REVIEW

Multicultural Supervision: What Difference DoesDifference Make?

Katie Eklund & Megan Aros-O’Malley & Imelda Murrieta

Published online: 25 June 2014# California Association of School Psychologists 2014

Abstract Multicultural sensitivity and competency representcritical components to contemporary practice and supervisionin school psychology. Internship and supervision experiencesare a capstone experience for many new school psychologists;however, few receive formal training and supervision in mul-ticultural competencies. As an increased number of studentsfrom culturally diverse backgrounds are accepted into schoolpsychology training programs, it is likely students will en-counter supervisory experiences in which the supervisor is ofa culture other than their own. This paper explores culturalfactors impacting supervision, reviews research on culturalmatch between supervisor and supervisee, as well as high-lights best practice considerations for engaging in effectivemulticultural supervision.

Keywords Supervision . Cultural match .Multiculturalsupervision . Interns

Introduction

As the US population becomes increasingly diverse and stu-dents from culturally diverse backgrounds are accepted intoschool psychology training programs, it is likely students willencounter supervisory experiences in which the supervisor isof a culture other than their own (Nilsson and Duan 2007).This may be a concern for many school psychology interns asresearch suggests internship supervisors have limited experi-ence in supervising individuals from cultural backgroundsdifferent than their own, receive minimal training in

multicultural issues, and may not be adequately prepared toaddress diversity issues within the context of supervision(Bhat and Davis 2007; Duan and Roehlke 2001; Gloria et al.2008). As a result, it is necessary to examine how culture mayaffect the supervisory relationship and to identify attitudes,beliefs, knowledge, and skills necessary to provide competentpractices in a multicultural society.

The demographics of the USA continues to change as thepopulation who self-identify as non-White has increased from31 % in 2000 to 36 % in 2010 (United States Census Bureau2011). In addition, the percentage of the population whoconsider themselves ethnic minorities is expected to continueto rise. School psychologists are called upon to have specialexpertise in working with students from diverse cultural,racial, ethnic, linguistic, socioeconomic, and familial back-grounds (NASP 2010). Indeed, the APA Ethics Code statespsychologists must be aware of and respect the differences ofothers, including cultural, racial, and ethnic differences, andconsider these differences when working with members ofsuch groups (Principle E; APA Ethics Code 2010). Further,the APA Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training,Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psycholo-gists (2002) Guideline #3 states, “As educators, psychologistsare encouraged to employ the constructs of multiculturalismand diversity in psychological education” (p. 30). Given theincreasingly diverse nature of the USA, it is incumbent uponschool psychologists to take advantage of opportunities thatfoster professional growth and skill development in the deliv-ery of culturally responsive practices and services.

The practice of clinical supervision is particularly relevantto providing effective psychological services in schools, as itis rated by psychologists as one of the top five activities theyengage in (Falender et al. 2013). Supervision is described asthe “signature pedagogy” by which psychologist-educatorsprepare psychology students for practice and is very influen-tial in students’ development as a professional (Bernard and

K. Eklund (*) :M. Aros-O’Malley : I. MurrietaSchool Psychology Program, College of Education,University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second Street, Tucson,AZ 85721, USAe-mail: keklund@email.arizona.edu

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204DOI 10.1007/s40688-014-0024-8

Goodyear 2009). Despite the importance of this topic, re-search in the area of multicultural supervision is limited,especially regarding supervisory relationships where asupervisee and supervisor differ in some culturally meaningfulway. Differences in racial status between a supervisor andsupervisee have been referred to as cross-racial supervision(Estrada 2005; Norton and Coleman 2003) and are a uniquecomponent of multicultural supervision that is deserving ofspecial attention. While we recognize that other parts of self-identity contribute to building relationships, such as gender,sexual orientation, religion, ability, etc., the primary focus ofthis review is on culture and race in supervisory contexts.Thus, this paper will explore the question of “what differencedoes difference make?” when supervisors and supervisees areof different cultures and in the provision of evidence-basedpsychological services. In the present discussion, the termculture has been selected to encapsulate any linguistic, racial,and/or ethnic differences that exist between supervisor andsupervisee. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) to identifycultural factors impacting supervision, including cultural match;(2) to outline racial identity development models and theirapplication within the context of culturally competent supervi-sion; and (3) to identify evidence-based best practice consider-ations for engaging in effective multicultural supervision.

Cultural Factors Impacting Supervision

Cultural Match

Essential components of school psychology graduate trainingare practicum and internship experiences that provide studentsnecessary training, skill development, and mentorship. As stu-dents from increasingly diverse backgrounds enter into schoolpsychology training programs, it is likely that they may bepaired with a practitioner who is culturally different from themas only 7.4 % of school psychologists come from diversebackgrounds (Curtis et al. 2012). The limited and often outdat-ed information that is available about the role of culture insupervisory relationships provides initial guidelines for practicedrawing from the fields of clinical and counseling psychology;however, additional theories and frameworks are needed forunderstanding how to address cultural differences within su-pervision, specifically within the field of school psychology.

