Making the Invisible Visible: How Peer Consultation Helps Us Discover Our Clinical Edges of Awareness

This article explores how peer consultation can widen the clinical perspective, improving a practitioner’s practice by helping them expand the edges of their awareness.

Related articles: Trauma-Informed Supervision: Supporting Therapists Who Treat Trauma, Why Therapists Need Therapy, Working with Peer Support Workers.

Before you start reading this article: If you’re looking for the right supervisor – or want to promote your own supervision practice – check out Kindred Clinical, Australia’s only end-to-end platform dedicated to supervision. Register for free →

Introduction

Most therapists can recall the experience. You present what feels like a fairly straightforward case to a trusted group of colleagues. You have a clear formulation, a thoughtful treatment plan, and a sense that you understand what is happening. Then someone asks a simple question. “Can I ask what made you assume that?”

Or perhaps: “You seem unusually protective of this client.”

Or even: “I noticed you smiled every time you described their achievements, but became quieter when you talked about their anger.”

Suddenly, the conversation is no longer only about the client. It is also about the therapist. These moments can feel unsettling. They may briefly evoke embarrassment, defensiveness, or the temptation to explain ourselves. Yet they are often among the most valuable moments in professional practice, because they illuminate something that was previously operating outside our awareness.

This is one of the greatest gifts of peer consultation. While consultation certainly helps therapists refine formulations, consider interventions, and navigate ethical dilemmas, its deeper contribution is often less obvious. It helps us notice the assumptions, emotional responses, patterns of attention, and habitual ways of making meaning that quietly shape our work with clients (Bennett-Levy, 2005; Watkins, 2020). In other words, consultation helps make the invisible visible.

Like every human being, therapists perceive the world through their own experiences, values, expectations, and relational histories. We cannot step completely outside ourselves while simultaneously engaging in the deeply relational work of therapy. Our perspective will always be, in some measure, partial. This is not a professional failing. It is part of being human.

The purpose of consultation, then, is not to eliminate subjectivity. It is to expand awareness of it (Schön, 1983; Norcross & Lambert, 2018).

Perhaps the most helpful way to think about peer consultation is to imagine watching a film from a single camera angle. You can follow the story. You understand what is happening. Yet there are details occurring just beyond the frame that remain invisible until another camera angle is introduced. The original perspective was not wrong; it was simply incomplete.

Good consultation functions in much the same way. Colleagues do not replace our clinical judgment. Rather, they broaden it. They notice different aspects of the therapeutic relationship, hear different emphases in the stories we tell, and ask questions we may never have thought to ask ourselves. With each additional perspective, the picture becomes richer, more nuanced, and often more compassionate – for both client and therapist (Falender & Shafranske, 2021).

Ironically, the moments when consultation proves most transformative are not always when we feel confused or uncertain. Sometimes they arise precisely when we feel most confident that we have understood the client (Schön, 1983). As we shall explore, certainty itself can occasionally become a signal that curiosity has quietly stepped out of the room.

The edges of awareness: Why we don’t always see what we can’t see

Many therapists are familiar with the idea of clinical blind spots – those aspects of our work that remain outside conscious awareness despite our best efforts to practise reflectively. While the term is widely used, it can inadvertently suggest that these experiences represent fixed flaws or professional shortcomings. Perhaps a more compassionate way of thinking about them is as the edges of our awareness: places where our current understanding has simply not yet expanded. The edge of awareness is not where good therapy ends. It is often where the next stage of learning begins.

Such edges are not evidence of poor practice. They are an inevitable consequence of how human minds work. Modern psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that our attention is selective. Faced with the extraordinary complexity of everyday life, our brains constantly filter information, prioritise certain cues, and organise experience into coherent patterns. These mental shortcuts allow us to function efficiently, but they also mean that every act of perception involves both noticing and overlooking. The consulting room is no exception (Kahneman, 2011).

As therapists, we attend simultaneously to our client’s words, emotions, body language, history, risk, goals, and the therapeutic relationship itself – all while monitoring our own thoughts, feelings, and interventions. It would be impossible to consciously process every piece of information available in every moment. Instead, our minds naturally construct a working picture of what seems most clinically relevant (Kahneman, 2011; Bennett-Levy, 2005). Most of the time, this serves us remarkably well.

Occasionally, however, the very framework that helps us make sense of a client can begin to narrow what we notice. Once we have developed a convincing formulation, we may find ourselves paying greater attention to information that confirms it while unconsciously overlooking experiences that challenge it. Without intending to, we can become increasingly certain that we are seeing the whole picture, when in fact we are viewing only one part of it (Nickerson, 1998).

