Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
DOI 10.1007/s40688-014-0024-8
REVIEW
Multicultural Supervision: What Difference Does
Difference 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 represent
critical components to contemporary practice and supervision
in school psychology. Internship and supervision experiences
are a capstone experience for many new school psychologists;
however, few receive formal training and supervision in mul-
ticultural competencies. As an increased number of students
from culturally diverse backgrounds are accepted into school
psychology training programs, it is likely students will en-
counter supervisory experiences in which the supervisor is of
a culture other than their own. This paper explores cultural
factors impacting supervision, reviews research on cultural
match between supervisor and supervisee, as well as high-
lights best practice considerations for engaging in effective
multicultural supervision.
Keywords Supervision . Cultural match . Multicultural
supervision . Interns
Introduction
As the US population becomes increasingly diverse and stu-
dents from culturally diverse backgrounds are accepted into
school psychology training programs, it is likely students will
encounter supervisory experiences in which the supervisor is
of a culture other than their own (Nilsson and Duan 2007).
This may be a concern for many school psychology interns as
research suggests internship supervisors have limited experi-
ence in supervising individuals from cultural backgrounds
different than their own, receive minimal training in
K. Eklund (*) : M. Aros-O’Malley : I. Murrieta
School Psychology Program, College of Education,
University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second Street, Tucson,
AZ 85721, USA
e-mail: keklund@email.arizona.edu
multicultural issues, and may not be adequately prepared to
address 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 may
affect the supervisory relationship and to identify attitudes,
beliefs, knowledge, and skills necessary to provide competent
practices in a multicultural society.
The demographics of the USA continues to change as the
population who self-identify as non-White has increased from
31 % in 2000 to 36 % in 2010 (United States Census Bureau
2011). In addition, the percentage of the population who
consider themselves ethnic minorities is expected to continue
to rise. School psychologists are called upon to have special
expertise in working with students from diverse cultural,
racial, ethnic, linguistic, socioeconomic, and familial back-
grounds (NASP 2010). Indeed, the APA Ethics Code states
psychologists must be aware of and respect the differences of
others, including cultural, racial, and ethnic differences, and
consider these differences when working with members of
such 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, psychologists
are encouraged to employ the constructs of multiculturalism
and diversity in psychological education” (p. 30). Given the
increasingly diverse nature of the USA, it is incumbent upon
school psychologists to take advantage of opportunities that
foster professional growth and skill development in the deliv-
ery of culturally responsive practices and services.
The practice of clinical supervision is particularly relevant
to providing effective psychological services in schools, as it
is rated by psychologists as one of the top five activities they
engage in (Falender et al. 2013). Supervision is described as
the “signature pedagogy” by which psychologist-educators
prepare psychology students for practice and is very influen-
tial in students’ development as a professional (Bernard and
196
Goodyear 2009). Despite the importance of this topic, re-
search in the area of multicultural supervision is limited,
especially regarding supervisory relationships where a
supervisee and supervisor differ in some culturally meaningful
way. Differences in racial status between a supervisor and
supervisee have been referred to as cross-racial supervision
(Estrada 2005; Norton and Coleman 2003) and are a unique
component of multicultural supervision that is deserving of
special 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 of
this review is on culture and race in supervisory contexts.
Thus, this paper will explore the question of “what difference
does difference make?” when supervisors and supervisees are
of different cultures and in the provision of evidence-based
psychological services. In the present discussion, the term
culture has been selected to encapsulate any linguistic, racial,
and/or ethnic differences that exist between supervisor and
supervisee. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) to identify
cultural factors impacting supervision, including cultural match;
(2) to outline racial identity development models and their
application 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 training
are practicum and internship experiences that provide students
necessary training, skill development, and mentorship. As stu-
dents from increasingly diverse backgrounds enter into school
psychology training programs, it is likely that they may be
paired with a practitioner who is culturally different from them
as only 7.4 % of school psychologists come from diverse
backgrounds (Curtis et al. 2012). The limited and often outdat-
ed information that is available about the role of culture in
supervisory relationships provides initial guidelines for practice
drawing from the fields of clinical and counseling psychology;
however, additional theories and frameworks are needed for
understanding 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 for
supervisee satisfaction with his or her supervisor (Gatmon
et al. 2001; Chang et al. 2003), several studies have found
that 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 exploring
how racial minority supervisees perceive their White
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
supervisors, supervisees “expected their supervisors to be less
empathetic, respectful, and congruent” and supervisees
viewed perceived liking by their supervisors to be an impor-
tant component of cross-racial supervision (Duan and
Roehlke 2001, p. 132). Additionally, cross-racial supervision
interactions appear to often be more difficult to navigate than
same-race relationships as various supervisors have cited
cross-racial supervision interactions as some of their most
challenging moments in supervision (Ladany et al. 2005).