While research suggests that cultural match is not neces-sary for an effective supervisor–supervisee relationship or forsupervisee satisfaction with his or her supervisor (Gatmonet al. 2001; Chang et al. 2003), several studies have foundthat many racial minority supervisees report feeling vulnera-ble and encounter incidences of disrespect or cultural insensi-tivity when supervisors were White (Burkard et al. 2006;Constantine and Sue 2007). For example, in a study exploringhow racial minority supervisees perceive their White

supervisors, supervisees “expected their supervisors to be lessempathetic, respectful, and congruent” and superviseesviewed perceived liking by their supervisors to be an impor-tant component of cross-racial supervision (Duan andRoehlke 2001, p. 132). Additionally, cross-racial supervisioninteractions appear to often be more difficult to navigate thansame-race relationships as various supervisors have citedcross-racial supervision interactions as some of their mostchallenging moments in supervision (Ladany et al. 2005).Racial match may be an aspect of supervision that not onlyinfluences the relationship between the supervisor and traineebut also shapes the therapeutic alliance between a trainee andclient. Indeed, supervisors’ cultural knowledge and sensitivityhave been shown to positively influence not only the super-visory relationship but school psychologists’ direct work withstudents as well (Duan and Roehlke 2001).

White Privilege

Part of the challenge of cross-racial supervision may stemfrom the concept of “White privilege.” White privilege sug-gests that White individuals are provided with overt andcovert advantages not afforded to minorities (McIntosh1989). In addition, White privilege also involves the beliefthat one’s experiences are universal and accurate (McIntosh1989). Despite the growing cultural diversity of the USA, themajority of psychology doctoral students and practitioners(77 %) are from the dominant White culture (APA 2002).The predominance of White culture in the field of psychologyoften results in a Eurocentric training focus and educationmodels that may unintentionally perpetuate oppressive behav-iors for minority group individuals; leading supervisors tooverlook the fact that Whiteness is a racial identity as well(Hays and Chang 2003). A White supervisor who is notmindful of this privilege might fail to acknowledge thesupervisee’s cultural perspective and inadvertently imposecultural values from the dominant group onto the supervisee.For example, a supervisor’s Eurocentric attitudes could bemanifested by insistence that a trainee develop an interventionplan for a high school student with high rates of absenteeismwithout exploring the student’s family background or house-hold responsibilities, such as caring for younger siblings whileboth parents work. In addition, the supervisor might be lessempathetic toward the supervisee’s past struggles with preju-dice and oppression, which could result in feelings of frustra-tion, anger, and poor outcomes for the supervisory process(Burkard et al. 2006).

White privilege can also lead to dilemmas of trust withinthe supervisory relationship as a supervisee who has experi-enced racism may be more cautious and distrustful of asupervisor from the majority culture (Nilsson and Duan2007). Further, supervisees from a minority group may beparticularly sensitive to supervisors’ failures to acknowledge

196 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204

and raise multicultural issues (Norton and Coleman 2003). Alack of trust within the supervisory relationship may alsocause supervisees to reluctantly implement the supervisor’srecommendations or withhold their work by only submittinghigh-quality work samples for evaluative and corrective feed-back that might not be as useful in assisting the supervisee todevelop necessary professional skills (Fong and Lease 1997).Failure to acknowledge privilege may have a negative effecton supervision, potentially leading to distrust or misunder-standing in the supervisory relationship. Acknowledging suchpower dynamics is an important step so that the supervisor andintern can engage in open and honest dialogue, facilitatingbehaviors that not only transfer to more positive supervisionexperiences but also enhanced client outcomes (Dressel et al.2007; Hays and Chang 2003)

Communication Styles

Differing communication styles between cultural groups caninfluence the supervisory relationship. For example, in gener-al, European Americans tend to communicate through loudand rapid speech and tend to make direct eye contact whenlistening but less frequently when speaking. European Amer-icans may also use nonverbal gestures such as head noddingand hand gestures to communicate with others (Fong andLease 1997). On the other hand, American Indians, Hispanics,and Asian Americans tend to make less eye contact withothers and may speak with a softer tone and a slower rate ofspeech (Fong and Lease 1997). Supervisors who are unawareof how their communication style could differ from that oftheir supervisees may misinterpret and draw inaccurate con-clusions about a supervisee’s skills or character. For example,a supervisee might show respect for his or her supervisor bynot making direct eye contact, but a supervisor may misinter-pret a lack of eye contact as fear or low self-esteem. Ignoringdifferences in communication styles can lead to confusion andinaccurate assumptions about individuals, further complicat-ing the process of training and supervision.

Training and Supervision

Lack of training and experience in culturally competent prac-tices and cross-cultural supervision presents additional chal-lenges to effective multicultural supervision. Many psycholo-gists report receiving little to no formal training in supervision(Bernard and Goodyear 2009; Falender et al. 2013); an evengreater number of supervisors have received no formal edu-cation or experiences in addressing multicultural issues. Forexample, one study found that although 70 % of superviseesreported receiving training in multicultural issues, only 30 %of their supervisors reported receiving such training(Constantine 2003). Historical factors likely affect these find-ings as multicultural training has become more common in

recent years (Bernard and Goodyear 2009); however, evenamong supervisees who will become future supervisors, al-most one third report receiving no training. Effective supervi-sion comes from individuals who are well versed in multicul-tural issues. It is incumbent upon supervising school psychol-ogists to take advantage of opportunities that foster theirprofessional growth and skill development in this area.

Multicultural training deficiencies also likely contribute to alack of cultural awareness by supervisors, which in turn hasbeen shown to negatively impact the multicultural supervisoryrelationship (Burkard et al. 2006). Indeed, lack of culturalawareness by supervisors was viewed as a negative criticalincident by supervisees that contributed to weaker appraisalsof the supervisor–supervisee relationship (Toporek et al. 2004).Moreover, Burkard et al. (2006) found that when superviseesencountered a culturally unresponsive supervisor, theydisclosed less to their supervisor and were instead more likelyto go to other students and practitioners for advice and informalsupervision regarding their clients. As a result, supervisees mayperceive supervisors as culturally unresponsive.