This is not because therapists are biased in ways that other professionals are not. Rather, it is because therapy is an intensely relational endeavour. We are not detached observers examining data from a distance. We are participants in a living, evolving relationship. Our personalities, histories, values, vulnerabilities, strengths, and emotional responses inevitably become part of that encounter (Gelso & Hayes, 2007).

For this reason, some of the most significant influences on therapy are not always found in what either person says aloud. They emerge in the subtle patterns that develop between therapist and client: the topics that repeatedly receive attention, the questions that never quite get asked, the moments of discomfort that are quickly smoothed over, or the assumptions that quietly become accepted as fact. These patterns rarely announce themselves. They simply become familiar.

This is why reflective practice is so essential. Not because good therapists should strive to eliminate subjectivity, but because they recognise that every perspective benefits from another perspective. Peer consultation offers precisely that opportunity. It introduces another camera angle, allowing us to notice not only aspects of the client’s story that may have escaped our attention, but also the lenses through which we have been viewing that story all along. The goal is not to prove ourselves wrong. It is to become more curious.

Perhaps that is one of the quiet paradoxes of experienced practice. As therapists grow in knowledge and confidence, they often become less attached to certainty and more committed to curiosity. They learn that the question, “What might I be missing?” is not a sign of insecurity. It is one of the most reliable companions of clinical wisdom (Gelso & Hayes, 2007).

Our edges of awareness rarely look like what they are

If aspects that are at the edges of our awareness – the so-called clinical blind spots – announced themselves clearly, they would hardly remain so for long. They do not usually arrive with a warning label saying, “You are overlooking something important.” More often, they disguise themselves as perfectly reasonable clinical conclusions.

A therapist may find themselves thinking, “This client simply isn’t motivated,” or “We’re making excellent progress,” or “I’ve tried everything.” Each of these conclusions may, in fact, be accurate. Equally, however, each may represent only one possible interpretation of a far more complex therapeutic picture. This is one reason why these edges can be so difficult to recognise from within. They tend to feel like clarity rather than limitation.

Sometimes the first clues appear not in our thoughts but in our experience of the work itself. We may notice that sessions have begun to feel repetitive, that we leave appointments unusually energised or unexpectedly depleted, or that a particular client occupies far more mental space than others. We might repeatedly revisit the same interventions with diminishing returns, find ourselves avoiding certain topics, or notice that therapy has become strangely predictable (Gelso & Hayes, 2007).

None of these experiences necessarily indicate that something has gone wrong. However, each invites an important question: What might this be telling me that I have not yet noticed?

Interestingly, the signs that we have come to an edge of awareness are often indirect. Rather than revealing themselves through obvious errors, they appear as recurring patterns that quietly settle into the background of our work (Hayes et al., 2018). The client who always seems “too fragile” to challenge. The one who somehow never quite reaches the difficult conversations. The client we find ourselves looking forward to seeing more than anyone else. The one whose cancellations bring an unexpected sense of relief.

These experiences are not evidence that a therapist is failing. They are evidence that therapy is a profoundly human encounter in which two people continually influence one another in ways that are only partly conscious.

Indeed, one of the more intriguing paradoxes of clinical work is that certainty itself can sometimes become a signal for reflection. While confidence grounded in experience is invaluable, absolute certainty may occasionally narrow our field of vision. Once we become convinced that we know exactly what is happening, our minds naturally begin organising new information around that existing understanding. Curiosity gradually gives way to confirmation (Nickerson, 1998; Kahneman, 2011).

Experienced therapists often discover the opposite movement. Rather than becoming more certain with experience, they become more comfortable holding multiple possibilities in mind. They recognise that every formulation is provisional, every understanding incomplete, and every therapeutic relationship capable of revealing something unexpected (Schön, 1983; Bennett-Levy, 2005).

Perhaps this is one of the quiet hallmarks of reflective practice: not replacing confidence with self-doubt, but replacing certainty with curiosity.

Why peers see what we cannot

One of the greatest strengths of peer consultation lies in its simplicity. Another therapist is not standing inside the therapeutic relationship. That difference matters.

While we are immersed in the unfolding emotional, relational, and clinical complexity of a session, our colleagues encounter the case from a different vantage point. They are listening to the story rather than living inside it. Their emotional distance often allows them to notice patterns that have become almost invisible to us through familiarity (Watkins, 2020).

