Intercultural Supervision in Practice: Safety, Humility, and the Work of Repair

Supervision is one of the most powerful learning platforms in our profession. It guides us in training, and it sustains our growth long after qualification, helping us monitor competence, practise ethically, and keep sight of the kind of clinicians we are becoming.

Fit matters at every stage; for qualified practitioners, fit becomes even more essential, because by then we know more clearly what our practice needs and where our edges lie.

I often describe supervision as both a compass and a mirror: it helps us find direction, and it reflects back the blind spots we might miss alone. Over the years, my own supervision journey has been shaped by two guiding qualities: reflectivity and cultural humility. These are not just professional values; they are the ways I make sense of difference, stay open to feedback, and grow alongside those I supervise.

Terminology note: In this piece I use intercultural supervision to foreground relationship, dialogue, and mutual learning across difference. In some literature this is also called cross-cultural supervision; I’ll use the latter occasionally for clarity and search.

This reflection looks at supervision through the lens of intercultural practice: a theme that sits at the heart of our profession’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Intercultural supervision is not just about “working across difference,” but about learning how difference itself can become a teacher. Reflectivity and cultural humility are the tools that make this possible. They turn intercultural competence from a theoretical goal into a lived, relational practice, one that deepens both safety and growth.

Whether you are a trainee or an experienced practitioner, my hope is that this piece helps you see supervision as a secure base where learning, difference, and humanity meet.

📍Here is the brief version of this article, on discussing about the significance of culture and safety in clinical supervision: Culture, Safety and Fit Matters in Clinical Supervision.

When Supervision Crosses Cultures

Supervision always takes place between two worlds: the supervisor’s and the supervisee’s.

Sometimes these worlds overlap easily; other times they carry differences in language, culture, values, or lived experience that quietly shape the space between us.

Intercultural supervision invites us to notice and work with these differences rather than step around them. Being “different” is not, by itself, what grows cultural competence. It is the lived work of engaging with difference: pausing, reflecting, navigating misunderstandings, and learning to repair. That is what deepens us as clinicians.

When supervision becomes a place where these experiences can be held with openness and curiosity, it becomes meaningfully developmental. As the old saying goes, we only truly know when we have lived the experience.

But living these experiences, especially across cultures, also brings questions, uncertainties, and quiet assumptions about what “good” supervision should look like. Many of these assumptions are inherited from training, organisational cultures, or personal histories. Some protect us, while others limit curiosity or create silent barriers to connection.

Before we turn to frameworks and evidence, it helps to pause and name these assumptions clearly. Doing so gives us language for what often sits just beneath awareness, and creates the space for more honest, inclusive reflection.

Reframing Common Misconceptions about Clinical Supervision

Intercultural (cross-cultural) supervision can stir subtle anxieties and expectations. Beneath these are common misconceptions that shape how we think about safety, identity, and fit in supervision. Bringing them to light helps us see supervision with greater nuance and compassion, both for ourselves and for those we supervise.

Intercultural or Cross-cultural supervision is just about race.

Identity is layered, dynamic, and multidimensional. It includes not only race and ethnicity, but also class, gender, sexuality, age, faith, socioeconomic background, and more.

The ADDRESSING framework (Hays, 2001) reminds us that some aspects of identity are visible and spoken, while others remain unseen or unspoken. In supervision, making these layers visible helps both supervisor and supervisee understand how their lived experiences shape what feels safe, what feels risky, and what feels unseen.

We must match identities to feel safe.

It can be reassuring to work with a supervisor who shares aspects of our identity, and sometimes this shared experience brings ease and recognition. But safety is not built on sameness alone. What builds safety is the supervisor’s openness, humility, and demonstrated competence in engaging with difference. An intercultural supervisory relationship can thrive when both people share a commitment to learning, reflection, and repair, even if their backgrounds differ.

When humility replaces certainty, difference becomes a source of depth rather than distance.

If there’s tension, it means a bad fit.

Rupture is not failure. It is often a sign that something meaningful is happening. In any supervision relationship, moments of misunderstanding or emotional strain are inevitable. What matters is not avoiding them, but learning how to meet them with honesty and care.

The literature on rupture and repair (Safran & Muran, 2000; Eubanks et al., 2018) shows that working through tension strengthens trust, increases safety, and models relational courage for supervisees to bring into their own client work.