Due to the supervisor’s evaluative role in the supervisoryrelationship, the power differential within supervision is an-other factor that can affect a supervisee’s performance(Nilsson and Duan 2007). French and Raven (1959) describefive power bases that can affect a relationship: (1) referent; (2)expert; (3) coercive; (4) reward; and (5) legitimate power.Referent power occurs when a supervisee sees a supervisoras similar to him or herself and holding like beliefs. On theother hand, expert power occurs when a supervisee believesthe supervisor possesses knowledge or expertise that he or shedoes not possess. Coercive power occurs when the supervisorcan withhold or bestow benefits upon the supervisee. Rewardpower occurs when the supervisor bestows benefits, praise, orrewards on the supervisee. Lastly, legitimate power occurswhen the supervisee believes the supervisor has a legal orauthoritative ability to control him or her (Kampwirth andPowers 2012). In general, referent or expert power is connect-ed with positive supervisee performance and satisfaction(Harvey and Struzziero 2008). In both of these relationships,supervisees are more likely to implement supervisor’s sugges-tions and seek their advice. In contrast to these positive formsof power, supervisors who use coercive, reward, or legitimatepower are more likely to be negatively viewed by superviseesand be perceived as exhibiting bullying behavior (Harvey andStruzziero 2008). While we recognize issues of power aresalient to all supervisory relationships, school psychologistswho not only ignore power differentials in supervision butalso lack cultural knowledge and awareness risk placingsupervisees in a double bind. Norton and Coleman (2003)clearly outline this double bind: “If (supervisees) ignore theirsupervisors’ cultural knowledge and awareness, they riskcompromising their personal and professional develop-ment…yet if addressing supervisors’ limitations, they

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204 197

potentially face interpersonal and professional repercussions(p. 122).” As such, supervisors could unknowingly silencesupervisees by not attending to prominent personal and pro-fessional development needs. This can have a negative impacton the quality of the relationship between the supervisor andintern, leading both to feel dissatisfied and frustrated (Con-stantine and Sue 2007).

In addition to the types of power, supervisees’ past experi-ences with racism and oppression can also affect the cross-cultural supervisory relationship. Specifically, experienceswith racism and oppression have the potential to alter asupervisee’s perception of the supervisor and may cause hes-itancy to ask the supervisor for help or accept assistance forfear of being judged as incompetent (Duan and Roehlke2001). Supervisees may also be hesitant to ask for clarifica-tions regarding the supervisor’s expectations, how to meetthose expectations, and the consequences of poor perfor-mance. In this “catch-22,” supervisees must demonstrate thatthey are competent individuals, yet be able to show theirweaknesses and be receptive to feedback for improvement.A supervisee’s hesitancy to address areas of conflict maynegatively impact their own professional growth or ability toimpact change in a helping relationship.

Impact on the Client

As school psychologist-supervisors are responsible for foster-ing trainees’ competence and ensuring adequate treatment fortrainees’ clients, supervisors who are trained minimally if atall, in cultural diversity issues, might inadvertently harmclients of color and even supervisees of color (Brown andLandrum-Brown 1995; Priest 1994). A client can be negative-ly affected when racial and cultural issues are ignored withinthe context of supervision. Supervisees who are not providedtraining or opportunities to develop multicultural competen-cies may feel they are unable to successfully address clientconcerns regarding racial identity; they may also be unawareof how their own cultural background and biases will influ-ence their reactions to culturally diverse clients (Cook 1994).A study conducted by Burkard et al. (2006) found thatsupervisees with culturally responsive supervisors (i.e., super-visors who address the cultural differences that exist betweenthe supervisor and the supervisee) were more responsive tocultural issues that arose during therapy with a client. On theother hand, supervisees with culturally unresponsive supervi-sors reported that they had difficulty validating their client’sexperiences with racism and therefore did not meet the client’sneeds during therapy. Furthermore, when supervisors wereculturally unresponsive, supervisees sought out outside con-sultation regarding client cases. As clients are both directlyand indirectly impacted by such negligence, it is essential forsupervisors and interns to address racial and cultural issuesduring supervision. School psychologists in a supervisory role

should take care to identify their own knowledge and aware-ness of the cultural groups of children and families they servein order to help guide and mentor supervisees.

Multicultural Supervision Models

Racial Identity Development Models

While not specific to supervision, racial identity developmentmodels can be applied within multicultural supervision to helpguide the supervisory relationship (Chang et al. 2003). Weacknowledge that multiple theories and models of racial andcultural identity exist; however, Helms and Carter’s (1990)White Racial Identity Development Model and the Racial/Cultural Identity Model (1998) are especially applicable toschool psychology supervision as these models uniquely de-scribe how the racial identities of those in relationships caninteract and influence, in this case, the dynamic between theschool psychology supervisor and supervisee. Both of thesemodels progress in stage-like ways with individualstransitioning between stages, as briefly described below.

White Racial Identity Development Model Helms and Carter(1990) suggest that in the White Racial Identity DevelopmentModel, individuals progress through six stages (contact,disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence,immersion/emersion, and autonomy). The model progressesin a way where individuals are first unaware of racial identityand racism. Individuals then begin to realize that racism existsand become faced with ethical or moral dilemmas. Because ofthe discomfort this new awareness causes, individuals nextidealize Whites. Individuals then begin to move towardsembracing a better understanding of their own, as well asother races. In the more advanced stages of the model,individuals begin to consider the impact of White privilegeand the impact on other races. Finally, individuals are able tohonestly evaluate White privilege and racism and worktowards eliminating racism.

