Multicultural supervision with Chinese international trainees.

Abstract

International trainees in clinical and counseling psychology programs are a minority group facing unique challenges in their training in the United States. However, multicultural supervision with international students has been understudied and warrants more attention. As native-born Chinese international trainees, we contribute to the topic by specifically addressing the Chinese subgroup of international trainees, identified as clinical/counseling psychology trainees who were born and raised in mainland China, arrived in the United States during or after the undergraduate stage, and remained on F1 student visa status (instead of citizenship or permanent residence). We seek to illustrate some of their challenges in the supervision process and to provide recommendations to supervisors, who are less familiar with supervising Chinese international trainees, and the trainees themselves. Three conglomerate case vignettes are presented, with one focusing on working with native Chinese clients, another on approaching multicultural discussions in the supervision process, and the other on enhancing trainees' multicultural competence through supervision. Trainees' psycholinguistic considerations, acculturation, and assertiveness issues are discussed with recommendations given. Further studies in multicultural supervision with Chinese international trainees are also warranted. Public Significance StatementThe number of Chinese international trainees in counseling and clinical psychology programs in the United States has continued to grow in the past few decades, but discussion on supervising international trainees is in paucity. This article illustrated some of the unique challenges and opportunities for both training clinicians and supervisors in multicultural supervision with Chinese international trainees through three clinical vignettes and discussions. We highlighted the importance of attending to factors related to trainees' native language, acculturation level, multicultural discussion, assertiveness, and cultural gaps that are not limited to ethnic/racial differences. Recommendations regarding conducting effective multicultural supervision with realistic expectations are discussed from both the supervisor and trainee's perspectives.

Linguistic Minority International Counseling Psychology Trainees’ Experiences in Clinical Supervision

“…The present study described the experiences ICP trainees have in terms of their identity as linguistic minorities in English-speaking clinical settings. In extending prior research (McKinley, 2019; Qi et al, 2019), our findings indicate that English language-related challenges do not exist in a vacuum; in actuality, they are a byproduct of native-speakerist environments. It is when trainees face such challenges that they incite a psychological response in the form of self-inadequacy and -judgment.…”

The fallacy of “good training experiences”: The need to protect psychology trainees from harassment and the imperative of multiculturally competent supervision.

“…These vignettes illustrate how female, LGBTQ+, and Black trainees would benefit from more developmentally and multiculturally aware supervision, as well as structural support from their institutions. The vignettes are specific examples that represent a wider field of experiences where some psychology trainees have felt discriminated against due to identity-based harassment and microaggressions both from patients and supervisors (Lund et al, 2014; Mori et al, 2009; Nilsson & Duan, 2017; Qi et al, 2019; Satterly & Dyson, 2008). There is evidence that trainees who face repeated microaggressions within the supervisory relationship are actively harmed by this experience, taking a toll on their ability to best serve their patients, as well as on their ability to participate actively in their education (Constantine & Sue, 2007).…”

“…Marginalized trainees appear to be at risk of being confronted by potentially hostile patients, in addition to lacking support from supervisors in how to handle such situations. While this article focuses on female trainees, LGBTQ+ trainees, and Black trainees, there is evidence that trainees with disabilities (Lund, Andrews, & Holt, 2014), trainees who identify as other racial and ethnic minorities including Latinx, Native American, and Asian American (Nilsson & Duan, 2007), and international trainees (Mori, Inman, & Caskie, 2009; Qi, Wang, Wu, & Luo, 2019) are likely to experience specific difficulties within the supervisory relationship.…”

Supervisee perspectives on supervision processes: An introduction to the special issue.

“…Thomas, Bowie, Hill, and Taknint (2019) further explore how the social context of their intersectionality, as supervisees who are women of color, created unique pressures making them feel as though their needs were deemed less important by supervisors, effectively silencing them in the training context. Similarly, McKinley (2019), Port (2019), and Qi, Wang, Wu, and Luo (2019) describe the important role supervisors play in helping international trainees acculturate to the country they are now working in by examining the sociocultural context of the client and the supervisee. Finally, the critical role supervisors play in making accommodations, for supervisees with physical disabilities (Pearlstein & Soyster, 2019) and new mothers (Grassetti, Pereira, Hernandez, & Fritzges-White, 2019), is explored, with a focus on elucidating the negative impacts (Output in Figure 1) of supervisors questioning their supervisee’s ability to meet the demands of graduate training.…”

“…Many of the authors describe experiencing their supervisor(s) as having acted with prejudice and/or having microaggressed against them (Grassetti et al, 2019; Jendrusina & Martinez, 2019; McKinley, 2019; Patallo, 2019; Pearlstein & Soyster, 2019; Qi et al, 2019). Importantly, their experiences also revealed that supervisors who embraced cultural humility to explore the impact of supervisees’ intersectionality on their personal identity, professional identity (Thomas et al, 2019), and the power differentials within the supervisory triad (Blasini-Méndez, 2019; Hooley, 2019) facilitated more positive supervisee and clinical outcomes (Grassetti et al, 2019; Jendrusina & Martinez, 2019; McKinley, 2019; Patallo, 2019; Pearlstein & Soyster, 2019; Qi et al, 2019). Patallo (2019) provides illustrative examples and specific suggestions for supervisor development to incorporate cultural humility in supervisory relationships.…”