Vantage
A free resource for behaviour support practitioners who are being supervised.
Supervision is never neutral. It happens between two people who hold different amounts of power, and that shapes what gets said, what gets heard, and what you feel able to ask for. This resource helps you understand your own position in supervision, so you can take part in it as an informed, active party, not just someone on the receiving end.
How this works
- Move through four sections at your own pace. Nothing is timed and nothing is tracked. Set aside roughly 30 minutes to an hour.
- Each section has a short activity. There are no right answers, they're a way in.
- Save anything you write to your Notes (top right). It stays in your browser.
- At the end, download your notes as a PDF to keep or bring to supervision.
Your work is kept only in this browser, and nothing is sent anywhere. If you close this tab or window before downloading, you may lose what you've written. Download your notes before you leave.
This works best on a computer or laptop in a web browser. It will still work on a phone or tablet, but saving and downloading your notes is smoother on a browser.
What brings you here today? Pick the one that fits best. It becomes your framing statement, saved to the top of your notes. Then begin with Section 01.
Where You Stand
You came into behaviour support to help people live fuller, freer lives. But you probably arrived without a clear map of what you were walking into, and much of what you needed to know, you were expected to pick up along the way, largely through supervision.
Here is what is rarely said plainly: what you can see and know is shaped by where you are positioned. This is the core idea of standpoint theory, that knowledge is situated, and that those with less power in a setting often see things the powerful cannot (Harding, 2004; Collins, 2000). As a supervisee, you often hold less power in the relationship than your supervisor does (Cook et al., 2018). That is not a flaw in you. It is a structural fact, and it shapes the whole exchange, including how easy it feels to disagree, ask a question, or say you are unsure.
Knowing where you stand is the first step to standing there on purpose.
The activity below asks you to sit with six statements about your own practice. There is no score, and no one sees your answers. Notice where you land, and notice which ones give you pause.
Six statements about your practice
Respond on the slider and save. You can look at another angle if you like, or move straight on.
Private to you. Nothing is sent anywhere.
Relevant reading
- Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. Routledge.
- Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Cook, R. M., McKibben, W. B., & Wind, S. A. (2018). Supervisee perception of power in clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 12(3), 188–195.
Naming What's Happening
Sometimes you leave a supervision session, or a session with a client, carrying a feeling you can't name. Something happened fast, you reacted, and only later did it sit oddly. Without words for it, that feeling is easy to dismiss, including by yourself. Philosophers call this hermeneutical injustice: when a person lacks the shared concepts to make sense of their own experience (Fricker, 2007).
A lot of practice runs on automatic first reactions. They are not wrong, but they are trained, and they carry assumptions worth catching, particularly the tension between doing what a method prescribes and responding to the person in front of you (Miller et al., 2019). Naming what is happening is how you get a choice about it.
Notice your first reaction. Then look again.
Below are a few short scenarios. For each, sit with your automatic first thought, then reveal a second reading. This is private and low-stakes, a noticing exercise, not a right-answer test.
Scenario 1 of 4
Private to you. Nothing is sent anywhere.
Relevant reading
- Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
- Miller, K. L., Re Cruz, A., & Ala'i-Rosales, S. (2019). Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior and Social Issues, 28, 16–36.
- Ecko Jojo, G. (2024). Disability-affirming supervision. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 26–36.
Position & Intersection
You do not support people in the abstract. You work with real people whose lives sit at the meeting point of many things at once: disability, culture, gender, class, history. A critical disability studies lens locates the barriers a person meets in the world around them, not in the person themselves (Goodley, 2014; Oliver, 1995). And you bring your own position too. All of it shapes the work, whether or not it is ever named.
Intersectionality is the tool for seeing the fuller picture. It says a person's experience is not the sum of separate categories, but the specific reality of where those things intersect (Crenshaw, 1989). The same is true of you, and of your supervisor. What each of you can see is shaped by where you stand.
The quality of supervision depends not only on a supervisor's experience, but on their capacity to work from a human rights and intersectional perspective.
The wheel below is a way in, not a scorecard. Move each part of your own position inward where you tend to hold more power, or outward where the world pushes back harder. It is private. Notice the shape it makes.
Your positionality wheel
Drag each dot toward the centre (more power) or outward (the world pushes back harder). There is no correct shape.
Closer to the centre carries more power; further out, the world pushes back harder.
Private to you. Nothing is sent anywhere.
Relevant reading
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
- Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge.
- Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What's so 'critical' about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75.
- Chan, J. (2024). Rights of persons with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 8, 3–6.
Asking For What You Need
Understanding your position is not the end. The point is to act from it: to take part in supervision as someone with a voice, and to ask for what you and the people you support actually need.
This can feel daunting when you hold less power in the relationship, so it helps to be specific. Vague dissatisfaction is easy to wave away. A clear, concrete request is much harder to ignore, and much easier for a good supervisor to meet. Practitioners themselves report that supervision and the systems around it too often work against reducing restrictive practice, not for it (Leif et al., 2023; Fisher et al., 2024).