Racial/Cultural Identity Development Model Atkinson et al.(1998) identify a five step Racial/Cultural Identity Develop-mentModel for racial minorities where individuals start with afavorable view of the norms and values of the dominantculture (Conformity Stage). They next begin to question theirviews of the dominant culture and begin a self-discovery oftheir own cultural values and norms (Dissonance Stage). Thenext stages involve increased in-group knowledge, whichleads to in-group solidarity and resistance towards the domi-nant group (Resistance and Immersion Stage). Once individ-uals become secure enough in their racial identity, they areable to question their resistant attitudes and explore their needs

198 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204

for cultural belonging and their own identity development(Introspection Stage). Finally, in the higher stages of themodel, individuals are able to develop a secure racial identityand inner sense of self and maintain an appreciation for allracial groups (Integrative Awareness Stage).

These models of racial identity are important to considerwithin the context of supervision as the racial identity of bothsupervisor and supervisee will likely affect their interactionsin a cross-racial supervisory relationship (Chang et al. 2003).Indeed, studies have demonstrated that when both individualsin a supervisor–supervisee pair are at the higher stages ofracial identity development, they report more feelings of trustand liking for one another and have stronger working alliancesthan pairs who are both low in identity development and pairsin which the supervisee is higher than the supervisor in iden-tity development (Bhat and Davis 2007; Ladany et al. 1997).Pairs in which the supervisor had a higher stage of identitydevelopment than the supervisee have also been found toendorse more favorable supervisory relationships, althoughthese pairs had weaker relationships than pairs where bothindividuals were high in identity development (Ladany et al.1997). These relationships are especially important in a schoolsetting as school psychologists are called on to consult andwork collaboratively with a diverse range of school staff,students, and families. Supervisors who have not achieved ahigher stage of racial identity development may struggle toaddress issues related to cultural differences not only in thesupervisory relationship but also within the broader context ofthe school environment. Indeed, some have even argued thatsupervisors should be required to demonstrate sufficient racialidentity development before they take on supervisory duties(Bernard and Goodyear 2009).

Framework for Multicultural Supervision

Few supervision models exist that employ a multiculturalfocus. One such model is the “Framework for MulticulturalSupervision Competencies” proposed by Ancis and Ladany(2001). In the development of their model, Ancis and Ladany(2001) identified five domains of competence that researchhas consistently shown to be related to personal and profes-sional development for all supervisors and supervisees. Theseinclude (a) personal development, (b) conceptualization, (c)intervention, (d) process, and (e) evaluation.

The personal development domain includes both supervi-sor and supervisee development. This domain focuses on self-awareness and stipulates that supervisors must engage in aprocess of self-exploration in order to uncover their ownpersonal biases, values, and knowledge of cultural differencesand similarities. In addition, this model posits that superviseesshould engage in a parallel process of self-awareness andexploration. In the conceptualization domain, supervisors en-courage supervisees to assess the impact of individual and

cultural factors on their clients’ lives and understand howstereotyping and oppression influence clients’ presenting con-cerns. The intervention domain suggests that supervisors beopen and flexible with regard to supervisees’ ideas aroundculturally sensitive interventions. For example, supervisorsmay need to be open to the use of faith healers or alternativemedicine approaches (compared to traditional approaches), ifthese practices are relevant to the supervisee’s or client’sculture. Process refers to the open and respectful communi-cation that occurs between the supervisor and the supervisee.In this domain, the supervisor acknowledges the power he orshe holds in the relationship and uses it to create a supervisoryenvironment where the supervisee feels safe and respected andwhere open communication about cultural issues can occur.Lastly, evaluation involves having the supervisor evaluate thesupervisee’s multicultural competence and recommending re-medial training when necessary.

Although this model appears to provide beneficial guid-ance to supervisors and supervisees alike while concurrentlyaddressing multicultural interactions with clients, little re-search exists on the actual effectiveness and relevance of thismodel in real multicultural supervisory relationships (Ancisand Marshall 2010). In addition, additional information maybe needed to apply these concepts into meaningful contextsfor school psychologists. As a result, empirical and conceptualevidence are summarized below to help delineate practicalstrategies for achieving culturally sensitive and competentsupervision practices within the field of school psychology.

Best Practice Considerations in Multicultural Supervision

Asking what role culture plays in supervision can be a puz-zling question. Yet, supervision is a pedagogy in which ourraced, classed, and gendered bodies are present (Grant andManathunga 2011). When we supervise across cultures, su-pervision becomes a practice of rich possibilities. While theaforementioned racial identity and supervision models pro-vide helpful frameworks for supervision within the field ofschool psychology, they do not delineate specific supervisionstrategies needed to achieve competent practice. As supervi-sion can act as a gateway to new forms of knowledge, empir-ical and conceptual research are summarized to highlight bestpractice considerations for school psychologists called to en-gage in effective multicultural supervision. A summary of thisinformation is provided in Table 1.

Discuss Cultural Similarities and Differences

Discussion of multicultural issues in the context of supervi-sion appears to be one variable that influences favorablesupervision outcomes (Dressel et al. 2007; Hird et al. 2004).

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204 199

Conversations about culture are often cited as useful forbuilding rapport. For example, Gatmon et al. (2001) surveyed289 pre-doctoral psychology interns regarding discussionsabout culture in supervision. The researchers found that re-spondents who discussed differences and similarities inethnicity/race with supervisors in culturally diverse dyadsreported a higher level of supervisory alliance and moresatisfaction with their supervisor than those who did not.Unfortunately, the researchers also found that these culturaldiscussions occurred for only about one third of respondents(32 %). This finding suggests that this important element maybe lacking in multicultural supervision relationships andshould be an increased focus for supervisors in the future.Beyond building rapport, these conversations can also helpvalidate the significance of cultural factors in psychologicalrelationships which in turn may also motivate supervisees toconsider their own cultural identities and help them betterunderstand how culture influences their own practices andperceptions (Hird et al. 2004). In another study, Dresselet al. (2007) surveyed a number of ethnically diverse

psychologist-supervisors who had supervised pre-doctoral in-terns in ethnically different dyads. Results from this studyfound that discussions about culture ranked as the number 1critical behavior for effective multicultural supervision.