Racial match may be an aspect of supervision that not only
influences the relationship between the supervisor and trainee
but also shapes the therapeutic alliance between a trainee and
client. Indeed, supervisors’ cultural knowledge and sensitivity
have been shown to positively influence not only the super-
visory relationship but school psychologists’ direct work with
students as well (Duan and Roehlke 2001).
White Privilege
Part of the challenge of cross-racial supervision may stem
from the concept of “White privilege.” White privilege sug-
gests that White individuals are provided with overt and
covert advantages not afforded to minorities (McIntosh
1989). In addition, White privilege also involves the belief
that one’s experiences are universal and accurate (McIntosh
1989). Despite the growing cultural diversity of the USA, the
majority of psychology doctoral students and practitioners
(77 %) are from the dominant White culture (APA 2002).
The predominance of White culture in the field of psychology
often results in a Eurocentric training focus and education
models that may unintentionally perpetuate oppressive behav-
iors for minority group individuals; leading supervisors to
overlook the fact that Whiteness is a racial identity as well
(Hays and Chang 2003). A White supervisor who is not
mindful of this privilege might fail to acknowledge the
supervisee’s cultural perspective and inadvertently impose
cultural values from the dominant group onto the supervisee.
For example, a supervisor’s Eurocentric attitudes could be
manifested by insistence that a trainee develop an intervention
plan for a high school student with high rates of absenteeism
without exploring the student’s family background or house-
hold responsibilities, such as caring for younger siblings while
both parents work. In addition, the supervisor might be less
empathetic 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 within
the supervisory relationship as a supervisee who has experi-
enced racism may be more cautious and distrustful of a
supervisor from the majority culture (Nilsson and Duan
2007). Further, supervisees from a minority group may be
particularly sensitive to supervisors’ failures to acknowledge
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
and raise multicultural issues (Norton and Coleman 2003). A
lack of trust within the supervisory relationship may also
cause supervisees to reluctantly implement the supervisor’s
recommendations or withhold their work by only submitting
high-quality work samples for evaluative and corrective feed-
back that might not be as useful in assisting the supervisee to
develop necessary professional skills (Fong and Lease 1997).
Failure to acknowledge privilege may have a negative effect
on supervision, potentially leading to distrust or misunder-
standing in the supervisory relationship. Acknowledging such
power dynamics is an important step so that the supervisor and
intern can engage in open and honest dialogue, facilitating
behaviors that not only transfer to more positive supervision
experiences but also enhanced client outcomes (Dressel et al.
2007; Hays and Chang 2003)
Communication Styles
Differing communication styles between cultural groups can
influence the supervisory relationship. For example, in gener-
al, European Americans tend to communicate through loud
and rapid speech and tend to make direct eye contact when
listening but less frequently when speaking. European Amer-
icans may also use nonverbal gestures such as head nodding
and hand gestures to communicate with others (Fong and
Lease 1997). On the other hand, American Indians, Hispanics,
and Asian Americans tend to make less eye contact with
others and may speak with a softer tone and a slower rate of
speech (Fong and Lease 1997). Supervisors who are unaware
of how their communication style could differ from that of
their 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 by
not making direct eye contact, but a supervisor may misinter-
pret a lack of eye contact as fear or low self-esteem. Ignoring
differences in communication styles can lead to confusion and
inaccurate 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 even
greater number of supervisors have received no formal edu-
cation or experiences in addressing multicultural issues. For
example, one study found that although 70 % of supervisees
reported 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
197
recent years (Bernard and Goodyear 2009); however, even
among 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 their
professional growth and skill development in this area.