When supervision makes room to name, explore, and repair difference, it moves beyond clinical oversight into genuine learning. That is good intercultural supervision, and, simply, good ethical supervision.

Because many practitioners carry histories of injustice and silencing into professional spaces, safety must be built, not assumed: through active naming, paced consent, and repair. If cultural competence forms the foundation of our practice, safety is the condition that allows it to grow. Supervision works best when it feels safe enough for supervisees to take risks: to stretch, and to question, knowing that they will be met with curiosity rather than judgement. It also depends on a supervisor’s capacity to stay open, reflexive, and able to hold uncertainty.

When difference is met with openness rather than avoidance, supervision becomes not only a safeguard but a developmental space, one that mirrors the same therapeutic courage we hope to cultivate in our clients.

📍These ideas echo themes I explored in Culturally Responsive Therapy: How Culture Shapes Healing: how reflection and humility turn awareness into relational depth.

Why Intercultural Supervision Matters

Intercultural competence, often called multicultural or cross-cultural competence in the literature, is widely recognised across counselling psychology and psychotherapy as a core dimension of ethical and effective practice (Sue, Arredondo & McDavis, 1992; Ratts et al., 2016).

Importantly, this competence is not something we automatically “gain” from our personal identities or life experiences. It is a professional capacity that must be developed intentionally, through attitudes, knowledge, skills, and action, and sometimes through advocacy when the work calls for it.

Alongside competence, the idea of cultural humility is equally important. As Tervalon & Murray-García (1998) emphasised, humility is not a one-off training outcome. It is a lifelong stance of reflection, awareness of power, and accountability to the people we serve.

I remember some of my past readings of counselling psychology literature, which have highlighted the profession's longstanding recognition of diversity, reflexivity, and respect for difference as central values (Strawbridge & Woolfe, 2010; BPS, 2019). Some authors go further, situating counselling psychology identity within traditions of multiculturalism and social justice (e.g., Sue et al., 1992; Ratts et al., 2016).

At the same time, not all practitioners or supervisors foreground these themes equally, and the translation into everyday practice is still developing. For practitioners and those in training, this can create uncertainty: the literature affirms the importance of equity, diversity, and social justice. Yet the mechanisms of what it looks like moment-to-moment in therapy or supervision, and how it influences outcomes, are less consistently studied.

Many practitioners, myself included, experience this as both a professional and a personal inquiry: not just adopting values, but learning how to live them out authentically in our practice.

For me personally, supervision has been one of the most meaningful spaces to grow, not only professionally, but also in how I live my values of diversity, equity, and reflective practice. Alongside continuing professional development and personal therapy, it forms a triad of reflection, growth, and accountability. In its best form, supervision becomes more than oversight: it is a living practice of intercultural awareness and humility, where the personal, ethical, and relational meet.

These commitments are not abstract ideals; in the UK they are embedded in our supervision standards and competence frameworks.

What Safety Means in Supervision (and Why It’s Developmental)

At its core, safety in supervision rests on the working alliance: the shared agreement on goals, tasks and the bond that allows supervisees to be open (Bordin, 1983; Ladany et al., 1999). Without it, supervision risks becoming compliance-driven rather than genuinely developmental.

In intercultural supervision, safety is not a neutral concept. For many practitioners, especially those with lived experiences of marginalisation, migration, discrimination, or systemic inequity, supervision can echo the hierarchies or silences they have encountered elsewhere. True safety therefore begins with recognition: acknowledging how power, privilege, and oppression shape what feels possible in the room. Intercultural supervision actively validates these realities and prioritises trust and connection before exploration, allowing supervisees to feel seen and grounded before deeper work begins.

Justice-informed safety is active, not passive: supervisors take responsibility for naming dynamics, inviting consented conversation, and checking impact even when supervisees feel unable or unsafe to name it themselves.

Within an intercultural context, the meaning of safety expands. True alliance goes beyond agreement and rapport. It calls for courage from both supervisor and supervisee to bring identity, culture, language, and power into the room. Intercultural principles remind us that alliance must include an awareness of difference, and the willingness to hold it with care.

