Summary of - Supervisees’ Perceptions of Multicultural Supervision in a Historically Monocultural Context

Title of Original: Supervisees’ Perceptions of Multicultural Supervision in a Historically Monocultural Context
Authors: Evgeniya Kuznietsova, Aisling McMahon, & Rachel O’Neill
Journal: The Clinical Supervisor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2024.2448954

Why This Matters - Supervision is often where therapists grapple with cultural identity and power. In Ireland, a country with a historically monocultural background, this study reveals that multicultural supervision is still emergent and often mishandled. The findings help supervisors reflect on how they might unknowingly silence or support supervisees across cultural differences.

Read Time - 5 Minutes

This qualitative study explores supervisees' perceptions of multicultural supervision in Ireland—a country with a predominantly monocultural and post-colonial history. Fifteen psychotherapy supervisees (both trainees and qualified professionals) shared experiences of supervision where cultural differences were present. The aim was to uncover helpful and unhelpful supervisor behaviours and their impact on supervisees and client work.

Multicultural supervision is broadly defined as involving any significant cultural differences between supervisor, supervisee, and client, including ethnicity, gender, social class, religion, ability, or age. While multicultural supervision has gained traction internationally, particularly in the US, it remains under-researched in Ireland. This study fills that gap by focusing on supervisees’ experiences within this unique cultural context.

The research found five major domains:

Supervisees’ Cultural Blindness: Many supervisees initially failed to notice or appreciate cultural differences in supervision, often defaulting to similarity (“we’re both Irish”). Some acknowledged that discussions about culture were limited to client work rather than the supervisory relationship itself.
Supervisors’ Cultural Myopia: Supervisors were sometimes described as condescending, judgemental, or lacking cultural insight. Participants reported instances of supervisors overemphasising one cultural identity (e.g. accent or class) while ignoring others. Several supervisees noticed that cultural discussions were only initiated when related to clients—not the supervisee–supervisor dynamic.
Being Truly Seen and Connected: Positive experiences occurred when supervisors demonstrated cultural humility, openness, and empathy. These behaviours fostered trust, enhanced rapport, and supported supervisees in developing empathy for culturally different clients. Cultural similarity (e.g. gender) was sometimes helpful, but openness was seen as more valuable than shared identity.
Widening the Supervisee’s Lens: Supervisors who proactively challenged supervisees to explore cultural themes helped broaden their awareness and confidence. Sharing their own cultural experiences, asking reflective questions, or naming differences supported supervisees’ growth. In some cases, initially uncomfortable discussions became valuable learning experiences over time.
A Shuttered Lens: Cultural disconnects with supervisors sometimes led to supervisees feeling silenced, confused, or diminished. This included power imbalances (e.g. due to age, class, or gender), supervisors rejecting the relevance of intellectual disability or religion, or failing to validate cultural concerns. These experiences undermined trust, reduced supervisee disclosure, and impacted confidence in client work.

The discussion section highlights a paradox: supervisees often demonstrated cultural blindness despite having some formal training. This suggests that cultural competence is not just about knowledge but ongoing self-awareness. The findings also challenge assumptions that cultural similarity always leads to better supervision—it is how cultural differences are handled that matters.

The study reveals that discussions of race were notably absent, likely reflecting Ireland’s specific demographic makeup and monocultural legacy. Instead, distinctions like ethnicity, age, and class were more commonly raised. Participants also reported that older supervisors sometimes reinforced hierarchical dynamics, leading supervisees to feel infantilised or judged.

The authors suggest that Ireland’s post-colonial context and rapid demographic changes have contributed to discomfort around culture in supervision. Supervisors, many of whom trained in a monocultural era, may lack the tools or frameworks to confidently initiate these discussions.

Practical recommendations include:

Supervisors need to reflect on their own cultural identity and how it shapes the supervisory relationship.
Cultural discussions should not be limited to client work but integrated into the supervisory process itself.
Supervision-of-supervision structures should include space for reflection on cultural power, bias, and humility.
Supervisor training should emphasise the importance of initiating cultural conversations and responding to difference with curiosity rather than assumption.

The study’s limitations include its reliance on supervisee accounts (not triangulated with supervisors’ perspectives) and the heterogeneity of the participant group. Nonetheless, it offers valuable insights into what helps—and hinders—multicultural supervision in a context where cultural conversations are still emerging.