Importantly, consultation is not valuable because colleagues are necessarily more knowledgeable or experienced than we are. Often, they simply notice different things (Falender & Shafranske, 2021).

One clinician may become curious about a repeated phrase the therapist uses to describe the client. Another may notice that the presentation contains detailed descriptions of the client’s behaviour but very little about the therapist’s own emotional experience. Someone else may observe that an important family member has quietly disappeared from the narrative altogether. None of these observations invalidate the therapist’s formulation. Instead, they widen it.

This is why the metaphor of an additional camera angle is so helpful. Every therapist is watching the same therapeutic “scene,” but from a particular position. That position allows certain details to come sharply into focus while leaving others just outside the frame. Consultation introduces another perspective – not to prove the first one wrong, but to reveal what it could not see alone (Watkins, 2020).

Interestingly, consultation often sheds light on something beyond the client. As colleagues ask questions, they begin noticing not only the client’s patterns but also the therapist’s patterns of attention. Which moments receive detailed description? Which are summarised in a sentence? Which emotions are emphasised? Which are barely mentioned? What assumptions seem firmly established, and which possibilities have not yet been explored (Knox & Hill, 2021)?

In this sense, consultation becomes an exercise in shared curiosity rather than expert judgment. The most valuable question in the room is rarely, “What’s the right intervention?” More often, it is something quieter: “What else could be true?”

When consultation groups develop cultures of psychological safety, therapists gradually discover that they do not need to defend their formulations. Instead, they can become curious about them. They begin presenting cases not simply to receive advice, but to understand themselves more fully within the therapeutic relationship (Falender & Shafranske, 2021; Bennett-Levy, 2005). That shift is subtle, yet transformative. The greatest gift of consultation is not that it provides better answers. It is that it helps us ask better questions.

Consultation as a laboratory for the therapist’s internal reactions

Every therapist has experienced it. A client leaves the room, and something lingers.

Perhaps it is irritation that seems stronger than the situation warrants. Perhaps an unexpected sense of protectiveness arises, accompanied by a strong desire to “fix” the client’s problems. Perhaps there is a subtle reluctance before the next appointment, or a curious feeling of exhaustion that appears only after sessions with one particular person.

These reactions can be uncomfortable to acknowledge. Many therapists instinctively wonder whether they signal a lapse in professionalism or objectivity. In reality, they often signal something far more ordinary – and far more useful.

Therapy is not an interaction between one observing mind and one observed mind. It is a relationship between two human beings whose thoughts, emotions, expectations, histories, and interpersonal patterns continually influence one another. It would be remarkable if therapists didn’t experience emotional responses to this work.

Psychodynamic traditions have long used the term countertransference to describe the therapist’s emotional responses within the therapeutic relationship. Although the concept originated within psychoanalytic thinking, contemporary clinicians across many therapeutic approaches increasingly recognise that our internal reactions can provide valuable information when approached with curiosity rather than judgment (Gelso & Hayes, 2007; Hayes et al., 2018). The important word here is information. Our feelings are not instructions.

Feeling protective does not necessarily mean a client requires rescuing. Feeling frustrated does not automatically indicate resistance. Feeling unusually hopeful does not prove that therapy is progressing exceptionally well. Emotional reactions are neither diagnoses nor treatment plans. They are simply data – pieces of information inviting further reflection (Bennett-Levy, 2005).

This is where consultation becomes uniquely valuable. When we attempt to interpret our own reactions in isolation, it can be difficult to distinguish between what belongs primarily to us, what belongs primarily to the client, and what is emerging within the relationship between us. Consultation offers a space where those possibilities can be explored with thoughtful curiosity rather than hurried certainty.

A colleague might gently ask:

• “What happened immediately before you felt frustrated?”
• “Do you experience this sense of urgency with many clients, or only this one?”
• “I wonder whether your desire to protect them mirrors something that happens in their other relationships?” (Bennett-Levy, 2005; Watkins, 2020).

None of these questions assumes that the therapist’s reaction is problematic. Instead, they acknowledge that our internal experiences may carry clinical significance precisely because we are participating in the therapeutic relationship rather than observing it from outside.

Interestingly, therapists often become adept at recognising clients’ recurring interpersonal patterns while overlooking similar patterns within themselves. We may consistently become the reassuring one, the problem-solver, the advocate, the educator, or the one who works just a little harder whenever therapy feels stuck. These tendencies are usually rooted in admirable qualities and genuine care for clients. Yet under certain circumstances, they may also narrow the range of responses available to us (Gelso & Hayes, 2007).