These conversations are not always easy. They may stir emotion, evoke anxiety, or surface the familiar “not good enough” feelings that many practitioners carry. They may also reveal blind spots or highlight power in the room. Yet, when handled with openness, these moments become opportunities for growth rather than rupture.

Good supervision reframes rupture as practice: a chance to strengthen awareness, to model repair, and to embody the same courage we invite from our clients (Safran & Muran, 2000; Eubanks et al., 2018). In this way, supervision mirrors therapy itself: a relational process where learning happens not despite discomfort, but through it.

At times, dynamics in a client’s work echo in supervision (parallel process). Naming this gently is containment, not criticism.

Recognising this reminds us that the working alliance is never a given. It is something we build, maintain, and revisit, especially across difference. For practitioners with first-hand experiences of “being different,” this work often resonates more deeply. When supervision provides a space where these experiences can be held securely and meaningfully, vulnerability is transformed into sensitivity, humility, and respect for the whole person.

Safety is also developmental. Early-stage supervisees often need more structure, reassurance, and modelling; as experience grows, supervision evolves into a more collaborative dialogue. The Integrated Developmental Model (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) helps us view supervision as a process of increasing autonomy and integration, one that matures alongside our professional identity.

Ultimately, what holds all this together is the human quality at the heart of supervision: empathy, curiosity, and the willingness to stay in relationship even when difference is present. When these qualities are alive, supervision becomes a secure base, one that can hold both learning and difference, challenge and care.

📍You can read more about this experiential learning approach in The Integrated Developmental Model of Supervision (IDM), which describes how therapists grow through supported challenge and reflection.

Working with Difference: From Felt Awareness to Practice Principles

Difference in supervision is not only something we understand; it is something we feel. When culture, language, or power enter the room, they are often experienced through subtleties: a pause in speech, a shift in tone, a tightening in the body. These moments can bring discomfort, defensiveness, or uncertainty. Yet they are also where growth begins.

For some supervisees, particularly those who have navigated racism, exclusion, or other forms of marginalisation, these sensations may carry more than professional anxiety; they can echo histories of injustice or invisibility. Intercultural supervision recognises that discomfort may be layered with past experiences of being silenced or misunderstood. Attending to this felt reality: not rushing past it, but acknowledging it prevents re-enactment and fosters repair. When supervisors can meet this with presence and steadiness, supervision becomes a microcosm of safety restored.

Meaningful supervision happens when both supervisor and supervisee stay with what difference evokes, rather than rushing to smooth it over. Growth in supervision happens not just on the cognitive level, but also on the felt, relational level.

What the Research Shows

Research on the rupture-and-repair literature (Safran & Muran, 2000; Eubanks et al., 2018) shows that meaningful relationships, including supervisory ones, inevitably encounter strain. The goal is not to prevent rupture, but to meet it with openness and curiosity.

In intercultural contexts, this is particularly vital. Difference may evoke emotion, reveal power imbalances, or highlight blind spots; but handled with care, it becomes the ground for deepened understanding.

The Multicultural Orientation in Supervision (MCO-S) framework (Watkins Jr., 2019; Mahon et al., 2024) encourages us to focus less on “getting culture right” and more on cultural humility, cultural comfort, and awareness of cultural opportunity. These relational qualities strengthen alliance and create climates where supervisees feel seen, respected, and challenged in growth-promoting ways.

Working with difference, then, is not a checklist of actions but a principled stance. It invites both supervisor and supervisee to:

1. Acknowledge that discomfort and difference are expected parts of learning.

2. Prepare themselves and each other for when these moments arise.

3. Contain emotion with steadiness and empathy, especially for those at earlier stages of practice.

4. Name power and invite feedback, modelling openness and accountability.

5. Revisit and repair when tension or microaggressions occur, treating these as opportunities for reflection rather than failure.

Microaggressions in supervision, even when unintentional, can quietly erode safety and trust. Studies show that supervisors who adopt a stance of cultural humility are more likely to mitigate these ruptures and repair alliance effectively (Hook et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2024). This involves acknowledging impact rather than debating intent, checking for withdrawal or defensiveness, and revisiting the conversation until connection feels restored.

