Essay Grade

CHAPTER 18
The Discrimination Model
JANINE M. BERNARD
Fairfield University
The discrimination model was conceived as a teaching tool. In the mid-1970s, when I
joined the Counselor Education faculty at Purdue University, I was asked to assume pri­
mary responsibility for the supervision course. Having recently received my doctorate, I
was close enough to the experience of assuming the role of supervisor for the first time
to understand my students’ need for an aid to organize their initial supervision interven­
tions. My intent was to present them with the simplest of maps to direct their activities as
supervisors-in-training. As I attempted to reduce supervision to its simplest components,
it seemed to me that supervisors must decide what to address with the trainee and find the
most functional style to do so. These two axes became the basis for the discrimination
model (Bernard, 1979).
THE SUPERVISOR’S FOCUS IN SUPERVISION
In determining what the supervisor should address within supervision, I went in a slightly
different direction from others who had been writing in this area at the time. Rather than
viewing the internal reality of the supervisee as the central focus of supervision, I chose
to address the supervisee in the activity of conducting a counseling session as the focus.
This minor adjustment reverberated to change the experience not only for the supervisee,
but for the supervisor. By focusing on the supervisee in action, I had to assume that
supervision must relate directly to that activity. Therefore, it was necessary to further
analyze the activity of counseling in order to determine categories of counselor input. In
other words, if I could identify the component factors that described the activity of coun­
seling, I could help direct the supervisor’s attention. (Like Kagan, 1980, I believed that
much more happened in counseling than one could attend to; this was so for the super­
visor as well as for the counselor. Therefore, the supervisor needed an aid to organize all
the data being generated by a counseling session.) At the same time, I realized that the
number of factors had to be limited in order to make the map functional. The result was
the three focus areas of the model: process skills, conceptualization skills, and personal­
ization skills.
The essence of process skills was the observable activity of the trainee. (Because of the
different uses of the term process, a better description of this category might be interven­
tion skills.) Intervention skills range from the simple to the complex and include all trainee
310
THE SUPERVISOR’S FOCUS IN SUPERVISION
311
behaviors that distinguish counseling as a purposeful therapeutic interpersonal activity.
From the greeting of a client to attempts to empathize, confront, or interpret behavior, as
well as pacing a session and using silence, the skill of the trainee in delivering an inter­
vention is the focus of this category.
A more subtle activity that is occurring during a counseling session is the trainee’s use
of conceptualization skills. Often, the supervisor can only hypothesize about these while
observing a session and must interview the trainee to determine the level of conceptual­
ization. This category includes the trainee’s ability to make some sense of the information
that the client is presenting, to identify themes, and to discriminate what is essential infor­
mation from what is not. In addition to the assessment aspect of conceptualization, the
trainee must choose an appropriate response to the client. The choice of such a response
(e.g., to confront a discrepancy in the client’s message) is a conceptualization skill; the
delivery of the confrontation is an intervention skill. It is at this point, where the trainee
and the supervisor appreciate the overlap of skills, that supervision becomes dynamic.
The contribution of the trainee as an individual, including his or her personality, cul­
tural background, sensitivity toward others, and sense of humor, makes up the third cate­
gory of skills. In order to avoid other psychological constructs, the awkward term per­
sonalization skills was chosen to describe this dimension of counseling. As with
conceptualization, it can be difficult for the supervisor to appreciate all the personaliza­
tion skills that are being used by the trainee during direct observation of a counseling ses­
sion. For example, a supervisor of a race different from the trainee and client may not rec­
ognize when the trainee is pulling from his or her cultural background to relate to the
client. Because personalization skills are the most unique to each trainee, they are the
most likely to be misinterpreted by the supervisor, sometimes even after they have been
discussed. The personalization skills of the trainee may be the most important to the client,
at least initially. As can be derived from their label, these skills may also be viewed as the
most personal to the trainee, making the supervisor’s scrutiny regarding personalization
skills either highly satisfying or uniquely uncomfortable.
Lanning (1986) added a fourth category of skills to the discrimination model, that of
professional behavior, referring to issues of ethical behavior, professional development,
record keeping, and the like. Although this is an important dimension of supervision, I
would contend that this category could be collapsed into the original three skill areas. For
example, if a trainee forms a dual relationship with a client, is this a deficit of knowledge
or personal integrity? In other words, is the problem one of conceptual understanding or
personalization? Being late for a counseling session may also be construed as an inter­
vention issue (a nontherapeutic behavior) or a personalization issue (a disrespect for the
client).