Supervisors should model and impart multicultural compe-tencies, initiating conversations and revisiting this dialoguethroughout the supervisory relationship (Hird et al. 2001).Supervisors should discuss cultural similarities and differ-ences with their interns, express acceptance of them, promoterisk taking, and create a climate that promotes open dialoguewhere mistakes can be discussed, as well as successes cele-brated (Ancis and Marshall 2010; Proctor and Rogers 2013).As conversations surrounding racial and cultural differencescan be difficult to initiate, Table 2 provides a list of guidingquestions to help facilitate dialogue between the supervisorand supervisee. Examples of these questions include

1. How do you define yourself racially?2. What meaning(s) do you attach to who you are racially?3. Describe an instance in which you developed knowledge

or understanding about individuals from different racial orcultural backgrounds.

Taken together, these questions are intended to help startthe conversation about race in a nonthreatening manner, asthey do not assume previous knowledge and/or competenciesin practice. Supervisors are encouraged to begin this dialoguein order to help their interns develop “critical thinking in acaring environment” (Hernandez and Rankin 2008, p. 255).By constructing a context for attending to discussions about

Table 1 Best practice considerations in multicultural supervision

Discuss cultural similarities and differences

• Demonstrate respect and acceptance for individual variations incultural values and norms

• Initiate and revisit diversity dialogues throughout the supervisoryrelationship

• Identify how culture may impact work with children, families, andschools

Show genuine interest in and respect for each other’s unique culture

•Be proactive in learning more about each other’s culture before issuesarise

• Identify how previous experiences with prejudice and oppressionmay impact behaviors during supervision

• Initiate activities that will increase awareness and acceptance ofcultural differences (e.g., cultural genograms, racial identityinventories)

Create a safe and inclusive setting

• Create an open, respectful, and accepting environment that willnurture personal and professional growth

• Supervisors should set the tone for supervision so superviseesunderstand feelings and opinions are respected and valued

Model and impart multicultural competencies

• Critically self-evaluate individual beliefs, values, and attitudes

• Engage in genuine experiences with culturally diverse individuals,groups, and settings

• Realize no one is perfect; be willing to share successes, failures, andquestions

Value ongoing professional development opportunities

• Engage in trainings on becoming a more culturally competentpractitioner

• Seek out diverse supervisory and internship experiences to expandlearning opportunities

• Educate one another on new developments in research and practice

Table 2 Questions to facilitate conversations about race

Since conversations surrounding multicultural issues can be difficult toinitiate, the following questions be used to help facilitate the dialogueof race and culture between a supervisor and the supervisee:

• How do you define yourself racially?

• What meaning(s) do you attach to who you are racially?

• What impact does your race have on your life, either morally,emotionally, or socially?

• How does your race facilitate or impede interactions with individualswho are from a different race?

• What is your family origin?

• How has your family background and experiences shaped your viewof race and what impact might they have in developing relationshipswith your clients?

• Describe an instance in which you developed knowledge orunderstanding about individuals from different racial backgrounds.

• Describe your communication style. Have you ever engaged in aconversation with another person in which you felt that theconversation was unbalanced in terms of communication style? Howdid you react?

Questions were adapted for use from previous resources on this topic(Pendry 2012; Singleton and Linton 2006)

200 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204

race and culture, supervisors are promoting competence andefficacy among school psychology interns.

Show Genuine Interest in and Respect for the Supervisee’sUnique Culture

In a cross-cultural supervisory relationship, it is important forthe supervisor to show a genuine interest in the supervisee’scultural background (Duan and Roehlke 2001). A supervisorshould validate and respect any previous experiences thesupervisee might have had with prejudice and oppressionand understand how these experiences affect an individual’sbehavior during supervision. Supervisors are also urged tolearn about White privilege and cultural mistrust and its neg-ative effects on the supervisory relationship (Nilsson andDuan 2007). Supervisors and supervisees are encouraged toexplore their own cultural backgrounds and beliefs by creatingcultural genograms or by completing racial identity invento-ries and discussing these results within the context of super-vision (Estrada et al. 2004). Much like a family tree, a culturalgenogram illustrates demographic information about the fam-ily and highlights the nature of the relationships the person haswith each of her or his family members (see Shellenbergeret al. 2007 for additional information). These results canfacilitate discussions and activities designed to improve andenhance the supervisory relationship.

Due to the power differential that exists in supervision, thesupervisee may not feel comfortable initiating conversationsabout multicultural issues. As a result, the supervisor is en-couraged to initiate discussions about cultural differences atthe beginning of the supervisory relationship rather than whenissues arise (Duan and Roehlke 2001; Gatmon et al. 2001).Discussions about differing communication styles and culturalbackgrounds can help prevent miscommunication and mis-trust and provide supervisees with reassurance that they areinvolved in a collaborative relationship, ultimately leading to amore satisfying and effective supervisory experience (Estradaet al. 2004). Further, these conversations can improve thedelivery of services to diverse children and families who aredeserving of high-quality, culturally competent services fromschool psychologists and others in the educational field.

