therapy training: A trainer and trainee perspective.
Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies. 7, 54-70-
Anderson, tL & Swim, S. (1995). Supervision as collaborative
conversation:Connecting the voices of supervisor an{
supervisee.Journal of Systemic Therapies. 14 Q), l-13.
Caldwell, K., Becvar,D.S., Bertolino, R & Diamon4 D. (1997).
A postrnodemanalysis of a course on clinical supervision.
ContemporaryFamily Therapy. 19 (2),269-287
Peters,J.M. & Armstrong, J.L. (1998). Collaborative leaming: ,
People laboring together to construct knowledge. ln New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (pp. 75-
85). No 79,Fall I 998. New York: Jossey-Bass.