As the preceding examples illustrate, for every skill there is a potential skill deficit.
Therefore, supervisors are often as much aware of the lack of intervention, conceptual­
ization, or personalization skills as of their presence. Furthermore, when skills are lack­
ing, it may become more difficult to identify (through observation) the source of the defi­
ciency. For example, if the supervisor thinks a trainee didn’t do much in a session, the
supervisor must determine whether this was because the trainee didn’t know what to do
(conceptualization), didn’t know how to do what needed to be done (intervention), or
didn’t feel comfortable enough to do anything (personalization). Simply being aware that
inactivity has several potential sources, however, will make the supervisor more astute in
how he or she works with the trainee.
312
THE DISCRIMINATION MODEL
THE SUPERVISOR’S ROLE IN SUPERVISION
The insight of the supervisor to assess or identify the areas of focus and/or difficulty for the
trainee is only part of the supervisory role. The supervisor must interact with the trainee in
ways that are productive to learning and improving clinical skill. The second half of the dis­
crimination model describes three general roles that the supervisor might adopt for the pur­
poses of enhancing the trainee’s development, these being teacher, counselor, and consultant.
When the supervisor assumes the teacher role, he or she takes responsibility for deter­
mining what is necessary for the trainee to learn in order to become more competent.
Thus, a comment such as “I’d like you to consider doing a role play with this client”
would be a teacher response. A teacher also evaluates the level of performance. Therefore,
a statement such as “That was an excellent session with Mike” would also fall in the
teacher category.
When the supervisor assumes the counselor role, he or she is typically addressing the inter­
personal or intrapersonal reality of the trainee. By doing so, the supervisor is asking the
trainee to reflect on the meaning of an event for him- or herself in much the same way that
counselors ask clients to do. Therefore, the supervisor as counselor is more likely to insti­
gate moments for the trainee when things “come together,” when thoughts, behavior, and per­
sonal reality merge to enhance professional development. Many of the earlier supervision
models that addressed “personal growth” relied heavily on the counselor role in supervision.
Finally, the supervisor may take on the role of consultant, allowing the trainee to share
the responsibility for his or her learning. When assuming the consultant role, the supervi­
sor becomes a resource for the trainee but encourages the trainee to trust his or her own
thoughts, insights, and feelings about the work with the client. The consultant role can be
the most difficult to implement because of the autonomy it requires of the trainee. Just as
with other types of instruction, it is far easier to tell someone how to do something than
to create a context for learning. The consultant role is more about the latter.
There are two ways to view the supervisor roles: Each supervisor statement can be
analyzed using the three role definitions, or the roles can be viewed more globally as
metaphors for the entire interaction (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). Both approaches are of
value, but for different reasons. Starting with role as metaphor, let’s assume that Supervi­
sor B is working with Trainee A during her first practicum. It is obvious to Supervisor B
that Trainee A is floundering in her sessions, not having grasped the pertinent process
variables for helping clients state their issues. Thus, Supervisor B assumes that she will
need to use the teacher role primarily with this trainee. The following interaction depicts
the beginning of their supervision session:
SUPERVISOR B: Well, how do you think that last session went, A?
TRAINEE A: I was really quite pleased with it. I felt less nervous than I felt last week.
SUPERVISOR B: Yes, you seemed relaxed, and that was good. Were you equally pleased
with how you and the client were working together?
TRAINEE A: I’m not sure I know what you mean.
SUPERVISOR B: Um, do you think the client got much out of the session?
TRAINEE A: Yes, I do. She told me in the hallway that she felt a lot better than when she
got there.
SUPERVISOR B: Well, I’m glad that she felt better, but I had some questions about the
actual process of the session. It seemed to me that you Jacked a certain focus on the
reasons she came to counseling.
THE MODEL IN USE
313
TRAINEE A: So you don’t think it was a good session.