Consultation allows these patterns to become visible without reducing them to faults. Instead of asking, “Why am I reacting like this?”, the conversation gradually shifts towards richer questions:

• “What might this reaction be helping me understand?”
• “How might my own assumptions be shaping what is happening?”
• “What possibilities have I not yet considered?”

Over time, something subtle begins to change. Therapists become less preoccupied with eliminating difficult emotional reactions and more interested in understanding them. Irritation becomes an invitation to reflect rather than a source of guilt. Rescue fantasies become opportunities to examine boundaries, responsibility, and hope. Avoidance becomes a prompt to ask what feels difficult to face, both within the client and within ourselves (Watkins, 2020).

Perhaps this is one of the quiet gifts of sustained consultation. It helps transform our internal reactions from experiences to suppress into sources of clinical wisdom. We discover that the goal is not emotional neutrality – a state that is neither possible nor particularly desirable – but emotional awareness. By learning to recognise, reflect upon, and thoughtfully use our own responses, we become better able to understand both ourselves and the people who entrust us with their stories (Schön, 1983; Bennett-Levy, 2005; Watkins, 2020).

In this sense, consultation becomes more than a place to discuss cases. It becomes a laboratory for the ongoing development of the therapist’s most important clinical instrument: themselves.

From better answers to better questions: Getting the most from consultation

When therapists first begin attending peer consultation groups, it is natural to arrive with a practical question in mind: “What should I do with this client?”

There is nothing wrong with that question. Consultation has always been an invaluable place to gather ideas, consider alternative interventions, and benefit from the collective wisdom of experienced colleagues (Falender & Shafranske, 2021; Watkins, 2020).

Over time, however, many therapists notice a subtle shift in the kinds of questions they bring. Instead of asking only, “What should I do?”, they begin asking, “What might I not be seeing?” Rather than seeking immediate solutions, they become increasingly interested in understanding the assumptions, emotional responses, and relational patterns that may be quietly influencing their work (Schön, 1983; Bennett-Levy, 2005).

This change reflects more than growing clinical experience. It reflects a different way of approaching professional development. Consultation gradually becomes less about collecting techniques and more about cultivating curiosity.

One practical way of supporting this shift is to think intentionally about the cases we choose to present. It is easy to bring only those clients who feel obviously complex or diagnostically challenging. Yet some of the richest consultation conversations emerge from very different kinds of cases.

Consider bringing the client:

• who occupies your thoughts long after the session has ended;
• whose story seems unusually straightforward;
• with whom therapy feels unexpectedly effortless;
• whose sessions consistently leave you feeling drained, frustrated, or unusually hopeful;
• whom you find yourself wanting to rescue;
• whose appointments you quietly dread; or
• who seems “stuck”, despite everyone’s best efforts.

These are not signs that something has gone wrong. They are often invitations to explore what may be happening just beyond the current edge of awareness.

Equally important is the attitude we bring into the consultation room. If our primary goal is to defend our formulation, consultation can easily become an exercise in confirming what we already believe. If, however, we enter with genuine curiosity, something different becomes possible. We begin to welcome questions that gently unsettle our assumptions, recognising that discomfort and discovery are often close companions in professional growth (Schön, 1983).

This does not mean abandoning confidence in our clinical judgement. Rather, it means holding that judgment lightly enough for it to be refined by other perspectives. Confidence and curiosity are not opposites; in mature clinical practice, they increasingly learn to coexist.

Perhaps this is the quiet paradox of consultation. We often arrive hoping that colleagues will provide better answers to our clinical questions. Sometimes they do. More often, however, they help us ask better questions. They notice what has faded into the background of our attention. They become curious about what we have taken for granted. They gently widen the frame through which we have been viewing the therapeutic relationship (Watkins, 2020; Falender & Shafranske, 2021).

The most valuable consultation groups are therefore not those in which therapists feel pressure to appear knowledgeable, competent, or certain. They are those in which uncertainty can be spoken aloud, curiosity is welcomed, and different perspectives are explored with generosity and respect. Psychological safety does not lower professional standards; it creates the conditions in which honest reflection can flourish (Falender & Shafranske, 2021).

In many ways, this mirrors the therapeutic relationships we seek to create with our clients. Just as therapy invites clients to notice previously unseen aspects of themselves, consultation invites therapists to do the same. Both are grounded in the belief that greater awareness expands possibility.