Multicultural training deficiencies also likely contribute to a
lack of cultural awareness by supervisors, which in turn has
been shown to negatively impact the multicultural supervisory
relationship (Burkard et al. 2006). Indeed, lack of cultural
awareness by supervisors was viewed as a negative critical
incident by supervisees that contributed to weaker appraisals
of the supervisor–supervisee relationship (Toporek et al. 2004).
Moreover, Burkard et al. (2006) found that when supervisees
encountered a culturally unresponsive supervisor, they
disclosed less to their supervisor and were instead more likely
to go to other students and practitioners for advice and informal
supervision regarding their clients. As a result, supervisees may
perceive supervisors as culturally unresponsive.
Due to the supervisor’s evaluative role in the supervisory
relationship, the power differential within supervision is an-
other factor that can affect a supervisee’s performance
(Nilsson and Duan 2007). French and Raven (1959) describe
five 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 supervisor
as similar to him or herself and holding like beliefs. On the
other hand, expert power occurs when a supervisee believes
the supervisor possesses knowledge or expertise that he or she
does not possess. Coercive power occurs when the supervisor
can withhold or bestow benefits upon the supervisee. Reward
power occurs when the supervisor bestows benefits, praise, or
rewards on the supervisee. Lastly, legitimate power occurs
when the supervisee believes the supervisor has a legal or
authoritative ability to control him or her (Kampwirth and
Powers 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 forms
of power, supervisors who use coercive, reward, or legitimate
power are more likely to be negatively viewed by supervisees
and be perceived as exhibiting bullying behavior (Harvey and
Struzziero 2008). While we recognize issues of power are
salient to all supervisory relationships, school psychologists
who not only ignore power differentials in supervision but
also lack cultural knowledge and awareness risk placing
supervisees in a double bind. Norton and Coleman (2003)
clearly outline this double bind: “If (supervisees) ignore their
supervisors’ cultural knowledge and awareness, they risk
compromising their personal and professional develop-
ment…yet if addressing supervisors’ limitations, they
198
potentially face interpersonal and professional repercussions
(p. 122).” As such, supervisors could unknowingly silence
supervisees by not attending to prominent personal and pro-
fessional development needs. This can have a negative impact
on the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and
intern, 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, experiences
with racism and oppression have the potential to alter a
supervisee’s perception of the supervisor and may cause hes-
itancy to ask the supervisor for help or accept assistance for
fear of being judged as incompetent (Duan and Roehlke
2001). Supervisees may also be hesitant to ask for clarifica-
tions regarding the supervisor’s expectations, how to meet
those expectations, and the consequences of poor perfor-
mance. In this “catch-22,” supervisees must demonstrate that
they are competent individuals, yet be able to show their
weaknesses and be receptive to feedback for improvement.
A supervisee’s hesitancy to address areas of conflict may
negatively impact their own professional growth or ability to
impact change in a helping relationship.
Impact on the Client
As school psychologist-supervisors are responsible for foster-
ing trainees’ competence and ensuring adequate treatment for
trainees’ clients, supervisors who are trained minimally if at
all, in cultural diversity issues, might inadvertently harm
clients of color and even supervisees of color (Brown and
Landrum-Brown 1995; Priest 1994). A client can be negative-
ly affected when racial and cultural issues are ignored within
the context of supervision. Supervisees who are not provided
training or opportunities to develop multicultural competen-
cies may feel they are unable to successfully address client
concerns regarding racial identity; they may also be unaware
of 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 that
supervisees with culturally responsive supervisors (i.e., super-
visors who address the cultural differences that exist between
the supervisor and the supervisee) were more responsive to
cultural issues that arose during therapy with a client. On the
other hand, supervisees with culturally unresponsive supervi-
sors reported that they had difficulty validating their client’s
experiences with racism and therefore did not meet the client’s
needs during therapy. Furthermore, when supervisors were
culturally unresponsive, supervisees sought out outside con-
sultation regarding client cases. As clients are both directly
and indirectly impacted by such negligence, it is essential for
supervisors and interns to address racial and cultural issues
during supervision. School psychologists in a supervisory role
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
should take care to identify their own knowledge and aware-
ness of the cultural groups of children and families they serve
in order to help guide and mentor supervisees.
