Multicultural and Social Justice Competence in Clinical Supervision
Abstract
The authors apply the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015) model to clinical supervision, highlighting ways for supervisors to intentionally integrate multicultural and social justice practices into the supervision enterprise. They offer specific implications for supervision practice, including a focus on broaching strategies.
The goal of clinical supervision is competent, effective, and ethical practice of professional counseling (Association for Counselor Education and Supervision [ACES], 2011; Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). This goal is pursued in relationally and multiculturally dynamic ways within social and institutional structures, which differentially grant privileges to supervisors, supervisees, and clients depending on a variety of factors (e.g., age, gender, race, educational attainment). The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015), adopted by the American Counseling Association (ACA) in 2015, provide a framework for understanding the multiple sociocultural dynamics that counselors and clients bring into the professional relationship. Supervisors also need to consider the complexity of their own and their supervisees’ identities and may benefit from using the MSJCC model to conceptualize clinical supervision and plan supervision and counseling interventions.
Clients typically have a choice to terminate a counseling relationship if they perceive their counselor as lacking in competence, but supervisees may be obligated to continue in an unsatisfactory supervisory relationship. In light of the power differential inherent in the evaluative structure of supervision, supervisees may choose nondisclosure as a safe way to navigate an unsatisfactory supervisory relationship (Murphy & Wright, 2005). It is clear that culture matters in supervision, and the MSJCC may be the best available framework for thinking and working through these dynamics. We refer readers to the existing scholarship regarding the implications of addressing or not addressing racial and cultural dynamics in clinical supervision (Constantine & Sue, 2007; Cook, 1994; Jernigan, Green, Helms, Perez-Gualdron, & Henze, 2010; Ladany, Brittan-Powell, & Pannu, 1997; Ladany, Inman, Constantine, & Hofheinz, 1997).
Most literature about multicultural and social justice competence in counselor education focuses on techniques supervisors can use (Ivers, Rogers, Borders, & Turner, 2017; Warner, 2015) rather than offering conceptual frameworks. We propose viewing supervision as a process through which both supervisor and supervisee develop as competent multicultural and social justice practitioners. The purpose of this article is to illuminate the supervision process framed by the MSJCC (Ratts et al., 2015) and to encourage counselor educators and supervisors to develop a framework fully adapted to the nuances of the clinical supervisory context.
The MSJCC
The MSJCC (Ratts et al., 2015) focus on praxis and intersectionality and take a developmental perspective on competence, suggesting that professional counselors are lifelong learners in the process of growing as culturally competent practitioners. As stated earlier, the MSJCC were written as counseling—not supervision—competencies. However, because supervision is a counseling specialty (Borders et al., 2014) and a primary avenue through which counselors-in-training develop their professional skills (Borders & Brown, 2005), we feel that clinical supervision should explicitly integrate a multicultural and social justice framework. Supervisors, too, strive to grow as cultural beings and advocates for social justice and could benefit from using a framework that their supervisees could then transfer from the supervisory to the clinical context. Readers are encouraged to study the work of Ratts and colleagues (Ratts et al., 2015; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2016) on the MSJCC prior to implementing the supervisory applications we share below. We first discuss the concept of broaching as a core process in multicultural and social justice praxis and then walk through the MSJCC developmental domains as they correspond to supervisor and supervisee. Readers may request a sample case study by emailing the first author.
Broaching
Broaching (Day-Vines et al., 2007) is a key means by which supervisors can ensure that their multicultural and social justice praxis remains central to their work. Day-Vines et al. (2007) defined broaching as “consistent and ongoing attitudes of openness with a genuine commitment by the counselor to continually invite [emphasis added] the client to explore issues of diversity” (p. 402). Broaching is an attitude that translates to behaviors that give the clients (or in this case, supervisees) the option of bringing their cultural identities and experiences into the relationship. Although broaching consists of certain behaviors or interventions, Day-Vines et al. called broaching a lifestyle orientation. We focus on the supervisor’s role here because, as Day-Vines and colleagues articulated, the onus is on the supervisor rather than the supervisee when it comes to broaching.
In supervision, broaching may occur in three ways: (a) within the supervisory relationship itself (“I’m wondering how you are feeling about our working together, especially given that we may have very different backgrounds from one another”); (b) in the supervisee’s conceptualization of the client (“How do you think your client’s experience growing up in poverty affected her development?”); or (c) in the counseling relationship between supervisee/counselor and client (“How might your client be feeling about being in counseling with you, given the racism he has encountered from other White people in positions of power and authority?”). Next, we continue our discussion of broaching within the MSJCC domains.
