State of the Art in Clinical Supervision

John R. Culbreth, Lori L. Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135852757
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Psychotherapy Counselling
• Index: Psychology

There have been many recent developments in the research, theory, and practice of supervision in counseling, but few reliable resources are available for practitioners seeking to expand their knowledge in these areas. Culbreth and Brown have assembled a group of leading researchers, scholars, and professionals in the field to present a collection of chapters on the state of the art in clinical supervision. These chapters provide the reader with fresh approaches to core topics, such as multicultural competence, religion and spirituality, and the training of supervisors, as well as discussions of new areas of study. Alternative methods to conducting supervision are explored with expressive art techniques and the uses of narrative therapy and concepts of emotional intelligence. Triadic supervision and the use of the newest developments in technology are also considered. Current and future supervisors will no doubt find the innovative and informative strategies described in this book invaluable in their work with supervisees.

CHAPTER 1

Multicultural Supervision Competence

CATHERINE Y. CHANG and LEA R. FLOWERS

In light of the growing diversity within the United States and the emergence of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES, 1990) supervisory competencies, it is essential for supervisors to enhance their awareness and knowledge of multicultural issues in supervision. Cross-racial and cross-cultural issues have not been addressed widely within the supervisory process. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and discuss the importance of addressing cross-racial and cross-cultural issues within the supervisory triad (i.e., supervisor, supervisee, and client). Additionally, the authors will present various models and frameworks for understanding multicultural supervision, and highlight challenges as well as recommendations related to multicultural supervision competence.

As you read this chapter, reflect on your past supervisory experiences. Which supervisors did you find to be the most helpful? Which ones did you find to be the least helpful? What aspects of the supervisory relationships were helpful and which aspects were either neutral or not helpful? How openly were cultural issues discussed in supervision? Who initiated the cultural dialogue? Did you feel that there was too much or too little attention to cultural issues in your supervision experiences?

Importance of Multicultural Supervision

Multicultural supervision is a complex relationship involving a minimum of three individuals: a supervisor, supervisee/counselor, and client, who are engaged in a triadic relationship that involves the intermingling of diverse cultural backgrounds. Multicultural supervision involves open dialogue regarding relevant cultural issues with the goal of promoting cultural competence in both the counseling and supervisory relationships (Chang, Hays, & Shoffner, 2003; D’Andrea & Daniels, 1997). Ancis and Ladany (2001) argue that addressing multicultural issues in supervision is essential to ethical and effective practices involving clients from diverse backgrounds. There has been debate in the literature on how to define culture in the context of the supervisory and counseling relationships. Some have argued for a narrow definition of culture (e.g., Locke, 1990; Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992), that is, race and ethnicity, while others offer a more broad definition (e.g., D’Andrea & Daniels, 1997; Garrett, Borders, Crutchfield, Torres-Rivera, Brotherton, & Curtis, 2001; Stone, 1997). For the purpose of this chapter, we suggest a broader definition of culture, and argue for the term multicultural supervision to be inclusive of race, ethnicity, language, class or socioeconomic status, sexual identity, gender, religious or spiritual identity, ability status, and age.

By taking a more inclusive approach to multicultural supervision, we acknowledge that all individuals have multiple cultural identities that interact with each other, and these various cultural identities may become more or less salient across time and situations. In recognizing multicultural supervision, we acknowledge within-group differences, thus avoiding stereotyping and allowing supervisors and supervisees to examine how various aspects of their cultural identities may influence the supervisory and counseling relationships. The supervisor–supervisee/counselor–client triad will become more complex as our society becomes more diverse, thus increasing the need for multicultural supervision (McLeod, 2008).

Because cultural self-awareness is an important aspect of multicultural supervision, we suggest the following activity before engaging in multicultural supervision. Draw three columns on a piece of paper. In the first column, list all the cultural groups of which you are a member (e.g., Asian, female, heterosexual, able-bodied, married with children). In the second column, list all the advantages of being in that group (i.e., privileges). In the third column, list all the disadvantages of being in that group (i.e., oppressions). Now review the list and, based on your cultural group memberships, determine if are there any individuals from any cultural groups that you would have a difficult time either supervising or receiving supervision from?