Create a Safe and Inclusive Setting

Supervisors should take great care to create a safe environ-ment that will nurture a supervisee’s personal and professionalgrowth. This environment should foster trust and respectwhile encouraging supervisees to be open and honest abouttheir concerns, feelings, and mistakes (Estrada et al. 2004).Supervisors who create an open, flexible, respectful, andaccepting environment have been found to be highly valuedby interns in cross-cultural supervisory relationships (Burkardet al. 2006; Wong et al. 2013). This type of environment can

facilitate discussions of power within supervision, as well aspromote conversations regarding the supervisor’s expecta-tions and the evaluation process (Estrada et al. 2004). Further-more, supervisees who believe their feelings and opinions arerespected may be more motivated to share their expectations,concerns, and goals of the supervisory experience (Harveyand Struzziero 2008).

Model and Impart Multicultural Competencies

It is possible for school psychology interns to be imperfectwhen it comes to a range of tasks, including multiculturalcompetency. One objective in supervision, as in therapy, isto identify what contingencies hinder or facilitate both per-sonal and social constructions that enable shifts in perspective,interpretations, and explanations (Gonzalez 1997). Intellectualunderstanding alone is not enough; supervisors should helpfacilitate real-life interactions in order for new and establishedschool psychologists to understand and communicate effec-tively with diverse populations. When new practitioners beginto understand how our own gender, race, ethnicity, religion,socioeconomic class, etc. shape our sense of self, we are betterable to appreciate how others are shaped by the same variables(Okun et al. 1999). As interns and supervisors are not perfect,self-awareness, exploration, and critical conversations in thecontext of supervision can lead to greater awareness of indi-vidual strengths and limitations. Logically extended, supervi-sors who are sensitive to and well versed in multiculturalcompetencies will be more credible concerning cultural andprofessional domains of practice.

Value Ongoing Professional Development Opportunities

As many psychologists report receiving little to no formaltraining or experiences inmulticultural issues, especially with-in the context of supervision (e.g., Constantine 2003; Falenderet al. 2013), it is incumbent upon psychologists to take advan-tage of opportunities that foster professional growth and skilldevelopment in the delivery of culturally competent practicesand services. Most ethics codes underscore the helper’s re-sponsibility to take cultural contexts into consideration whendelivering services. For example, the ethics codes of theAmerican Counseling Association (2005), American Psycho-logical Association (2010), National Association of SchoolPsychologists (2010), and National Association of SocialWorkers (2008) all cite respect for cultural diversity as essen-tial to best practices. Supervisors can place themselves inethical jeopardy by ignoring diversity factors because suchneglect can infringe upon the rights of interns, children, andfamilies with different worldviews and values. Professionaldevelopment opportunities can provide essential training andreflections in becoming more culturally competent.

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204 201

Further, current research has evolved considerably in psy-chology and education, especially over the last decade, and itis crucial that supervisors stay abreast of current research andpractice, integrate new knowledge to improve services, andhelp interns best develop their skills (Proctor and Rogers2013). Supervisors should seek training opportunities that willenable them to learn about how different cultural groups havebeen influenced by social, historical, and political factors(Harvey and Struzziero 2008). Those placing interns withsupervisors should also consider school psychologist-supervisors that have a clear commitment to and open-ness to engaging in diversity focused professional de-velopment opportunities.

Applying a Multicultural Framework for Supervision

To demonstrate how best practice considerations can be usedwithin a multicultural framework, consider the following caseexample. Alicia is a Hispanic school psychology student. Sheis excited to have obtained an internship at a prestigiousschool. The school is located in a high SES area and thestudent population is primarilyWhite. Dr. Smith is a EuropeanAmerican school psychologist and will be Alicia’s internshipsupervisor for the year. He is looking forward to supervisingan intern this year.

Upon Alicia’s first day at the school, Dr. Smith attempts tocreate a welcoming environment by introducing Alicia to thefaculty and staff and taking her on a tour through the school.Dr. Smith proceeds to ask Alicia about her familiarity with thearea, her background, and past experiences in schools andensures to make note of Alicia’s likes, dislikes, and strengths.Dr. Smith then shares more about his personal and profession-al background, as well as a summary of his tasks and respon-sibilities at the school. In addition, Dr. Smith shares some ofthe areas or tasks in which Alicia’s knowledge andskills could be useful and beneficial to the staff, thestudents, and their families.

As the semester progress, Alicia voices concern to Dr.Smith that she is “not being taken seriously” by some of theparents and staff at the school. Alicia tells Dr. Smith that shefeels that some of the parents sharply question herpsychoeducational evaluation results at the multidisciplinaryteammeetings. In addition, she reports that two of the teachersto whom she provides consultation to completely ignore hersuggestions. Dr. Smith reassures Alicia that she has beendoing fine work and that some teachers and parents are justdifficult. Alicia grows quiet and they change the subject.

After Alicia has left for the day, Dr. Smith reflects back ontheir earlier conversation. He begins to wonder if Alicia mighthave had additional concerns that he did not address. Herealizes that most teachers and parents at the school appear

to take his suggestions seriously. Dr. Smith contemplates theconcept of White privilege and wonders if race could be afactor in Alicia’s interactions with teachers and parents.