SUPERVISOR B: I didn’t say that …
This example illustrates the reason for considering role both as metaphor and as indi­
vidual response. Supervisor B chooses “teacher” as her metaphor, but she quickly finds
herself in a less than productive interaction because she relies too heavily on consultant
statements as part of her teaching style. Supervisor B has determined that Trainee A is
floundering, yet she asks Trainee A to evaluate her session before Supervisor B gives her
any feedback. By attempting to appear egalitarian, Supervisor B sets her trainee up to fail
in her response to the question. It would have been more fruitful for Supervisor B to struc­
ture the session with teacher responses, such as “I saw you struggle some in this last ses­
sion. I’d like to use a good part of our session today identifying those moments when you
seemed at a loss and seeing if we can come up with some ways for you to handle similar
moments in the future. Does that sound as if it would be helpful to you?” By “showing
her cards” immediately, Supervisor B would have planted herself squarely in the teacher
role; at the same time, she would have protected Trainee A from having to evaluate her
session when she clearly did not yet have the insight to do so in a way that would lead to
a positive response from her supervisor.
A supervisor’s accurate insight into the trainee’s work can be compromised, if not
undone, by an inexpert use of roles. For example, the use of the supervisor as counselor
role can make the trainee so uncomfortable as to block learning. It is for this reason that
all three roles should be considered for each focus area.
Table 18. l depicts the 3 x 3 matrix of possible choices for a supervisor working with
a trainee who will be named Paul. The supervisor has listened to an audiotape of Paul con­
ducting his second counseling session with a woman we will call Tabitha, a 20-year-old
African American woman who has sought counseling because she is in an abusive rela­
tionship. Paul is Caucasian and in his mid-twenties. In the session, Tabitha starts dis­
cussing her sometimes “embarrassment” at being black in light of the constant local inci­
dents of blacks getting in trouble, dropping out of school, and so forth. Paul, obviously at
a loss as to how to respond, makes some comment that a lot of whites break the law and
drop out of school, too. Tabitha continues to state that she feels “guilty by association.”
There is also a lot of nervous laughter on Tabitha’s part during this segment of the ses­
sion. Table 18.1 illustrates the range of responses available to the supervisor.
As the reader considers Table 18.1, some supervisor interventions will be evaluated as
more relevant and/or more helpful than are others. This, of course, is the purpose of the
discrimination model, to encourage supervisors to consider a variety of responses, and to
discriminate among them for the maximum development potential for the trainee.
THE MODEL IN USE
Choosing the Supervisor Role
There is a tendency to pair only one of the possible supervisor roles with each of the three
supervision foci. Some supervisors adopt a teacher role whenever the trainee seems to be
struggling with interventions, a consultant role when conceptualization is the issue, or a
counselor role when personalization is the issue. Although these pairings are logical, they
limit the supervisor’s repertoire and, therefore, his or her impact. As can be seen by review­
~
…..
“”‘
Table 18.1
Discrimination Model Example Using the Case of Paul and Tabitha
Supervisor Role
Focus of
Supervision
Intervention
Conceptualization
Personalization
Teacher
Counselor
Consultant
Supervisor models a different
reaction to Tabitha’s comment,
one that reflects some insight
into Tabitha’s developmental
struggle.
Supervisor reviews models
of racial identity development
with Paul and discusses the
implications of Tabitha’s
statement.
Supervisor reflects on Paul’s
apparent discomfort when he
responds to Tabitha’s initial statement
and the power of this discomfort to
block alternate interventions.
Supervisor comments on Paul’s
discomfort with Tabitha and
suggests that this may have caused
Paul to forget information he has
learned elsewhere. Supervisor
suggests that Paul discuss his
discomfort, as well as his thoughts
about Tabitha’s comment,
then and now.
Supervisor works with Paul to
understand the range of his
reactions to Tabitha, his feelings
about working in context when
black-white racial issues are a focus,
and in light of Tabitha’s presenting
problem, his feelings about being
both white and male.
Supervisor encourages a conversation
with Paul about different intervention
possibilities with Tabitha and asks
Paul to hypothesize about Tabitha’s
possible reaction to each.
Supervisor asks Paul to write down
as many explanations of Tabitha’s
response as he can produce. The
supervisor also suggests that Paul
consider Tabitha’s response in light
of her presenting problem for at
least one explanation.
Supervisor asks Paul to read
Sue and Sue ( 1990) about the
challenges of majority population
counselors in assisting minority
clients at different racial-identity
development stages for the
purpose of identifying relevant
information for Paul’s work with
Tabitha.
Using an interpersonal process recall
technique (Kagan, 1976), supervisor
helps Paul identify a variety of
reactions Paul was having during
the targeted segment in his session
with Tabitha.
