Subordinate theme one: The big split

structures to their supervision, with many different foci. All participants had

experienced supervision for their therapeutic practice and continued to do so. Some were in supervision for coaching practice, but this was always in addition to supervision for therapeutic practice and was a separate setup from their therapy supervision. All the participants had either experienced or continued to experience supervision that was either therapy supervision and/or coaching supervision, but very few experienced a space where they felt they could bring a combination of both coaching and therapy practice. This lead to several emergent themes among participants, both within participants narratives and across their interviews, where the divide between the practices is highlighted in the supervisory space. This binary division or “big split” of supervision, as P3 names it, seemed to be at odds with some participants’ views of an arbitrary line between the practices. Therefore, I was keen to find out more about how they experienced, not just the practical splitting of these practices in supervision, but gain an insight into how they experienced this splitting in their own minds. P3 talks of their sense of what appears to be frustration at this state of affairs in the extract below.

“Because even either, being in those supervision groups is saying “well I’m working with these other people but hey they’re not for this group because they’re coaching people” (S:hmm). That’s kind of pretty hypocritical, because I don’t really see it in that way. So, what message does that send to those other people in those groups? It sends the message that I think there’s a big split between these two practices and I don’t.” P3, line 738

Above, P3 notes that the very act of choosing a particular supervision or “being in” the particular groups sends a message that certain clients will not be able to be presented in particular groups. The “but hey” conveys a sarcastic tone, a sense that they do not believe in the splitting, that the group by its very nature encourages. There seems to be further frustration highlighted in the noting of hypocrisy as they feel their

particular beliefs are not in line with these binary divides. Interestingly P3 states the

“split”, a psychological concept that emphasises a binary, oppositional thinking around nuanced concepts, which seemed to show their disdain for this perceived reductionism of the client’s presentations.

P3’s varied background as a coach and psychotherapy trainee, across a range of sectors, may have influenced this discourse. The range of interventions they offer and

their history of offering these interventions to many different demographics in various settings could help foster an integrative style, which could feel in opposition to dividing their supervisory practice.

“Whereas in coaching supervision or cognitive supervision, we’re just thinking about you know, we don’t even think about core beliefs in that context, it’s more about how to deliver a particular, erm what do they call them? A, erm, a

particular model you know, a particular model, but it’s very. It’s like

psychoeducation I guess (S: mm). So I’m going through an idea that somebody might think might work for helping somebody to see themselves more holistically erm, you know in terms of their career, their professional self . . erm . . .yea it feels superficial.” P4, line 582

P4 experiences two different supervision settings, but makes it clear that there is a distinction for them, both in their experience and in the purpose of each supervision.

This distinction seems to be summarised by the used of word “Whereas”. It felt to me that P4 sets up coaching in opposition to the idealised therapeutic supervision: “we don’t even think about core beliefs”. There is a sense that there is something missing for the practitioner and they find it hard to believe this. They note that the “particular model” used with clients is prioritised as the focus in coaching supervision. The

“psychoeducation” feels as though it is simplistic and possibly patronising for the participant that feels the “self” is the route into practice and the purpose of supervision.

They summarise their feelings with a bold “yea it feels superficial”, omitting that it feels superficial in comparison to the clinical supervision that they seem to be attached to.

P4’s experience as a trainee counselling psychologist and experienced therapist and coach, puts their experience with supervision in context. They note a split in the organisation of their supervision in the same way as P3, however they diverge in their opinion about each practice and seem to hold therapy in higher regard. This could be due to the onus on psychotherapeutic practice in their training or indeed the perceived simplicity vs complexity when comparing their experience of coaching vs therapy practice. What’s noticeable is that the split of coach supervision and therapy supervision seems to enhance an opposition and comparison of the two practices.

“Erm, I suppose I, I, I think it makes me less inclined to bring them back if, if you know what I mean? I mean, its not like I’ve brought loads of, hundreds of clients to super . . hundreds of coaching clients to supervision, but I think the times I have erm, you know there’s a little bit of “oh ok”.” P2, 1147

P2 discusses the attempt to cross supervisory lines by bringing ‘coaching clients’ to what is assumed to be a more therapeutically inclined supervision. It appeared that they felt this had been a fruitless endeavour, with the participant’s flattened tone of voice abruptly finishing their sentence. The participant talking in a present-tense with the use of “oh ok” delivers a powerful indication of the perceived rejection and felt sense of disappointment. I found it interesting that they called the clients “coaching clients” as there seems to be some compliance or agreement from the participant that these clients fall into a certain bracket and are perhaps unsuitable for this particular supervision space. However, they almost rebel or provoke by bringing presentations that are unorthodox. The reaction to this is still surprising to the

participant and perhaps shows a desire or hope to find a place to bring presentations that do not fit into the lines of supervision currently on offer to them. This last extract summarises and highlights the split sense of supervisory options open to all the

participants operating as integrative coach-therapist practitioners engaging with diverse talking practices.

P2’s background as an experienced coach, but less experienced psychotherapist may explain their sense of rejection when attempting to presenting coaching clients in supervision, especially if they dismissed. Their narrative converges with the idea that for them a ‘big split’ is occurring in their supervisory experience and it does not necessarily feel comfortable.

4.2.2 Subordinate theme two: Boundaries – clarity or confusion? Most