Dr. Smith decides to revisit the conversation with Alicia thenext day. He asks Alicia if she thinks race is a factor in herinteractions with parents and teachers and she responds affir-matively. Dr. Smith validates Alicia’s feelings through empa-thy and by acknowledging her frustration. He then encouragesAlicia to continue to bring her concerns to his attention so theycan discuss them and find appropriate solutions. Alicia re-sponds much more positively to the current conversation thanthe one that took place the day before and thanks Dr. Smith forrevisiting the conversation. Dr. Smith makes a mental note toreopen conversations about race and ethnicity with Alicia on aregular basis, and they decide to share more about theirindividual cultural backgrounds at their next supervisionmeeting. In the meantime, Dr. Smith decides to conduct aliterature search to increase his knowledge on current bestpractice considerations on multicultural supervision and con-sultation, so that he may improve his supervision of Alicia andalso provide her with additional strategies on how to navigateher difficult consultative relationships.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The increasingly diverse climate of the USA requires thatschool psychologists and trainees become adept at interactingsuccessfully with individuals who are culturally different fromthemselves. The cultural backgrounds and experiences of thesupervisor and the supervisee can shape and influence thesupervisory relationship and the supervision process(Nilsson and Duan 2007). As supervision is the keymethod by which psychologist-educators transmit theprofession of school psychology to students, it is espe-cially important for supervisors to be culturally compe-tent in supervisory practices.

Despite the high need for competence in this area, limitedresearch has been conducted as to what explicit practices andframeworks produce the best outcomes in multicultural super-vision. Furthermore, the research that has been done haslargely used survey and interview techniques that involvesmall samples and rely on supervisors’ and supervisees’ self-reports and perceptions of multicultural supervisory relation-ships, which limits the generalizability of findings. The pau-city of empirical research found in the field of school psychol-ogy is especially concerning, highlighting areas for futurework. More empirical research studies are needed in the areaof multicultural supervision and should be a primary focus forfuture research.

Several prominent themes appear to emerge that wouldlikely be helpful for supervisors to adopt in order to practicecompetent and successful multicultural supervision.

202 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204

Supervisors and supervisees are encouraged to examine theirown cultural backgrounds, perceptions, and biases and openlydiscuss how these factors might influence the supervisoryrelationship and the supervisee’s ability to address a client’sracial or cultural concerns. In doing so, supervisors will beable to better work towards eliminating latent bias and dis-crimination within these relationships. By establishing opencommunication in a safe learning environment, supervisorsand supervisees can be open and honest about theirexperiences and shape the supervisory relationship intoa collaborative process that produces positive outcomesfor everyone involved.

Overall, the research suggests that additional training inmulticultural education and supervision is needed for futureschool psychologists. Even if formal training is not immedi-ately available, all supervisors could benefit from increasedawareness of their own and others’ cultures, values, andperceptions and to endeavor to engage in culturally responsivepractices, especially when engaging with culturally and ra-cially diverse supervisors and supervisees. If these practicesare established, supervisors will likely be better prepared tomeet the needs of an increasingly diverse population, becom-ing more effective in supervision and transmission of thepractice of school psychology to all trainees, regardless ofcultural background.

References

American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics.Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultur-al education, training, research, practice, and organizationalchange. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psy-chologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.

Ancis, J. R., & Ladany, N. (2001). A multicultural framework for coun-selor supervision. In L. J. Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselorsupervision: principles, process, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 63–90).Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

Ancis, J. R., & Marshall, D. S. (2010). Using a multicultural frameworkto assess supervisees’ perceptions of culturally competent supervi-sion. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(3), 277–284. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00023.x.

Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1998). Counseling Americanminorities (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinicalsupervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Bhat, C., & Davis, T. E. (2007). Counseling supervisors’ assessment ofrace, racial identity, and working alliance in supervisory dyads.Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35(2), 80–91. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2007.tb00051.x.

Brown, M. T., & Landrum-Brown, J. (1995). Counselor supervision:cross-cultural perspectives. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A.Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of MulticulturalCounseling (pp. 263–286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burkard, A. W., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B., Pruitt, N. T., Contreras-Tadych, D. A., & Kozlowski, J. M. (2006). Supervisor culturalresponsiveness and unresponsiveness in cross-cultural supervision.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 288–301. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.288.

Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., & Shoffner, M. F. (2003). Cross-racialsupervision: a developmental approach for white supervisors work-ing with supervisees of color. The Clinical Supervisor, 22(2), 121–138. doi:10.1300/J001v22n02_08.

Constantine, M. G. (2003). Multicultural competence in supervision. InD. B. Pope-Davis, H. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling andpsychology (pp. 383–391). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. (2007). Perceptions of racialmicroaggressions among black supervisees in cross-racial dyads.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 142–153. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.142.

Cook, D. A. (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education& Supervision, 34(2), 132–141.

Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Gelley, C. (2012). School psychology2010: demographics, employment and the content for professionalpractices: part 1. Communique, 40(7), 1, 28–29.

Dressel, J. L., Consoli, A. J., Kim, B. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (2007).Successful and unsuccessful multicultural supervisory behaviors: aDelphi poll. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,35(1), 51–64. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2007.tb00049.x.

Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive “snapshot” of cross-racialsupervision in university counseling center internships. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling & Development, 29(2), 131–146. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00510.x.

Estrada, D. (2005). Supervision of cross-cultural couples therapy. Journalof Family Psychotherapy, 16, 17–30. doi:10.1300/J085v16n04_03.

Estrada, D., Frame, M. W., & Williams, C. B. (2004). Cross-culturalsupervision: guiding the conversation toward race and ethnic-ity. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,32, 307–319.

Falender, C. A., Burnes, T. R., & Ellis, M. V. (2013). Multiculturalclinical supervision and benchmarks: empirical support informingpractice and supervisor training. The Counseling Psychologist,41(1), 8–27. doi:10.1177/0011000012438417.