THE MODEL IN USE
315
ing Table 18.1, the focus of the supervision interaction is the entry point only. For exam­
ple, consider the intervention/counselor combination given in Table 18.1. One could argue
that if the trainee is uncomfortable with a particular client, causing him to falter in his inter­
ventions, that the focus should be personalization rather than intervention. Yet, by enter­
ing the supervision interaction through a focus on intervention, the supervisor (a) pin­
points the consequence of the trainee’s discomfort with this client; (b) directs the trainee
toward the ultimate solution (i.e., when the trainee is able to use different types of inter­
ventions with this client he may feel more confident and, thus, less uncomfortable); and
(c) diminishes the possibility of the trainee becoming overly defensive. If, instead, the
supervisor focuses on personalization from the role of counselor, the supervision session
will no doubt evolve in a different manner with different results for the trainee.
This example brings us to another important point, the rarity of a supervision issue
being planted in one focus area only. Discomfort within the trainee when assuming the
responsibility of conducting therapy will limit his or her willingness to attempt new inter­
ventions. Unclear conceptualization will frustrate the trainee, thus blending personaliza­
tion and conceptualization. Inability to think on his or her feet will make it difficult to inter­
vene competently. At the same time, it is important for the supervisor to help the trainee
identify the primary focus that seems to be causing difficulty. For example, one trainee I
worked with recently was aware only of his panic in his early counseling sessions. As we
worked together, however, it became obvious to me that he was entering each counseling
session unprepared conceptually. Because each session had been so uncomfortable for
him, he had avoided doing his “homework” between sessions. Once supervision helped
him to conceptualize better (using both teacher and consultant roles), his panic subsided.
Finally, the supervisor should be sensitive to an overuse of any of the supervisor roles
or a particular area of focus. Some supervisors are “natural” teachers and prefer to give
their supervisees as much feedback as they can during supervision. Others are frustrated
therapists who can cause the reaction I once heard: “Would you please tell my supervisor
to stop counseling me!” Other supervisors seem to get stuck on one focus, seeing every­
thing as a conceptualization issue or a personalization issue. Supervisors can check their
focus easily by reviewing their notes after observing or listening to a counseling session
or their supervision notes after meeting with a trainee. If all of a supervisor’s notes fall
into the same category and this is replicated across trainees, it may say as much about the
supervisor as about any individual trainee.
The Importance of Technology
The assumptions of the discrimination model reflect educational practices as much as ther­
apeutic practices. Therefore, early on, it became clear that the model depended on direct
samples of the trainee’s work (Bernard, 1981 ). In other words, it is virtually impossible to
use self-report as the basis for this supervision model. Just as teachers benefit from watch­
ing themselves teach, and dancers learn from seeing themselves dance, counselors can con­
tinue to benefit from reviewing accurate samples of their work. For the supervisor, it is
imperative to observe directly or, at the very least, listen to audiotapes of the trainee’s work,
unless the exclusive focus of supervision is the internal reality of the trainee. What is pre­
sented in self-report is a metaphor of the session rather than the session itself. A metaphor
can be highly significant for supervision, but in the final analysis, it is still a metaphor.
The need for technology is especially acute in regard to the intervention and personal­
ization foci. How many times during a case conference has a supervisor heard a trainee
316
THE DISCRIMINATION MODEL
explain a successful implementation of an intervention only to have a videotape or audio­
tape show a different reality? Without direct access to the trainee’s work, the supervisor
is not in a position to correct a faulty intervention or to offer suggestions for making an
intervention more fruitful. As for personalization, by definition this focus centers on the
trainee’s blind spots. Occasionally, these will be evident during self-report, but often a
trainee will distance him- or herself from those moments of countertransference or per­
sonal discomfort. The time between the counseling session and the supervision session
allows for such denial. The supervisor will be much more helpful to the trainee if he or
she can, at some level, experience the personalization issue with the trainee. A simple
audiorecording makes this much more likely to occur.
Another important reason for obtaining direct samples of a trainee’s work has to do with
what was mentioned earlier regarding the supervisor’s hypothesis about the conceptual­
ization or personalization of the trainee. The supervisor accumulates hunches about what
the trainee is thinking and feeling during a counseling session. Checking out these assump­
tions is an important part of supervision. When the supervisor’s hunches are different from
the trainee’s self-report, this is important feedback either for the supervisor or for the
trainee. In other words, either the supervisor is misreading the situation or the trainee’s
internal reality is different from what is observable in the counseling session. Either way,
this situation provides important data for supervision, data that would not be available if
observation or taping of the session were not done.