Developmental Domains
The MSJCC contain four developmental domains: (a) counselor self-awareness, (b) awareness of client worldview, (c) counseling relationship, and (d) counseling and advocacy interventions (Ratts et al., 2015). For the purposes of this article, we substitute the word supervisor for counselor, supervisee for client, and supervision for counseling in the following sections.
Supervisor self-awareness. Numerous authors have encouraged counselors to start their journey toward multicultural and social justice competence with their own self-awareness work through reflection and reflexivity (Arredondo, Tovar-Blank, & Parham, 2008; Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007; Lee & Rodgers, 2009). An honest assessment of one’s racial identity development, for example, has been highlighted as an important first step in a supervisor’s ability to then invite a supervisee to do the same (Cook, 1994). Reflecting on one’s intersections—or ways in which multiple parts of one’s identity connect and relate—is also a crucial step (Chan, Cor, & Band, 2018).
A lack of supervisor self-awareness may lead to a failure to broach multicultural and social justice dynamics. Supervisors may experience discomfort (their own or their supervisees’) or may lack the awareness, training, or experience that would help them broach in supervision. It is also possible that perceived similar cultural backgrounds and/or identities may hinder the supervisor from broaching. A female supervisor may assume, for example, that if both she and the supervisee are White women, broaching is not needed. This assumption would deny the opportunity to explore cultural dynamics with a supervisee who will likely be serving diverse clients throughout her career. Thus, supervisors need to seek help in assessing their own level of self-awareness honestly if they wish to develop supervisees who have multicultural and social justice competence. The following are questions supervisors can ask when considering their own self-awareness: How might I need to increase my level of self-awareness, and how can I go about doing so? What feedback or support do I need to track my own self-awareness and development?
Supervisee worldview. The second developmental domain is that of supervisee worldview (Ratts et al., 2015). It is important to specify here that supervisors should not expect their supervisees to bear the burden of educating them on the ways in which their membership in various communities affects their work. The supervisor is responsible for learning the ways in which historic and current sociopolitical forces can affect privileged and marginalized supervisees. Supervisors, like counselors, should actively pursue knowledge about the experiences of those individuals, groups, or communities for which the supervisor lacks awareness. This pursuit may lead to feelings of tension, cognitive dissonance, or discomfort, but, ultimately, should result in growth.
Supervisors also need to be aware that supervisees may have experienced stereotyping or racial bias in supervision (Constantine & Sue, 2007) and may thus be cautious or guarded with new supervisors. With this awareness, supervisors can work to broach responsibly and respectfully. If supervisors have self-awareness as developed through the first developmental domain, they likely have knowledge of stages of racial identity development that could help them plan broaching and supervision interventions that are appropriate given their supervisee’s racial identity status. Questions a supervisor can ask when considering supervisee worldview include the following: What do I know about the supervisee’s worldview? How might I learn more about his or her worldview both inside and outside of supervision?
Supervisory relationship. The third developmental domain is that of the supervisory relationship (Ratts et al., 2015). The supervisory relationship “is key to the effectiveness of supervision” (ACES, 2011, p. 7), and supervisors are reminded that they always should “attend to ethical and cultural concerns that impact the relationship” (ACES, 2011, p. 8). Yet the construct of the supervisory relationship is still somewhat difficult to conceptualize, at least according to measures of the construct (Tangen & Borders, 2016). The supervisory relationship includes such variables as development phases, role induction processes, supervisor and supervisee variables, parallel processes, transference/countertransference issues, and multicultural considerations (Ladany & Muse-Burke, 2001; Muse-Burke, Ladany, & Deck, 2001).
Supervision researchers have highlighted the importance of multiculturalism and diversity within the supervisory relationship. Mangione, Mears, Vincent, and Hawes (2011) found that supervisees desired discussions of power in the relationship with their supervisors but that such conversations were not common. According to Crockett and Hays (2015), supervisors’ multicultural competence, as perceived by supervisees, leads to supervisees’ perceptions of a stronger supervisory working alliance and thus greater satisfaction with supervision and greater counseling self-efficacy. Therefore, attending to multiculturalism and diversity seems to positively benefit the supervisory relationship.