Fong, M. L., & Lease, S. H. (1997). Cross-cultural supervision: issues forthe White supervisor. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman(Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: assessment, educa-tion and training, and supervision (pp. 387–405). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The basis of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). AnnArbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Institute for SocialResearch.

Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A.,Patel, N., & Rodolfa, E. (2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, andsexual orientation variables in supervision: do they really matter?Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(2), 102–113. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00508.x.

Gloria, A. M., Hird, J. S., & Tao, K. W. (2008). Self-reported multicul-tural supervision competence of White predoctoral intern supervi-sion. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2, 129–136. doi:10.1037/1931-3918.2.3.129.

Gonzalez, R. C. (1997). Postmodern supervision: a multiculturalperspective. In D. B. Pope-Davis, & H. L. K. Coleman(Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: assessment, ed-ucation and training, and supervision (pp. 350–386). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Grant, B., &Manathunga, C. (2011). Supervision and cultural difference:rethinking institutional pedagogies. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 48(4), 351–354.

Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204 203

Harvey, V. S., & Struzziero, J. A. (2008). Professional development andsupervision of school psychologists. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hays, D. G., & Chang, C. Y. (2003). White privilege, oppression, andracial identity development: implications for supervision.CounselorEducation and Supervision, 43(2), 134–145. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01837.x.

Helms, J. E., & Carter, R. T. (1990). White racial identity attitude scale. InJ. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: theory, research,and practice (pp. 145–163). New York: Greenwood.

Hernandez, P., & Rankin, P. (2008). Relational safety in supervision.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 58–74. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00067.x.

Hird, J. S., Cavalieri, C. E., Dulko, J. P., Felice, A. D., &Ho, T. A. (2001).Visions and realities: supervisee perspectives of multicultural super-vision. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,29(2), 114–130. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00509.x.

Hird, J. S., Tao, K. W., & Gloria, A. M. (2004). Examining supervisors’multicultural competence in racially similar and different supervi-sion dyads. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(2), 107–122. doi:10.1300/J001v23n02_07.

Kampwirth, T. J., & Powers, K. M. (2012). Collaborative consultation inthe schools: effective practices for students with learning and be-havior problems. New Jersey: Pearson.

Ladany, N., Brittan-Powell, C. S., & Pannu, R. K. (1997). The influenceof supervisory racial identity interaction and racial matching on thesupervisory working alliance and supervisee multicultural compe-tence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36(4), 284–304. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1997.tb00396.x.

Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., &Nelson,M. L. (2005).Critical events inpsychotherapy supervision: an interpersonal approach.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack.Excerpt from working paper. Independent School, 49(2), 31–36.http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/jsibbett/readings/White_Privilege.pdf

National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Ethical and pro-fessional practices for school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics.Washington, DC: Author.

Nilsson, J. E., & Duan, C. (2007). Experiences of prejudice, role diffi-culties, and counseling self-efficacy among U.S. racial and ethnicminority supervisees working with White supervisors. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 35(4), 219–229. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2007.tb00062.x.

Norton, R. A., & Coleman, H. L. K. (2003). Multicultural supervision:the influence of race-related issues in supervision and outcome. InD. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. K. Hardin, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies: in counseling andpsychology (pp. 114–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Okun, B. F., Fried, J., & Okun, M. L. (1999). Understanding diversity: alearning-aspractice primer. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Pendry, N. (2012). Race, racism, and systemic supervision. Journal ofFamily Therapy, 34(4), 403–418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00576.x.

Proctor, S. L., & Rogers, M. R. (2013). Making the invisible visible:understanding social processes within multicultural internship su-pervision. School Psychology Forum, 7(1), 1–12.

Priest, R. (1994). Minority supervisor and majority supervisee: anotherperspective of clinical reality. Counselor Education and Supervision,34, 152–158. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1994.tb00322.x.

Shellenberger, S., Dent, M. M., Davis-Smith, M., Seale, J. P., Weintraut,R., & Wright, T. (2007). Cultural genogram: a tool for teaching andpractice. Family, Systems, & Health, 25(4), 367–381. doi:10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.367.

Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations aboutrace: a field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks:Corwin Press.

Toporek, R. L., Ortega-Villalobos, L., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (2004). Criticalincidents in multicultural supervision: exploring supervisees’ and su-pervisors’ experiences. Journal of Multicultural Counseling andDevelopment, 32(2), 66–83. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00362.x.

United States Census Bureau (2011, March). Overview of race andHispanic origin: 2010 (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author.http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.

Wong, L. J., Wong, P. P., & Ishiyama, F. (2013). What helps and whathinders in cross-cultural clinical supervision: a critical incidentstudy. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 66–85. doi:10.1177/0011000012442652.

Katie Eklund, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School PsychologyProgram at the University of Arizona. She received her doctorate inCounseling, Clinical, and School Psychology from the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. She received her Masters degree in SocialWork from the University of Michigan. Dr. Eklund has worked in publiceducation for 14 years as a school administrator, school psychologist, andschool social worker, and is a Nationally Certified School Psychologistand licensed Psychologist. Dr. Eklund has authored a number of publi-cations on childhood risk and resiliency factors, including early identifi-cation and intervention for behavioral and emotional concerns, schoolclimate, and positive psychology.

Megan Aros-O’Malley, M.A. is a doctoral student in the School Psy-chology Program at the University of Arizona. Her main research inter-ests include students with chronic illness, pediatric school psychology,and the impact of cultural factors on students’ school experiences.

Imelda Murrieta, M.A. is a doctoral student in the School PsychologyProgram at the University of Arizona. She received her Masters degree inSpecial Education at the University of Arizona and was as a classroomteacher for 10 years prior to pursuing her doctoral degree.

204 Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204