Multicultural Supervision Models
Racial Identity Development Models
While not specific to supervision, racial identity development
models can be applied within multicultural supervision to help
guide the supervisory relationship (Chang et al. 2003). We
acknowledge that multiple theories and models of racial and
cultural identity exist; however, Helms and Carter’s (1990)
White Racial Identity Development Model and the Racial/
Cultural Identity Model (1998) are especially applicable to
school psychology supervision as these models uniquely de-
scribe how the racial identities of those in relationships can
interact and influence, in this case, the dynamic between the
school psychology supervisor and supervisee. Both of these
models progress in stage-like ways with individuals
transitioning between stages, as briefly described below.
White Racial Identity Development Model Helms and Carter
(1990) suggest that in the White Racial Identity Development
Model, individuals progress through six stages (contact,
disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence,
immersion/emersion, and autonomy). The model progresses
in a way where individuals are first unaware of racial identity
and racism. Individuals then begin to realize that racism exists
and become faced with ethical or moral dilemmas. Because of
the discomfort this new awareness causes, individuals next
idealize Whites. Individuals then begin to move towards
embracing a better understanding of their own, as well as
other races. In the more advanced stages of the model,
individuals begin to consider the impact of White privilege
and the impact on other races. Finally, individuals are able to
honestly evaluate White privilege and racism and work
towards eliminating racism.
Racial/Cultural Identity Development Model Atkinson et al.
(1998) identify a five step Racial/Cultural Identity Develop-
ment Model for racial minorities where individuals start with a
favorable view of the norms and values of the dominant
culture (Conformity Stage). They next begin to question their
views of the dominant culture and begin a self-discovery of
their own cultural values and norms (Dissonance Stage). The
next stages involve increased in-group knowledge, which
leads 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 are
able to question their resistant attitudes and explore their needs
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
for cultural belonging and their own identity development
(Introspection Stage). Finally, in the higher stages of the
model, individuals are able to develop a secure racial identity
and inner sense of self and maintain an appreciation for all
racial groups (Integrative Awareness Stage).
These models of racial identity are important to consider
within the context of supervision as the racial identity of both
supervisor and supervisee will likely affect their interactions
in a cross-racial supervisory relationship (Chang et al. 2003).
Indeed, studies have demonstrated that when both individuals
in a supervisor–supervisee pair are at the higher stages of
racial identity development, they report more feelings of trust
and liking for one another and have stronger working alliances
than pairs who are both low in identity development and pairs
in 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 identity
development than the supervisee have also been found to
endorse more favorable supervisory relationships, although
these pairs had weaker relationships than pairs where both
individuals were high in identity development (Ladany et al.
1997). These relationships are especially important in a school
setting as school psychologists are called on to consult and
work collaboratively with a diverse range of school staff,
students, and families. Supervisors who have not achieved a
higher stage of racial identity development may struggle to
address issues related to cultural differences not only in the
supervisory relationship but also within the broader context of
the school environment. Indeed, some have even argued that
supervisors should be required to demonstrate sufficient racial
identity development before they take on supervisory duties
(Bernard and Goodyear 2009).
Framework for Multicultural Supervision
Few supervision models exist that employ a multicultural
focus. One such model is the “Framework for Multicultural
Supervision Competencies” proposed by Ancis and Ladany
(2001). In the development of their model, Ancis and Ladany
(2001) identified five domains of competence that research
has consistently shown to be related to personal and profes-
sional development for all supervisors and supervisees. These
include (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 a
process of self-exploration in order to uncover their own
personal biases, values, and knowledge of cultural differences
and similarities. In addition, this model posits that supervisees
should engage in a parallel process of self-awareness and
exploration. In the conceptualization domain, supervisors en-
courage supervisees to assess the impact of individual and
199
cultural factors on their clients’ lives and understand how
stereotyping and oppression influence clients’ presenting con-
cerns. The intervention domain suggests that supervisors be
open and flexible with regard to supervisees’ ideas around
culturally sensitive interventions. For example, supervisors
may need to be open to the use of faith healers or alternative
medicine approaches (compared to traditional approaches), if
these practices are relevant to the supervisee’s or client’s
culture. 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 or
she holds in the relationship and uses it to create a supervisory
environment where the supervisee feels safe and respected and
where open communication about cultural issues can occur.