Conclusion: The biggest gift of peer consultation

Perhaps that is the deepest gift of peer consultation. It reminds us that our greatest clinical instrument is not simply our knowledge, our experience, or our techniques. It is our willingness to remain curious about our own participation in the therapeutic relationship. Every new perspective becomes another camera angle, revealing details that had previously remained outside the frame. As our awareness expands, so too does our capacity to meet our clients with greater flexibility, humility, and compassion.

Making the invisible visible is not a task we complete once and for all. It is the lifelong practice of becoming just a little more aware today than we were yesterday. And that may be one of the most enduring marks of clinical wisdom.

Key takeaways

• Every therapist has edges of awareness. These are not signs of incompetence or professional failure, but natural consequences of being human. No therapist can observe every aspect of a therapeutic relationship while simultaneously participating in it.
• Consultation is about more than solving difficult cases. While colleagues often offer valuable clinical ideas, the deeper gift of consultation is the opportunity to recognise assumptions, emotional responses, and relational patterns that may have remained outside our awareness.
• The richest consultations often begin with curiosity rather than certainty. When therapists become willing to ask, “What might I not be seeing?”, consultation shifts from confirming existing formulations to expanding them.
• Our internal reactions are valuable sources of information. Feelings such as irritation, protectiveness, avoidance, or unusually strong optimism need not be judged or suppressed. When explored thoughtfully, they can deepen understanding of both the therapist and the therapeutic relationship.
• Different perspectives widen the clinical picture. Like viewing the same scene from another camera angle, trusted colleagues often notice aspects of the therapeutic process that are difficult to recognise from within the relationship itself.
• Reflective practice is a lifelong discipline rather than a destination. Clinical wisdom is not characterised by having fewer “blind spots” (edges of awareness), but by becoming increasingly willing to explore those ever-expanding edges with openness, humility, and curiosity.

Questions therapists often ask

Q. Doesn’t asking for consultation make me look less competent?

A. Quite the opposite. Seeking consultation reflects professional responsibility rather than inadequacy. Experienced clinicians recognise that no one can perceive every aspect of a complex therapeutic relationship. Consultation demonstrates a commitment to reflective practice, ethical care, and ongoing professional development – not a lack of confidence.

Q. How do I know whether I’m experiencing an important internal reaction or simply having a difficult day?

A. There is rarely a simple answer. A useful starting point is to look for patterns. Does the reaction arise with one particular client or across many sessions? Does it persist over time? Does it resemble feelings that emerge elsewhere in your life? Consultation and supervision can help distinguish between personal stressors and reactions that may be providing clinically relevant information.

Q. What if my colleagues interpret my reactions differently from the way I do?

A. That is often where the richest learning occurs. Consultation is not about determining a single “correct” interpretation. It is about considering multiple perspectives with curiosity. Differing viewpoints expand the range of possibilities available for reflection rather than narrowing them.

Q. Are experienced therapists less likely to have so-called “blind spots”?

A. Not necessarily. Experience often changes how therapists relate to the edges of their awareness rather than eliminating them altogether. Seasoned clinicians frequently become more comfortable acknowledging uncertainty, inviting alternative perspectives, and revising their formulations as new information emerges.

Q. How can I make the most of a consultation group?

A. Bring more than your most diagnostically challenging cases. Consider presenting clients who evoke unusually strong emotional reactions, feel surprisingly straightforward, remain persistently “stuck,” or leave you wondering why they occupy your thoughts long after sessions have ended. Equally important, arrive with curiosity. The most valuable question is often not, “What should I do?”, but “What might I not yet be seeing?”

References

• Bennett-Levy, J. (2005). Therapist skills: A cognitive model of their acquisition and refinement. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 34(1), 57-78.
• Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2021). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.
• Gelso, C. J., & Hayes, J. A. (2007). Countertransference and the therapist’s inner experience: Perils and possibilities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hayes, J. A., Gelso, C. J., Goldberg, S., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2018). Countertransference management and effective psychotherapy: Meta-analytic findings. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 496-507.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Knox, S., & Hill, C. E. (2021). Training and supervision in psychotherapy: What we know and where we need to go. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: 50th anniversary edition (7th ed., pp. 327–349). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
• Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2018). Psychotherapy relationships that work III. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000193
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2020). Psychotherapy supervision: An ever-evolving signature pedagogy. World Psychiatry, 19(2), 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20747