In essence, effective intercultural supervision moves beyond facts to the felt level, where emotion, power, and presence intersect. It calls us to be attentive not only to what is said, but how it lands; not only to identity, but to experience. When supervisors and supervisees can stay with difference rather than rush to resolve it, supervision becomes a living space of reflexivity and repair, a microcosm of the therapeutic process itself.

It is here in the moments of tension, silence, or repair, that humility, not mastery, becomes the foundation of safety.

Practice Principles for Approaching Difference

These principles offer a way to stay with difference, not to fix it, but to work with it meaningfully. They are not techniques to master, but guiding attitudes that sustain openness and humility in the supervisory relationship.

1. Make culture discussable, early and often

   Culture, power, and identity are not side topics; they are always present in supervision. Naming them early signals that they are safe to discuss and sets a tone of openness rather than avoidance. Supervisors who name power, invite feedback, and model curiosity help create a climate where difference can be explored safely and constructively.

   In practice:

   • Begin each new supervisory relationship with a brief culture-of-practice conversation: exploring identity, language, migration, class, faith, and organisational power.

   • Use tools like Hays’ ADDRESSING framework (2001) or a cultural genogram to scaffold the discussion, to make visible what may otherwise stay implicit.

   • Use brief, consent-based openings when the room goes quiet (“I notice we’ve gone a bit quiet around X; would it help to name what might be happening, or shall we come back to it later?”).

   • Offer agency explicitly: “Shall we name this together now, or return to it next time?”

   • Name patterns gently even if the supervisee hasn’t (“I’m wondering if identity or power might be part of what makes this hard to say here...shall we check that together?”).

2. Prepare for and contain discomfort

   Emotional discomfort is not a sign that supervision has gone wrong; it is often a sign that learning is taking place. Naming and containing it supports reflection rather than avoidance.

   Supervisors can prepare supervisees, especially those in earlier stages of training, by normalising that identity, culture, language, and power will sometimes evoke anxiety or emotion. Containment means offering calm presence, normalisation, and empathy, rather than rushing to reassurance or correction.

   In practice:

   • Normalise uncertainty and emotion (“It’s natural that this feels uncomfortable. Let’s stay with it a little longer”).

   • Slow down when tension arises and check impact (“Something shifted there...how are we both feeling about this?”).

   • Match structure and challenge to the supervisee’s developmental level (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010).

   • Offer paced choices (slow down, pause, return later) so disclosure is never forced and agency is protected.

3. Name power and model openness

   Power exists in every supervisory relationship. Acknowledging it with humility rather than defensiveness strengthens trust and safety. In practice:

   • Make evaluative power explicit (“As your supervisor, part of my role includes assessment; let’s notice how that feels for you.”).

   • Invite feedback regularly and model openness when uncertainty arises.

   • Use relational language that bridges rather than defends (“Thank you for naming that. Let’s explore what might be happening between us.”).

     
     

4. Expect and respect rupture

   Rupture is inevitable in meaningful supervision. What matters is how it is recognised, explored, and repaired. When cultural or interpersonal tension emerges, framing it as an opportunity for collaborative reflection transforms discomfort into growth.

   In practice:

   • Contract for feedback and repair from the outset.

   • Use gentle metacommunication (“I sense some distance; can we pause and explore that together?”).

   • After reflection, revisit and repair collaboratively, acknowledging both perspectives.

5. Address microaggressions and acknowledge impact

   Microaggressions, even unintentional ones, can quietly erode trust. Supervisors who focus on impact rather than intent help maintain openness and accountability. Supervisors who approach these moments with cultural humility and impact awareness strengthen the supervisory alliance (Hook et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2024). In practice:

   • Acknowledge the impact (“I see how that landed; thank you for sharing it”).

   • Prioritise repair before interpretation. Emotional reconnection comes first.

   • Seek supervision-of-supervision when patterns persist (Hook et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2024).

   • Agree a follow-through step (e.g., document learning, adapt contracting, seek supervision-of-supervision) so repair becomes visible practice, not just a moment of apology.

Supervision that can stay with difference, and use it as a lens for reflection, becomes not only more culturally responsive but more deeply human.

📍Read my other post which elaborates on the different qualities which are required in therapy practice: The Key Qualities You Need to Bring Therapy Standards to Life

Up to this point, we have explored supervision as a lived experience: how safety feels, how difference is navigated, and how cultural humility is practised moment to moment. These relational principles are held by, and made accountable through, the UK’s ethical and competence frameworks.