Lastly, evaluation involves having the supervisor evaluate the
supervisee’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 concurrently
addressing multicultural interactions with clients, little re-
search exists on the actual effectiveness and relevance of this
model in real multicultural supervisory relationships (Ancis
and Marshall 2010). In addition, additional information may
be needed to apply these concepts into meaningful contexts
for school psychologists. As a result, empirical and conceptual
evidence are summarized below to help delineate practical
strategies for achieving culturally sensitive and competent
supervision 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 our
raced, classed, and gendered bodies are present (Grant and
Manathunga 2011). When we supervise across cultures, su-
pervision becomes a practice of rich possibilities. While the
aforementioned racial identity and supervision models pro-
vide helpful frameworks for supervision within the field of
school psychology, they do not delineate specific supervision
strategies 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 best
practice considerations for school psychologists called to en-
gage in effective multicultural supervision. A summary of this
information 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 favorable
supervision outcomes (Dressel et al. 2007; Hird et al. 2004).
200
Table 1 Best practice considerations in multicultural supervision
Discuss cultural similarities and differences
• Demonstrate respect and acceptance for individual variations in
cultural values and norms
• Initiate and revisit diversity dialogues throughout the supervisory
relationship
• Identify how culture may impact work with children, families, and
schools
Show genuine interest in and respect for each other’s unique culture
• Be proactive in learning more about each other’s culture before issues
arise
• Identify how previous experiences with prejudice and oppression
may impact behaviors during supervision
• Initiate activities that will increase awareness and acceptance of
cultural differences (e.g., cultural genograms, racial identity
inventories)
Create a safe and inclusive setting
• Create an open, respectful, and accepting environment that will
nurture personal and professional growth
• Supervisors should set the tone for supervision so supervisees
understand 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, and
questions
Value ongoing professional development opportunities
• Engage in trainings on becoming a more culturally competent
practitioner
• Seek out diverse supervisory and internship experiences to expand
learning opportunities
• Educate one another on new developments in research and practice
Conversations about culture are often cited as useful for
building rapport. For example, Gatmon et al. (2001) surveyed
289 pre-doctoral psychology interns regarding discussions
about culture in supervision. The researchers found that re-
spondents who discussed differences and similarities in
ethnicity/race with supervisors in culturally diverse dyads
reported a higher level of supervisory alliance and more
satisfaction with their supervisor than those who did not.
Unfortunately, the researchers also found that these cultural
discussions occurred for only about one third of respondents
(32 %). This finding suggests that this important element may
be lacking in multicultural supervision relationships and
should be an increased focus for supervisors in the future.
Beyond building rapport, these conversations can also help
validate the significance of cultural factors in psychological
relationships which in turn may also motivate supervisees to
consider their own cultural identities and help them better
understand how culture influences their own practices and
perceptions (Hird et al. 2004). In another study, Dressel
et al. (2007) surveyed a number of ethnically diverse
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
psychologist-supervisors who had supervised pre-doctoral in-
terns in ethnically different dyads. Results from this study
found that discussions about culture ranked as the number 1
critical behavior for effective multicultural supervision.
Supervisors should model and impart multicultural compe-
tencies, initiating conversations and revisiting this dialogue
throughout the supervisory relationship (Hird et al. 2001).
Supervisors should discuss cultural similarities and differ-
ences with their interns, express acceptance of them, promote
risk taking, and create a climate that promotes open dialogue
where mistakes can be discussed, as well as successes cele-
brated (Ancis and Marshall 2010; Proctor and Rogers 2013).
As conversations surrounding racial and cultural differences
can be difficult to initiate, Table 2 provides a list of guiding
questions to help facilitate dialogue between the supervisor
and 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 or
cultural backgrounds.
Taken together, these questions are intended to help start
the conversation about race in a nonthreatening manner, as
they do not assume previous knowledge and/or competencies
in practice. Supervisors are encouraged to begin this dialogue
in order to help their interns develop “critical thinking in a
caring environment” (Hernandez and Rankin 2008, p. 255).
By constructing a context for attending to discussions about
Table 2 Questions to facilitate conversations about race
Since conversations surrounding multicultural issues can be difficult to
initiate, the following questions be used to help facilitate the dialogue
of 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 individuals
who are from a different race?
• What is your family origin?
