Developing a Working Model of Cross-Cultural Supervision: A Competence- and Alliance-Based Framework
Despite numerous suggestions to integrate culture, diversity and social justice issues in clinical supervision, empirical studies on cross-cultural supervision indicate limited uptake of such recommendations. We suggest that a comprehensive model of cross-cultural supervision could benefit the field by guiding supervisors in this task. A working model is proposed based on a foundation of the supervisory alliance and a focus on social work practice competence, integrating strategies to promote self- and relational-reflexivity within the supervisory relationship. The model is comprised of four components: component 1: goal setting to contract on cross-cultural integration in supervision; component 2: active listening for cross-cultural markers; component 3: bonding through the supervisor’s self-reflexivity to foster the supervisee’s self-reflexivity; and component 4: working through tasks for cultural integration in supervision by modelling the supervisor’s relational reflexivity in case formulation and treatment to foster the supervisee’s relational-reflexivity.
KeywordsClinical supervision Reflexivity Cultural humility Alliance Social work competence
- Almeida, R., Woods, R., Messineo, T., & Font, R. (1998). The cultural context model: An overview. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Revisioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 414–431). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
- Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2005). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. In L. Shulman & A. Safyer (Eds.), Supervision in counseling: Interdisciplinary issues and research. New York, NY: The Haworth Press. (also published in The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2), 49–67).Google Scholar
- Burnham, J. (2006). Relational reflexivity: A tool for socially constructing therapeutic relationships. In C. Flaskas, B. Mason & A. Perlerz (Eds.), The space between. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
- Burnham, J. (2012). Developments in Social GRRRAAACCEEESSS: Visible–invisible and voiced–unvoiced. In I.-B. Krause (Ed.), Culture and reflexivity in systemic psychotherapy: Mutual perspectives (pp. 139–160). London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
- ChenFeng, J., Castronova, M., & Zimmerman, T. (2017). Safety and social justice in the supervisory relationship. In R. Allan & S. Singh Poulsen (Eds.), Creating cultural safety in couple and family therapy: Supervision and training. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E., & Target, M. (2004). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of self. New York: Other Press.Google Scholar
- hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- International Federation of Social Workers (2014). The global definition of social work. Retrieved July 17, 2018 from https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/.
- Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Rice, L. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (1984). Patterns of change: Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., & Samstag, L. W. (1994). Resolving therapeutic alliance rupture: A task analytic investigation. In A. O. Horvath & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 225–255). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Shulman, L. (2010). Interactional supervision (3rd ed.). Washington DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
- Tsang, A. K. T., & Bogo, M. (1997). Engaging with clients cross culturally: Using research and developing research for effective practice. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 6(3/4), 73–91.Google Scholar