{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024661893396976928, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006364359586316627, 'mean_word_length': 5.518134715025907, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Supervision and developing the profession: one supervision or many?

Supervision is frequently presented as a universal artefact of social work. In the Anglophone world the meaning of its practice is assumed in a conversation about supervision. Supervision is so embedded in our national and regional systems of education and professional development that it forms part of the landscape of social work. But what might work well in some contexts might not work elsewhere and questions arise. What difference does culture make? What impact does the system of education have? How do organizational (regulatory, employment and professional) systems influence the practice of supervision? This paper employs the work of Houston (2002) and Bourdieu (1989) to explore the idea that ‘one supervision’ might be an impossible construct. Aspects of power, gender, ethnicity, race, cultural and geographical locations; possession of different forms of capital – economic, social, cultural and symbolic; education and managerial barriers all impact on relations in supervision. This paper will explore the literature in an attempt to refine further investigation of the plurality of models of supervision, drawing on examples from the international supervision research.