• How has your family background and experiences shaped your view
of race and what impact might they have in developing relationships
with your clients?
• Describe an instance in which you developed knowledge or
understanding about individuals from different racial backgrounds.
• Describe your communication style. Have you ever engaged in a
conversation with another person in which you felt that the
conversation was unbalanced in terms of communication style? How
did you react?
Questions were adapted for use from previous resources on this topic
(Pendry 2012; Singleton and Linton 2006)
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
race and culture, supervisors are promoting competence and
efficacy among school psychology interns.
Show Genuine Interest in and Respect for the Supervisee’s
Unique Culture
In a cross-cultural supervisory relationship, it is important for
the supervisor to show a genuine interest in the supervisee’s
cultural background (Duan and Roehlke 2001). A supervisor
should validate and respect any previous experiences the
supervisee might have had with prejudice and oppression
and understand how these experiences affect an individual’s
behavior during supervision. Supervisors are also urged to
learn about White privilege and cultural mistrust and its neg-
ative effects on the supervisory relationship (Nilsson and
Duan 2007). Supervisors and supervisees are encouraged to
explore their own cultural backgrounds and beliefs by creating
cultural 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 cultural
genogram illustrates demographic information about the fam-
ily and highlights the nature of the relationships the person has
with each of her or his family members (see Shellenberger
et al. 2007 for additional information). These results can
facilitate discussions and activities designed to improve and
enhance the supervisory relationship.
Due to the power differential that exists in supervision, the
supervisee may not feel comfortable initiating conversations
about multicultural issues. As a result, the supervisor is en-
couraged to initiate discussions about cultural differences at
the beginning of the supervisory relationship rather than when
issues arise (Duan and Roehlke 2001; Gatmon et al. 2001).
Discussions about differing communication styles and cultural
backgrounds can help prevent miscommunication and mis-
trust and provide supervisees with reassurance that they are
involved in a collaborative relationship, ultimately leading to a
more satisfying and effective supervisory experience (Estrada
et al. 2004). Further, these conversations can improve the
delivery of services to diverse children and families who are
deserving of high-quality, culturally competent services from
school 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 professional
growth. This environment should foster trust and respect
while encouraging supervisees to be open and honest about
their concerns, feelings, and mistakes (Estrada et al. 2004).
Supervisors who create an open, flexible, respectful, and
accepting environment have been found to be highly valued
by interns in cross-cultural supervisory relationships (Burkard
et al. 2006; Wong et al. 2013). This type of environment can
201
facilitate discussions of power within supervision, as well as
promote conversations regarding the supervisor’s expecta-
tions and the evaluation process (Estrada et al. 2004). Further-
more, supervisees who believe their feelings and opinions are
respected may be more motivated to share their expectations,
concerns, and goals of the supervisory experience (Harvey
and Struzziero 2008).
Model and Impart Multicultural Competencies
It is possible for school psychology interns to be imperfect
when it comes to a range of tasks, including multicultural
competency. One objective in supervision, as in therapy, is
to identify what contingencies hinder or facilitate both per-
sonal and social constructions that enable shifts in perspective,
interpretations, and explanations (Gonzalez 1997). Intellectual
understanding alone is not enough; supervisors should help
facilitate real-life interactions in order for new and established
school psychologists to understand and communicate effec-
tively with diverse populations. When new practitioners begin
to understand how our own gender, race, ethnicity, religion,
socioeconomic class, etc. shape our sense of self, we are better
able 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 the
context 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 multicultural
competencies will be more credible concerning cultural and
professional domains of practice.
Value Ongoing Professional Development Opportunities
As many psychologists report receiving little to no formal
training or experiences in multicultural issues, especially with-
in the context of supervision (e.g., Constantine 2003; Falender
et al. 2013), it is incumbent upon psychologists to take advan-
tage of opportunities that foster professional growth and skill
development in the delivery of culturally competent practices
and services. Most ethics codes underscore the helper’s re-
sponsibility to take cultural contexts into consideration when
delivering services. For example, the ethics codes of the
American Counseling Association (2005), American Psycho-
logical Association (2010), National Association of School
Psychologists (2010), and National Association of Social
Workers (2008) all cite respect for cultural diversity as essen-
tial to best practices. Supervisors can place themselves in
ethical jeopardy by ignoring diversity factors because such
neglect can infringe upon the rights of interns, children, and
families with different worldviews and values. Professional
development opportunities can provide essential training and
reflections in becoming more culturally competent.
