Counseling supervisors' assessment of race, racial identity, and working alliance in supervisory dyads.
Los autores investigaron el papel que juegan la raza, las actitudes de identidad racial y la alianza de trabajo en la supervision de consejeria, empleando datos obtenidos de supervisores involucrados en diadas de supervision. Los resultados revelaron que la alianza de trabajo mas solida se da en parejas de supervisor--supervisado con un desarrollo alto de identidad racial, y la alianza de trabajo mas debil en parejas con un desarrollo bajo de identidad racial.
Supervision is the primary vehicle in the counseling profession through which trainees provide services to clients in a monitored environment. Supervisors provide an endorsement of their supervisees' fitness and ability to work as counseling practitioners. The centrality of supervision in counselor training is acknowledged by professional and credentialing organizations (e.g., Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, 2001). Supervisors are considered to be "crucial catalysts" in facilitating their supervisees' growth and awareness of racial and cultural issues (Constantine, 2001).
Counseling supervision takes place in a relational context, making the supervisory relationship of paramount importance (Watkins, 1997). This relationship has been viewed as a working alliance, with specific components being the goals, tasks, and bond in the interactions (Bordin, 1983). In Bordin's model, the supervisory working alliance is viewed as a collaboration for change that involves mutual agreement and understanding between supervisor and supervisee on the (a) goals of supervision, (b) tasks of supervision, and (c) emotional bond between supervisor and supervisee.
There are eight types of goals in Bordin's (1983) supervisory working alliance model, including aspects such as supervisees' mastery of specific skills and increased understanding of clients with whom they are working. Three types of supervision tasks are defined by Bordin: preparing reports of the sessions under review, participating in objective observation of sessions, and selecting problems or issues for presentation. Emotional bonds in the supervision relationship, according to Bordin, are considered to fall somewhere between those of the teacher-student relationship and the therapist-patient relationship. Focusing on specific aspects of the supervisory relationship, such as the working alliance, allows a more manageable view of this complex relationship (Muse-Burke, Ladany, & Deck, 2001).
Helms and Cook (1999) observed that racial and cultural issues in supervision receive scant empirical attention. These authors also noted that given the power differential in favor of supervisors in the supervisory relationship, it is the supervisor's racial identity status that has a more powerful role in shaping interactions between supervisor and supervisee and between supervisee and client. Empirical studies have focused more on multicultural counseling competence and supervision experiences of supervisees (Burkard, Ponterotto, Reynolds, & Alfonso, 1999; Constantine, 2002; Gatmon et al., 2001; Utsey & Gernat, 2002) than on supervisors.
Some researchers have focused on both supervisors and supervisees. Constantine (1997) reported a high percentage of supervisors (70%) who had not received formal training in multicultural counseling, thus contributing to difficulties in raising such issues in supervision. Duan and Roehlke (2001) found that although supervisors reported that they were paying attention to cultural issues, their supervisees did not share that view. The Multicultural Supervision Inventory was developed to measure supervisees' and supervisors' perspectives of multicultural competence (Pope-Davis, Toporek, & Ortega-Villalobos, 2003), and Toporek, Ortega-Villalobos, and Pope-Davis (2004) studied critical incidents in multicultural supervision reported by supervisors and supervisees. Recently, there have been studies on the supervisory process between supervisors and international students (Nilsson & Anderson, 2004; Nilsson & Dodds, 2006). All of these studies underscore the pivotal role that supervisors play in delivering effective multicultural supervision.
Supervision research focused on race has investigated individuals' expectations of supervision (Vander Kolk, 1974), satisfaction with the supervisory relationship (Cook & Helms, 1988), positive and negative critical incidents (Fukuyama, 1994), conflicts and communication problems (Daniels, D'Andrea, & Kim, 1999), and perceptions and evaluations of supervisory relationships (Duan & Roehlke, 2001). In the past decade, the focus has shifted from race to racial identity as an essential element in enhancing multicultural skills and competence of counselors and supervisors (Cook, 1994; Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003; Helms & Cook, 1999; Ladany, Brittan-Powell, & Pannu, 1997).