The importance of addressing multicultural issues in counseling and supervision is highlighted by several documents. Standards for Counseling Supervisors (ACES, 1990) supports the need to recognize individual differences and their impact on the supervisory relationship. The concept of multicultural counseling competencies (MCC; Sue et al., 1992) stresses the need for professional counselors to seek awareness of their own assumptions and biases, to understand the worldviews of culturally different clients, and to develop appropriate intervention strategies for working with culturally diverse clients. The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (2002) promotes addressing multiculturalism and diversity in psychological education and training. According to the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics, counselor educators are responsible for infusing multicultural and diversity issues into all counseling courses and workshops, as well as addressing multicultural issues in the supervisory relationship (ACA, 2005). The Council for Accreditation for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2009) standards require that counselor training programs provide counselor trainees with educational experiences that result in an understanding of the cultural context of relationships, multicultural trends and concerns, the role of the counselor in social justice and advocacy work, and an increased level of knowledge, skills, and awareness of attitudes and beliefs related to working with a culturally diverse population.

Clearly, professional organizations advocate for and recognize the importance of addressing multicultural issues in supervision. The importance of addressing cultural issues in supervision is also highlighted in the literature. When cultural variables were discussed in the supervisory relationship, supervisees reported increased multicultural awareness, knowledge, skill and confidence level for addressing cultural issues in supervision and counseling (Toporek, Ortega-Villalobos, & Pope-Davis, 2004), increased satisfaction with supervision and enhanced supervisory working alliance (Burkard et al., 2006; Inman, 2006; Silvestri, 2003; Tsong, 2005), increased supervisee self-efficacy for working with culturally diverse client populations (Fukuyama, 1994), and perceived their supervisors to be more credible (McLeod, 2008; Yang, 2005). Additionally, when cultural issues were discussed in supervision, supervisees reported that it positively impacted client outcomes (Ancis & Marshall, in press).

Models for Multicultural Supervision

Many authors have developed models for multicultural supervision. The Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS; Martinez & Holloway, 1997) model examines the relationship between contextual factors (e.g., cultural characteristics, organizational structure of the institution), supervision functions (e.g., assessment, teaching, consulting), supervision tasks (e.g., counseling skills, case conceptualization), and the supervisory relationship. Additionally, the SAS model promotes engaging the supervisee, establishing a professional relationship, and focusing on both content and process in supervision and counseling.

González (1997) presented a postmodern approach to supervision by integrating Interpersonal Process Recall with the Discrimination Model and live supervision techniques. In this model, the supervisor establishes a collaborative environment in which the expertise of the supervisee and client is highly valued. In order to gain insight into the cultural belief system and worldviews of the supervisee and client, supervisors attend to language usage, emotional expressions of the supervisee, and the client’s verbal and nonverbal statements.

The VISION model of cultural responsiveness (Garrett et al., 2001) provides a framework for exploring multicultural issues in supervision through increasing supervisor cultural awareness and cultural responsiveness. This model outlines the importance of focusing on the values and beliefs (V) of the supervisor and the supervisee, reminds the supervisor to address the supervisee’s interpretation (I) of their experiences both in the supervisory and the counseling process, and encourages the supervisor to consider the needs and cultural characteristics of the supervisee in structuring (S) the supervision sessions. Additionally, the supervisor must attend to the interactional styles (I) or the preferred modes of both verbal and nonverbal communication, for both the supervisor and the supervisee, in order to reduce the chance of unintentional miscommunication. The supervisor should also give thought to the operational strategies (O), or level of intentionality in using culturally based strategies, to achieve goals for supervision. Finally, the supervisor considers both the supervisors’ and the supervisees’ perceived needs (mental, physical, spiritual, emotional, or environmental) related to desired outcomes (N). Unlike the SAS (Martinez & Holloway, 1997) or the González (1997) model for supervision, the VISION model presents an interactional framework for multicultural supervision by examining the impact of communication styles, behavior, perception, expectation, and belief systems within the supervisory relationship (see Chen, 2001 for an additional interactional model for supervision).