Supervisor humility can be important in establishing strong, multiculturally competent supervisory relationships. According to Hook et al. (2016), cultural humility within the supervision context can be characterized by (a) supervisors refraining from assuming an elevated stance (related to one’s beliefs and worldview) and (b) supervisors recognizing their limitations and striving toward greater learning of others’ cultures. When practiced, cultural humility leads to a “cultural third—a unique space where cultural meanings and experiences are welcomed, respected, and privileged and can be openly explored and examined for their treatment/supervision significance” (Watkins & Hook, 2016, p. 488). Questions a supervisor can ask when considering the supervisory relationship include the following: How am I feeling about the relationship, and what evidence do I have of the supervisee’s feelings about the relationship? Am I using collaboration, analysis of power, and broaching to check in on our working relationship?
Supervision and advocacy interventions. Within this last developmental domain, a socioecological model is embedded, indicating the various levels at which supervisors can intervene (Ratts et al., 2015). The levels are, from the smallest (micro) to largest (macro): intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, public policy, and international and global affairs. Together, counselors and clients—or in this case, supervisors and supervisees—determine the extent to which services are to be focused on individual or systemic interventions. In supervision, consideration of the socioecological model could manifest in a few different ways. The supervisor could consider whether the supervisee needs direct intervention at any of these levels. For example, a supervisor may become aware of institutional policies that discriminate against students in internships. In this case, different actions may be called for, such as raising awareness of the unfair policies or voicing opposition to such policies by asking for changes to be made.
Depending on the supervisee and unique circumstances, it may be appropriate for supervisors and supervisees to collaborate in determining actions to be taken. The key here is that supervisors recognize they are not limited to in-session interventions in their roles as supervisors. Supervision and advocacy interventions are built on a foundation of supervisor self-awareness, understanding the supervisee’s worldview, and attending to the supervisory relationship. These domains are always in motion and interacting and thus deserve attention and reassessment over time. Questions a supervisor can ask when considering supervision and/or advocacy interventions include the following: What interventions am I using, and which have I not considered? How can I balance intervening for versus intervening with supervisees so that they feel empowered and supported? Which level(s) would benefit most from intervention (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, public policy, or global affairs)?
Implications and Future Directions
To date, the MSJCC model (Ratts et al, 2015) has not been fully explored as a supervision framework, so this article represents a first attempt to explore possible applications of the model for clinical supervision. Perhaps because of the complexity of multicultural supervision (Arczynski & Morrow, 2017; Falender, Burnes, & Ellis, 2013; Tohidian & Quek, 2017), as well as the challenges related to measuring cultural competence (Kumas¸-Tan, Beagan, Loppie, MacLeod, & Frank, 2007), there is a lack of clear evidence for the integration of multiculturalism and advocacy in clinical supervision.
Implications for Research
One pressing question is how, as supervisors, we can assess our own level of competence in promoting social justice. Research indicates that supervisors are not always further along in their racial identity development than supervisees (Chang, Hays, & Shoffner, 2004; Cook, 1994; Helms, 1984; Jernigan et al., 2010). Recognizing this may encourage supervisor self-awareness and ultimately supervisor competence if we intentionally pursue our own development as well as that of our supervisees. Another area for needed research is regarding whether and how the quality and authenticity of broaching affect the development of the supervisory relationship and ultimately the multicultural and social justice competence of the care clients receive. As counseling training programs integrate the MSJCC into their curriculum, opportunities for research may emerge to explore this parallel process of development from supervisor to supervisee/counselor to client.
Implications for Professional Advocacy
Counselor educators and supervisors have an opportunity and responsibility to advocate for the profession by developing multicultural and social justice competencies specific to clinical supervision. Ellis and Ladany (1997) noted the questionable use of counseling models in supervisory processes, so until research is conducted, the information and ideas shared here should be received with a critical eye. Not only might some aspects of the model not directly translate to supervision, but also shifting to a supervision application adds a layer of complexity that was not accounted for in the dyadic counselor-client relationship. Thus, supervision-specific competencies addressing privilege and oppression, power dynamics, broaching, and intervention are needed. We call on counselor educators and supervisors to make such recommendations and guidelines for practice in the immediate future.
In conclusion, developing and applying multicultural and social justice competence in clinical supervision is a complex and personal process. Supervisors must attend to their own identities, increase their self-awareness, broach cultural dynamics, and model advocacy with supervisees who, in turn, may do the same in their clinical work for the betterment of individual, family, group, and community wellness.
