Aim: The paper is a means to signpost the hazards of clinical supervision (or supervision) as it is currently understood and enacted.
Background: The interpretation or understanding given to clinical supervision by professional groups is based on several factors namely origin/history, dynamic changes, relevance in the concept, language used and the meaning attached to this language.
Evaluation: In this paper we take a position that clinical supervision is not a thing or a homogenous entity. We describe it as a 'multi-meaninged' phenomenon defined through the context of its use.
Key issues: Who uses it and in what circumstances leads to different versions of clinical supervision with different enactments and functions. Practitioners and managers do not necessarily recognize this state of affairs.
Conclusions: We make some suggestions for more complex versions that may be suitable as the profession develops.