Several authors have proposed racial identity development (RID) models for multicultural supervision that consider not only the interaction between cultural characteristics but the supervisor’s and the supervisee’s RID (Chang, et al., 2003; Cook, 1994; D’Andrea & Daniels, 1997). These RID models for supervision are based on Helms and Carter’s (1990) White RID model and Atkinson, Morten, and Sue’s (1998) RID model for people of color. According to the Helms and Carter model, White racial identity development progresses through six ego statuses: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudoindependence, immersion-emersion, and autonomy. Similarly, Atkinson et al. posited that minorities progress through five statuses: conformity, dissonance, resistance and immersion, introspection, and integrative awareness. Applying these RID models to the supervisor and the supervisee, the supervisory relationship can be described as parallel (supervisor and supervisee are at similar levels of RID), progressive (supervisor is at a more advanced level of RID), or regressive (supervisee is at a more advanced level of RID). It has been suggested that if RID issues are not addressed in supervision, several consequences may occur, including perpetuation of stereotypes, misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment planning, and countertransferences based on racial issues. Additionally, failure to discuss racial identity issues in supervision may have a negative impact on the supervisory relationship and the working alliance (Chang, et al., 2003; Constantine, Warren, & Miville, 2005; Ladany, Brittan-Powell, & Pannu, 1997). According to these models, parallel and progressive relationships will lead to more beneficial supervisory relationships while regressive relationships may lead to avoidance of, or inappropriate attention to, cultural issues in supervision.

Several research studies provide evidence for the efficacy of applying RID to supervision. According to the Bhat and Davis (2007) study that explored the relationship between RID and working alliance in supervision, the strongest working alliances were found in supervisory dyads in which both the supervisor and the supervisee were at advanced statuses of RID, while the lowest levels of working alliance were found in supervisory dyads with both the supervisor and supervisee at lower RID statuses.

Ladany et al. (1997) investigated the influence of supervisory racial identity interactions and racial matching on the supervisory working alliance and supervisee’s multicultural counseling competence. Supervisees in parallel-high and progressive dyads reported the highest levels of supervisory working alliance, while regressive interactions predicted the weakest supervisory working alliance. Similarly, Constantine et al. (2005) found that the supervisees in more advanced White RID schemas (i.e., progressive and parallel high dyadic relationships) reported higher self-perceived multicultural counseling competence and obtained higher multicultural case conceptualization ratings than those supervisees in supervisory dyads with lower RID schemas (i.e., parallel-low dyadic relationships). These studies point to the importance of addressing RID in supervision. Interestingly, although RID of the supervisor and the supervisee are related to supervisory working alliance and multicultural counseling competence, cultural match does not significantly predict level of supervision satisfaction or working alliance (Gatmon et al., 2001).

The Heuristic Model of Nonoppressive Interpersonal Development (HMNID; Ancis & Ladany, 2001) provides one of the most comprehensive multicultural models for supervision, by not only considering RID but also cultural identity development (i.e., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status). According to this model, the central task for the supervisor is to facilitate the awareness and growth of the supervisee, thus leading to a more advanced level of cultural identity development. This model acknowledges that individuals can belong to multiple cultural groups simultaneously and that these groups can be either privileged or oppressed. For example, an Asian American, able-bodied, heterosexual female maintains membership in both privileged (i.e., able-bodied, heterosexual) and oppressed (Asian American, female) groups. For each cultural identity, the individual will progress through four developmental phases based on one’s thoughts and feelings about oneself, while the individual’s behaviors are based on the individual’s identification with a particular cultural identity. The developmental phases include: (a) adaptation (complacency, stereotypical attitudes, minimal awareness of privilege and oppression); (b) incongruence (beginning to question beliefs about cultural variables); (c) exploration (active exploration of cultural issues); and (d) integration (multicultural integrity). Based on the developmental stage of the supervisor and the supervisee, Ancis and Ladany propose four supervisor–supervisee interpersonal interactions: (a) progressive, where the supervisor is at a more advanced stage (i.e., exploration and integration); (b) parallel-advanced, where the supervisor and the supervisee are both at advanced developmental stages; (c) parallel-delayed, where the supervisor and the supervisee are at comparable delayed stages (i.e., adaptation and incongruence); and (d) regressive, where the supervisee is at a more advanced stage than the supervisor. Ancis and Ladany predict that the interpersonal interaction will have an impact on the supervisory working alliance and outcomes o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• 1. Multicultural Supervision Competence
• 2. No Surprises: Practices for Conducting Supervisee Evaluations
• 3. Triadic Supervision
• 4. Innovative Uses of Technology in Clinical Supervision
• 5. Using Expressive Arts in Counseling Supervision
• 6. Principles of Best Practices for Clinical Supervisor Training Programs
• 7. Religion, Spirituality, and Clinical Supervision
• 8. The Transtheoretical Model of Change in Clinical Supervision
• 9. Applications of Narrative Therapy in Supervision
• 10. On Becoming an Emotionally Intelligent Counseling Supervisor
• Index