Within the UK context, supervision is a professional discipline guided by well-established ethical and competence frameworks. Our professional bodies, from the BACP and UKCP to the HCPC, embed diversity, equity, and power-awareness as core dimensions of competence. Understanding these frameworks not only strengthens our practice but gives language and structure to what we already experience in the supervisory space.

Integrating Principles with UK Professional Guidance

In the UK, these values are put to work through professional guidance. Frameworks from the BACP, UKCP, and HCPC translate humility, equity, and power-awareness into concrete supervision standards and practices.

• BACP (2021) places Equality, Diversity and Inclusion as a core competence and asks supervisors to recognise power dynamics (including those rooted in social and cultural differences) and the context in which supervision occurs.

• UKCP (2018) requires supervisors to work with diversity and equality considerations and to attend to parallel processes and context as part of the supervisory task.

• HCPC (2023) expects practitioner psychologists to recognise power imbalances, understand the impact of culture, equality and diversity on practice, and participate actively in supervision as part of safe, accountable care.

📍What to know more about Therapy and Psychology Professional Standards? Read my other blog on The Four Components of Professional Standards in Therapy (Training, Supervision, Personal Therapy & CPD)

These frameworks also recognise that safety cannot be separated from equity. BACP’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion competencies (2021) and UKCP’s supervision guidelines (2018) highlight that attending to systemic power and social identity is part of maintaining psychological and cultural safety. This moves supervision beyond interpersonal sensitivity toward justice-informed practice, one that acknowledges structural barriers and seeks to prevent harm by fostering belonging and inclusion.

In other words, safety and equity are inseparable in supervision.

This integration becomes practical through well-established UK supervision models. The Seven-Eyed Model (Hawkins & Shohet, 2012) illustrates how supervision attends to multiple layers, from the internal process to the wider context (Mode 7), which includes social, cultural, organisational, and political influences. In this sense, attending to difference is not a specialist add-on, but part of what it means to practise ethically and systemically within the UK context.

Cultural humility and reflexivity are not only attitudes. They are competencies, embedded within our national professional standards (BACP, 2021; UKCP, 2018; HCPC, 2023).

We can also see these principles embodied in UK traditions of intercultural and transcultural psychotherapy. Centres such as Nafsiyat Intercultural Therapy (est. 1983) pioneered supervision and therapy across cultures and languages, embedding cultural consultation and multilingual practice into everyday care. Scholars like Suman Fernando (2010) deepened our understanding of how race, migration, colonial history, and systemic power shape both mental health and professional relationships.

These ideas are increasingly visible in training institutes and counselling psychology programmes that place diversity and intercultural competence at the heart of professional formation. Courses influenced by social justice, intersectionality, and anti-oppressive practice encourage trainees to examine their cultural positioning and to develop supervision skills that honour identity and context (e.g., Milton, Craven & Coyle, 2010; Khan, 2017). This shift reflects a growing awareness that cultural learning is not peripheral to training; it is foundational to ethical practice and professional identity.

These UK-based developments mirror and strengthen the international frameworks that have informed our field, from the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts et al., 2016) and the Multicultural Orientation in Supervision (MCO-S; Watkins Jr., 2019), to rupture–repair approaches in relational therapy (Safran & Muran, 2000; Eubanks et al., 2018). Though developed in different contexts, these frameworks share a common spirit: they treat humility, reflexivity, and power-awareness as essential to competent and ethical supervision.

When supervision moves from theory to lived experience, difference becomes more than a topic: it becomes something felt, worked with, and transformed. Growth happens not only through what we know, but through how we stay present to difference, especially in moments of tension, silence, or repair. These reflective processes continue to shape how we train, supervise, and deliver psychological care across diverse communities.

Putting It Into Practice (Micro-Habits) 🌱

Small, intentional habits help sustain cultural humility over time:

1. Add a “culture check-in” to your supervision agenda.

2. Map a case using the ADDRESSING framework.

3. Build rupture-repair steps into your contract.

4. Do a language audit to check for meaning slippage.

5. Practise tolerance for ambiguity. Stay with discomfort before fixing it.

Each small act of curiosity and courage helps supervision become what it was always meant to be: a space where growth is shared, safety is built, and difference becomes dialogue.