202
Further, current research has evolved considerably in psy-
chology and education, especially over the last decade, and it
is crucial that supervisors stay abreast of current research and
practice, integrate new knowledge to improve services, and
help interns best develop their skills (Proctor and Rogers
2013). Supervisors should seek training opportunities that will
enable them to learn about how different cultural groups have
been influenced by social, historical, and political factors
(Harvey and Struzziero 2008). Those placing interns with
supervisors 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 used
within a multicultural framework, consider the following case
example. Alicia is a Hispanic school psychology student. She
is excited to have obtained an internship at a prestigious
school. The school is located in a high SES area and the
student population is primarily White. Dr. Smith is a European
American school psychologist and will be Alicia’s internship
supervisor for the year. He is looking forward to supervising
an intern this year.
Upon Alicia’s first day at the school, Dr. Smith attempts to
create a welcoming environment by introducing Alicia to the
faculty and staff and taking her on a tour through the school.
Dr. Smith proceeds to ask Alicia about her familiarity with the
area, her background, and past experiences in schools and
ensures 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 of
the areas or tasks in which Alicia’s knowledge and
skills could be useful and beneficial to the staff, the
students, and their families.
As the semester progress, Alicia voices concern to Dr.
Smith that she is “not being taken seriously” by some of the
parents and staff at the school. Alicia tells Dr. Smith that she
feels that some of the parents sharply question her
psychoeducational evaluation results at the multidisciplinary
team meetings. In addition, she reports that two of the teachers
to whom she provides consultation to completely ignore her
suggestions. Dr. Smith reassures Alicia that she has been
doing fine work and that some teachers and parents are just
difficult. Alicia grows quiet and they change the subject.
After Alicia has left for the day, Dr. Smith reflects back on
their earlier conversation. He begins to wonder if Alicia might
have had additional concerns that he did not address. He
realizes that most teachers and parents at the school appear
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
to take his suggestions seriously. Dr. Smith contemplates the
concept of White privilege and wonders if race could be a
factor in Alicia’s interactions with teachers and parents.
Dr. Smith decides to revisit the conversation with Alicia the
next day. He asks Alicia if she thinks race is a factor in her
interactions 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 encourages
Alicia to continue to bring her concerns to his attention so they
can discuss them and find appropriate solutions. Alicia re-
sponds much more positively to the current conversation than
the one that took place the day before and thanks Dr. Smith for
revisiting the conversation. Dr. Smith makes a mental note to
reopen conversations about race and ethnicity with Alicia on a
regular basis, and they decide to share more about their
individual cultural backgrounds at their next supervision
meeting. In the meantime, Dr. Smith decides to conduct a
literature search to increase his knowledge on current best
practice considerations on multicultural supervision and con-
sultation, so that he may improve his supervision of Alicia and
also provide her with additional strategies on how to navigate
her difficult consultative relationships.
Conclusion and Future Directions
The increasingly diverse climate of the USA requires that
school psychologists and trainees become adept at interacting
successfully with individuals who are culturally different from
themselves. The cultural backgrounds and experiences of the
supervisor and the supervisee can shape and influence the
supervisory relationship and the supervision process
(Nilsson and Duan 2007). As supervision is the key
method by which psychologist-educators transmit the
profession 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, limited
research has been conducted as to what explicit practices and
frameworks produce the best outcomes in multicultural super-
vision. Furthermore, the research that has been done has
largely used survey and interview techniques that involve
small 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 future
work. More empirical research studies are needed in the area
of multicultural supervision and should be a primary focus for
future research.
Several prominent themes appear to emerge that would
likely be helpful for supervisors to adopt in order to practice
competent and successful multicultural supervision.
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
Supervisors and supervisees are encouraged to examine their
own cultural backgrounds, perceptions, and biases and openly
discuss how these factors might influence the supervisory
relationship and the supervisee’s ability to address a client’s
racial or cultural concerns. In doing so, supervisors will be
able to better work towards eliminating latent bias and dis-
crimination within these relationships. By establishing open
communication in a safe learning environment, supervisors
and supervisees can be open and honest about their
experiences and shape the supervisory relationship into
a collaborative process that produces positive outcomes
for everyone involved.