Thus far, I have focused on all the precautionary reasons to use technology in super­
vision, but there are many positive reasons to do so also. It is a delight to see or hear a
trainee experience a moment of immediacy with a client or resist being “hooked” by a
client’s irrational blaming or deliver an intervention with near perfect timing, resulting in
a therapeutic experience for the client. Sharing these moments with trainees can add
tremendous dimension to the supervisory relationship. In addition, with appropriate
releases, these samples of work well done and/or struggles resolved can provide invalu­
able learning experiences for future trainees.
Expansions of the Discrimination Model
Stenack and Dye ( 1982) conducted research to determine if a clear distinction existed
among the three supervision roles proposed by the discrimination model. They were able
to identify five supervisor activities for each of the roles (p. 302):
Supervisor as Teacher
1. Evaluate observed counseling session interactions.
Identify appropriate interventions.
Teach, demonstrate, or model intervention techniques.
Explain the rationale behind specific strategies and/or interventions.
Interpret significant events in the counseling sessions.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Supervisor as Counselor
1. Explore trainee feelings during counseling session or supervision session.
2. Explore trainee feelings concerning specific technique and/or interventions.
THE MODEL IN USE
317
3. Facilitate trainee self-exploration of confidence and/or worries in the counseling
session.
4. Help trainee define personal competencies and areas for growth.
5. Provide opportunities for trainees to process their own affect or defenses.
Supervisor as Consultant
1. Provide alternative interventions and/or conceptualizations for trainee use.
2. Encourage trainee brainstorming of strategies and/or interventions.
3. Encourage trainee discussion of client problems, motivation, etc.
4. Solicit and attempt to satisfy trainee needs during the session.
5. Allow trainee to structure the supervision session.
Neufeldt, Iversen, and Juntunen (1995) have developed a manual for training supervi­
sors using the Stenack and Dye ( 1982) outline as their initial focus. Each supervision
behavior is explained in detail, and a supervision vignette is included to demonstrate the
behavior. Neufeldt et al. refer to the Stenack and Dye behaviors as “beginning supervi­
sion strategies.” They follow these with “advanced supervision strategies” that, they assert,
combine two or more of the three supervisor roles. The eleven advanced strategies delin­
eated by Neufeldt et al. (p. 48) are as follows:
1. Encourage trainee’s exploration of change theory.
2. Help trainee conceptualize a case (including developing valid information, setting
the problem, and developing a change strategy).
Explore trainee’s feelings to facilitate understanding of the client.
Facilitate trainee’s identification and use of cues in client’s and trainee’s behavior.
Explore trainee’s intentions in a session.
Help trainee assess compatibility between in-session behavior and theory of change.
Present a developmental challenge.
Explore trainee-client boundary issues.
Use parallel process to model appropriate strategies for dealing with ·clients.
10. Reframe trainee ideas and behaviors in a positive manner and build on them.
11. Help trainee process feelings of distress aroused by the client’s experience.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
As with the beginning supervision strategies, the authors offer an explanation and brief
supervision vignette to demonstrate each advanced strategy.
In order to understand how Neufeldt et al. (1995) view each of the advanced strategics
as combining supervisor roles, let us look more closely at the first strategy: “Encourage
trainee’s exploration of change theory.” Neufeldt et al. (pp. 57-58) include the following
behaviors to complete this strategy:
Supervisor asks trainee how he or she thinks people change (consultant).
Supervisor labels the answer as trainee’s espoused theory of human change (teacher).
Supervisor investigates the trainee’s experiences of change in his or her life (coun­
selor).
318
THE DISCRIMINATION MODEL
From this analysis, supervisor facilitates the trainee’s understanding of his or her prac­
tical theory of change and so labels it (teacher).
Supervisor asks trainee to look at ways in which espoused theory and practical theory
overlap and ways in which they differ (consultant).
This analysis of advanced strategies that combine roles is helpful to the practicing
supervisor, who must learn to weave roles skillfully in order to accomplish more complex
learning tasks. The Neufeldt et al. (1995) text is a significant contribution to this end.
Combining the Discrimination Model With Developmental
Models of Supervision
The discrimination model provides a matrix of choices for the supervisor. Developmental
models (e.g., Johnson & Moses, 1988; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg
& Delworth, 1987) have addressed the more specific needs of trainees at different points
in their development. Referring to developmental models, therefore, can assist the super­
visor in using the discrimination model matrix more deliberately.