You are allowed to ask for supervision that develops you, not just checks on you (Goodall et al., 2024). You are allowed to ask why, not just what. You are allowed to bring what you see on the ground and expect it to count.
One clear thing to ask for
Look back at what you noticed in the earlier grounds. Turn one of those feelings into a single, specific request you could actually say out loud.
Private to you. Nothing is sent anywhere.
You are one part of a system. Doing your best work in it means being able to learn, question, and speak, not just comply.
Take your notes with you. Read them back before your next supervision. You don't have to change everything at once. Knowing where you stand, and being able to name it, is already a shift in the ground beneath the conversation.
Relevant reading
- Goodall, S., Bellon, M., & Fisher, A. (2024). Clinical supervision in positive behaviour support. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 46(4), 501–505.
- Leif, E. S., Fox, R. A., Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2023). 'Stakeholders are almost always resistant'. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 66–82.
- Fisher, A., Louise, K., Reschke, K., Kremer, P., & Kelly, G. (2024). Positive behaviour support under the NDIS. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 1031–1049.
Your notes are yours
Everything you've saved is collected in your notes. Download it as a PDF to keep or bring to supervision.
Thank you for sitting with it
We hope it was useful. If you'd like, take a badge, a small marker that you're working from a human-rights and intersectional stance in your practice. It's yours to keep or share.
References
The thinking behind Vantage draws on standpoint theory, critical disability studies, intersectionality, and indigenist scholarship on knowledge and data sovereignty. Full references are listed below.
Barnes, C. (2014). Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 12–29). Routledge.
Bruno, G., Busch, L., Landon, W., & Makokis, L. (2026). Reclaiming neurodiversity: Indigenous perspectives on autism, relationality, and inclusion. Wicazo Sa Review, 41(1–2), 206–230. https://doi.org/10.1353/wic.2026.a992713
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal, 19(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
Chan, J. (2024). Rights of persons with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 8, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-024-00392-3
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Cook, R. M., McKibben, W. B., & Wind, S. A. (2018). Supervisee perception of power in clinical supervision: The Power Dynamics in Supervision Scale. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 12(3), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000201
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Cunha, J., Alves, W., & Araújo, M. (2024). Social impact measures for social innovation: Challenges and pathways. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 25(3), eRAMR240012. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR240012
Delany, T., Rudolph, S., & McKay-Brown, L. (2025). Cultural responsiveness, Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports, and the settler colonial state. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52, 2183–2200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00807-7
Ecko Jojo, G. (2024). Disability-affirming supervision: Future directions in applied behavior analytic supervision. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00846-5
Fisher, A., Louise, K., Reschke, K., Kremer, P., & Kelly, G. (2024). Positive behaviour support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia: Barriers, enablers and support needs from the perspective of practitioners. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 1031–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.316
Fisher, A., Louise, K., Dobek, M., McRae, J., Clissold, M., Reschke, K., Fox, R., Leif, E., Vassos, M., Ellis, J., Annear, K., Figueiredo, S., Cubis, L., Chi Cheung, S., Spicer, M., Nankervis, K., McVilly, K., & Freeman, R. (2025). A positive behaviour support practice framework for disability and community services in Australia that prioritises human rights and evidence-based practices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 47(11), 2948–2959. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2024.2402079
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Goodall, S., Bellon, M., & Fisher, A. (2024). Clinical supervision in positive behaviour support: A brief report on the perspectives of practitioners in Australia. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 46(4), 501–505. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2024.2350704
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Routledge.
Leif, E. S., Fox, R. A., Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2023). 'Stakeholders are almost always resistant': Australian behaviour support practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to reducing restrictive practices. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2116908
Lowitja Institute. (2023). Indigenous data sovereignty: Policy brief. Lowitja Institute. https://lowitja.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Indigenous-Data-Sovereignty-Policy-Brief.pdf
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What's so 'critical' about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2009.11910861
Miller, K. L., Re Cruz, A., & Ala'i-Rosales, S. (2019). Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior and Social Issues, 28, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00010-1
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2026a). Behaviour support and restrictive practices. Australian Government. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/rules-and-standards/behaviour-support-and-restrictive-practices
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2026b). Positive behaviour support. Australian Government. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/rules-and-standards/behaviour-support-and-restrictive-practices/positive-behaviour-support
Oliver, M. (1995). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan.
Prehn, J., Carlson, B., Walter, M., Lovett, R., & Maher, B. (2026). Indigenous data sovereignty and the governance of artificial intelligence: Toward equitable benefit for Indigenous peoples. Journal of Sociology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261460137
Schulz, M., & Loewen-Colón, J. (2026). Preventing AI extractivism: The case for braiding Indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance. AI & Society, 41, 6405–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02931-z
Wheeler, A., Farwa, A., Russ-Smith, J., Margaret, L., & Wray, S. (2026). A decolonising critical discourse analysis framework for positive behaviour support plans. Australian Social Work, 79(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2025.2468247
Got a thought to share?
This resource is a work in progress. If something helped, was missing, or didn't sit right, I'd love to hear it. No sign-up, nothing tracked.
Draft note: wire this to your real suggestion-box channel before launch.