Closing Reflection

When we bring together these strands, the lived, the relational, and the professional, a fuller picture of supervision emerges. It is not simply a safeguard or a formal requirement, but a living relationship of learning and accountability.

Across cultural and professional contexts, what sustains this work is the same foundation: safety, humility, and presence. Good supervision holds both structure and soul. It honours frameworks and ethical boundaries, yet leaves space for emotion, uncertainty, and the humanity of two professionals in dialogue.

Through this, supervision becomes not only a tool for competence, but a practice of courage: to reflect honestly, to repair when needed, and to keep learning how to meet difference with care. As practitioners, we grow most when we allow supervision to be both mirror and movement, reflecting who we are and guiding who we are becoming.

When held in this way, intercultural supervision does more than support good practice.

It deepens our understanding of what it means to be human in relationship, and that, ultimately, is the work at the heart of psychology.

If you’re a practitioner, trainee, or supervisor who resonates with these reflections, I warmly welcome you to connect.

I offer clinical supervision that integrates reflective practice, cultural humility, and intercultural competence.

🔗Explore Clinical Supervision with Dr Tiffany Leung

🔗You may also like: Culturally Responsive Therapy

About Author Dr Tiffany Leung

Dr Tiffany Leung is a Chartered Counselling Psychologist (BPS) and HCPC Registered Practitioner Psychologist. She provides online psychological therapy, supervision, and consultation in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin, specialising in culturally responsive and trauma-informed practice across the UK, Hong Kong, and international contexts.

References

• APA. (2015). Guidelines for Clinical Supervision in Health Service Psychology. American Psychological Association.

• BACP. (2021). Supervision Competence Framework. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

• Berry, J., et al. (2011). Supervision and diversity. In The Handbook of Counselling Supervision.

• Bordin, E. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 35–42.

• Divac, A., & Mason, E. (2015). Multicultural competence in counselling supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counselling & Development, 93(3), 387–398.

• Eubanks, C. F., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D. (2018). Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 508–516.

• Fernando, S. (2010). Mental Health, Race and Culture (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

• Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2012). Supervision in the Helping Professions (4th ed.). Open University Press.

• Hays, P. A. (2001). Addressing Cultural Complexities in Practice: A Framework for Clinicians and Counselors. American Psychological Association.

• HCPC. (2023). Standards of Proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists. Health and Care Professions Council.

• Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2016). Cultural humility and supervision. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(12), 1243–1252.

• Khan, S. (2017). Whiteness and Race in the Counselling Professions. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

• Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The Supervision Process: A Guide for the Mental Health Professions. Brooks/Cole.

• Mahon, S., et al. (2024). Scoping review of Multicultural Orientation (MCO) in therapy and supervision. Mental Health & Social Inclusion, 28(1), 45–62.*

• Milton, M., Craven, M., & Coyle, A. (2010). Counselling Psychology and Diversity: Context, Practice and Theory. British Psychological Society.

• Proctor, B. (1986). Supervision: A cooperative exercise in accountability. In Marken, M., & Payne, M. (Eds.), Enabling and Ensuring: Supervision in Practice (pp. 21–34). National Youth Bureau and Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work.

• Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S. C., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28–48.

• Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the Therapeutic Alliance: A Relational Treatment Guide. Guilford Press.

• Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B. W. (2010). IDM Supervision: An Integrated Developmental Model. Routledge.

• Strawbridge, S., & Woolfe, R. (2010). Counselling psychology in context. In R. Woolfe, S. Strawbridge, B. Douglas, & W. Dryden (Eds.), Handbook of Counselling Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3–22). Sage.

• Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(4), 477–486.

• Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.

• UKCP. (2018). Practice Guidelines for Supervisors. United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy.

• Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2019). Multicultural orientation in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 72(4), 103–112.

• Wilcox, M. M., Hook, J. N., Farrell, J. E., & Davis, D. E. (2024). Microaggressions, cultural humility, and supervisory alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 34(2), 250–265.

Intercultural Supervision in Practice: Safety, Humility, and the Work of Repair

Intercultural Supervision in Practice: Safety, Humility, and the Work of Repair