Loganbill et al. (1982) described the developmental process as moving the trainee from
stagnation (naively unaware or being “stuck”) through confusion (erratic cognitive and
behavioral fluctuations, disorganization, and dependency on the supervisor) in order to
ultimately have the trainee experience integration (emotional and cognitive comfort with
a significant new learning). The eight critical issues used by Loganbill et al. (1982) to
evaluate the trainee (as stuck, in confusion, or integrated) were adapted from Chickering’s
(1969) developmental tasks of youth and included competence, emotional awareness, self­
directedness, conceptual integration, respect for individual differences, purpose and direc­
tion, personal motivation, and professional ethics. This path from stagnation to integration
is revisited over and over again as new interventions are learned, new frameworks are
considered, and new insights are attained.
We have sufficient evidence that novice trainees prefer a relatively high level of struc­
ture from their supervisors (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Reising & Daniels, 1983;
Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Crethar, 1994; Worthington, 1987; Worthington & Roehlke, 1979).
Referring back to Loganbill et al. (1982), therefore, it seems that while in the throes of
confusion, the trainee may not be able to take advantage of supervision that is highly con­
sultative or may be more agitated by the supervisor as counselor than assisted if this super­
visor role exacerbates the trainee’s sense of groundlessness. Rather, the structure that is
usually associated with the teacher role may be the most efficient to guide the trainee
when confusion is at its peak (whereas the consultant or counselor roles may be more
helpful when the trainee is in a state of stagnation). Furthermore, because a trainee will
be in different states around different issues (e.g., at integration around personal motiva­
tion, at confusion around respect for individual differences, and at stagnation regarding
competence for advanced techniques), the supervisor will need to be able to comfortably
adopt different roles as different trainee states are identified.
Johnson and Moses (1988) took the Loganbill et al. (1982) model and integrated it
with discrimination model concepts. For each of the critical issues in supervision as
described by Loganbill et al. (e.g., respect for individual differences), Johnson and Moses
asserted that there was a behavioral aspect (intervention), a cognitive aspect (conceptual­
ization), and an affective aspect (personalization). For example, a female trainee might
intellectually understand the “cycle of violence” and may be skillful in demonstrating
THE MODEL IN USE
319
counseling approaches used with victims of abuse but may still find herself experiencing
annoyance with the client for allowing herself to be victimized, which may block her from
communicating the appropriate amount of support for the client. In this case, the supervi­
sor would need to address the trainee’s annoyance, perhaps initially moving her from stag­
nation to confusion, and with additional work, to integration. A balance of support and
challenge offered by the supervisor is needed to keep the trainee moving in a positive
direction. The many options within the roles of teacher, counselor, and consultant are ade­
quate for this purpose, according to Johnson and Moses (1988).
Less is known about the ongoing supervision needs of more seasoned therapists and
the development of supervisors (Worthington, 1987). We know that the consultation role
is more useful for counselors once they have more of the basic skills integrated into their
style. We do not, however, know about differential applications of the consultation role
based on the sophistication of the supervisee. We also have no empirical data regarding
the interplay of the counselor and consultant roles in working with seasoned supervisees.
Nevertheless, an appreciation of developmental differences, at least throughout training
programs and for entry-level practitioners, is an important dimension for using the dis­
crimination model beneficially.
Training Supervisors to Use the Discrimination Model
The discrimination model has been used most regularly to introduce novice supervisors
to the process of supervision. Because of its atheoretical nature, the model translates well
to different therapeutic modalities. Furthermore, the delineation of supervisor foci and
roles is helpful to novice supervisors who desire anchors for their initial attempts to super­
vise. As was noted by Borders and Fong (1994), supervisor development has some paral­
lels to therapist development, with the novice supervisor responding well to structure. The
discrimination model provides some of that structure.
In addition to its utility for novice supervisors, the model has been beneficial for the
present cohort of seasoned supervisors. When I first presented the model to experienced
supervisors, I was apprehensive about its utility for that group. As is generally known
within the mental health professions, however, the more experienced the supervisor, the
more likely that the supervisor learned his or her craft through apprenticeship. Therefore,
thinking of supervision in other than a therapeutic modality seems to be invigorating and
useful to seasoned practitioners. In addition, because many seasoned supervisors still rely
on self-report, the exercise of using technology, including the taping of supervision ses­
sions for analysis, proves to be provoking.
Using the model to train supervisors, novice or experienced, is explained in detail else­
where (Bernard, 1981; Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). Therefore, I will