Overall, the research suggests that additional training in
multicultural education and supervision is needed for future
school psychologists. Even if formal training is not immedi-
ately available, all supervisors could benefit from increased
awareness of their own and others’ cultures, values, and
perceptions and to endeavor to engage in culturally responsive
practices, especially when engaging with culturally and ra-
cially diverse supervisors and supervisees. If these practices
are established, supervisors will likely be better prepared to
meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population, becom-
ing more effective in supervision and transmission of the
practice of school psychology to all trainees, regardless of
cultural 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 organizational
change. 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.), Counselor
supervision: principles, process, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 63–90).
Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Ancis, J. R., & Marshall, D. S. (2010). Using a multicultural framework
to 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 American
minorities (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical
supervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bhat, C., & Davis, T. E. (2007). Counseling supervisors’ assessment of
race, 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 Multicultural
Counseling (pp. 263–286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
203
Burkard, A. W., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B., Pruitt, N. T., Contreras-
Tadych, D. A., & Kozlowski, J. M. (2006). Supervisor cultural
responsiveness 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-racial
supervision: 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. In
D. B. Pope-Davis, H. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and
psychology (pp. 383–391). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. (2007). Perceptions of racial
microaggressions 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 psychology
2010: demographics, employment and the content for professional
practices: 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: a
Delphi 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-racial
supervision in university counseling center internships. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling & Development, 29(2), 131–146. doi:10.
1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00510.x.
Estrada, D. (2005). Supervision of cross-cultural couples therapy. Journal
of Family Psychotherapy, 16, 17–30. doi:10.1300/J085v16n04_03.
Estrada, D., Frame, M. W., & Williams, C. B. (2004). Cross-cultural
supervision: 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). Multicultural
clinical supervision and benchmarks: empirical support informing
practice 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 for
the 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). Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A.,
Patel, N., & Rodolfa, E. (2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and
sexual 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 multicultural
perspective. In D. B. Pope-Davis, & H. L. K. Coleman
(Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: assessment, ed-
ucation and training, and supervision (pp. 350–386). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grant, B., & Manathunga, C. (2011). Supervision and cultural difference:
rethinking institutional pedagogies. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 48(4), 351–354.
204
Harvey, V. S., & Struzziero, J. A. (2008). Professional development and
supervision of school psychologists. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Hays, D. G., & Chang, C. Y. (2003). White privilege, oppression, and
racial identity development: implications for supervision. Counselor
Education 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. In
J. 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 in
the 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 influence
of supervisory racial identity interaction and racial matching on the
supervisory 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 in
psychotherapy 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 ethnic
minority supervisees working with White supervisors. Journal of
Multicultural 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. In
D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. K. Hardin, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies: in counseling and
psychology (pp. 114–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Okun, B. F., Fried, J., & Okun, M. L. (1999). Understanding diversity: a
learning-aspractice primer. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Contemp School Psychol (2014) 18:195–204
Pendry, N. (2012). Race, racism, and systemic supervision. Journal of
Family 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: another
perspective 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 and
practice. Family, Systems, & Health, 25(4), 367–381. doi:10.1037/
1091-7527.25.4.367.
Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about
race: a field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press.
Toporek, R. L., Ortega-Villalobos, L., & Pope-Davis, D. B. (2004). Critical
incidents in multicultural supervision: exploring supervisees’ and su-
pervisors’ experiences. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 32(2), 66–83. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00362.x.
United States Census Bureau (2011, March). Overview of race and
Hispanic 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 what
hinders in cross-cultural clinical supervision: a critical incident
study. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 66–85. doi:10.1177/
0011000012442652.
Katie Eklund, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology
Program at the University of Arizona. She received her doctorate in
Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology from the University of
California, Santa Barbara. She received her Masters degree in Social
Work from the University of Michigan. Dr. Eklund has worked in public
education for 14 years as a school administrator, school psychologist, and
school social worker, and is a Nationally Certified School Psychologist
and 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, school
climate, 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 Psychology
Program at the University of Arizona. She received her Masters degree in
Special Education at the University of Arizona and was as a classroom
teacher for 10 years prior to pursuing her doctoral degree.