In the models developed by Helms (1990, 1995b), racial identity is viewed as a sociopolitical construct that underscores the dynamic interplay between individuals belonging to dominant and nondominant cultures. Rather than viewing racial identity as a function of one's biology, Helms focused on the attitudinal perspective that an individual has of race. In both the White Racial Identity (WRI) Model and the People of Color (POC) Racial Identity Model, several statuses of racial identity development are postulated, tanging from the least mature to the most mature, with each status having characteristic elements of information processing. According to these models, individuals tend to have a dominant racial identity status, but their thoughts and reactions may reflect more than one status (Helms, 1995b).
Statuses identified in the POC Racial Identity Model (Hehns, 1995b) are Conformity (devaluing of self and valuing of White standards of merit), Dissonance (ambivalence and confusion regarding one's racial group), Immersion/Resistance (idealization of one's racial group and denigration of Whites), and Internalization (positive acceptance of one's own racial group). Statuses identified in the WRI Model (Helms, 1995b) are Contact (obliviousness to race and denial that race matters), Disintegration (ambivalence or guilt about being White), Reintegration (positive pro-White attitudes along with negative attitudes toward non-Whites), Pseudo-Independence (intellectualized commitment to the White group and tolerance of other groups), Immersion/Emersion (search for an understanding of the personal meaning of Whiteness and racism), and Autonomy (informed positive socio-racial group commitment). Lower statuses of racial identity (considered to be less cognitively complex) have been conceptualized as Phase I racial identity, whereas more advanced statuses (considered more cognitively complex) constitute Phase II of racial identity development (Helms, 1990).
Cook (1994) applied racial identity theory to the supervisory relationship, noting that both White and POC supervisors at less developed statuses of racial identity development tended to focus on a "common humanity" (p. 140) and ignore the race of clients, supervisees, and supervisors. Supervisors at more advanced statuses of racial identity development than their supervisees were better positioned to help supervisees process racial issues and enhance their racial identity development (Cook, 1994). On the basis of Helms's (1990) racial identity interaction model regarding the counselor and the client, Cook conceptualized four types of racial identity interaction in supervisory relationships: (a) progressive (supervisor with high racial identity development and supervisee with low racial identity development), (b) regressive (supervisor with low racial identity development and supervisee with high racial identity development), (c) parallel high (both supervisor and supervisee with high racial identity development), and (d) parallel low (both supervisor and supervisee with low racial identity development). In both progressive and parallel high supervisory relationships, racial issues are more likely to be discussed, and the supervisor is better positioned to facilitate processing of racial issues and advancement of supervisees' racial identity development. By contrast, in parallel relationships, wherein the supervisor and the supervisee are at low statuses of racial identity development, and in regressive relationships, racial issues are likely to be ignored or avoided (Helms & Cook, 1999).
In a study with counselor trainees, Ladany et al. (1997) studied relationships, from the perspective of supervisees, between racial identity interaction, racial matching, and supervisory working alliance. Findings supported a link between racial identity interactions and supervisory working alliance, but no such support was found for racial matching and supervisory working alliance. One of the recommendations made by these authors to future researchers was to examine supervisors' assessments of racial identity along with those of supervisees. Ladany et al. used existing racial identity measures in their study and also developed an instrument (Perceptions of Supervisor Racial Identity [PSRI]) for use by supervisees to assess the racial identity of supervisors. This instrument was adapted and used in the current study.
Using Ladany et al.'s (1997) methodology, we investigated racial matching, racial identity interaction, and supervisory working alliance from the perspective of supervisors. The main research questions that guided this work were (a) Do supervisory dyads with parallel high racial identity interactions have the strongest working alliance from the perspective of supervisors? (b) Do supervisory dyads with parallel low racial identity interactions have the weakest working alliance from the perspective of supervisors? (c) Do matched supervisory dyads (i.e., both supervisor and supervisee of the same race) report a stronger supervisory working alliance than unmatched racial dyads? Comparisons of groups of supervisory dyads formed on the basis of racial identity interaction and racial matching were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed on a combined measure of supervisory working alliance (i.e., three subscales measuring goals, tasks, and bond, combined into a full scale).
Participants were a random sample of counseling supervisors who were registered with the official state counseling licensing body in a midwestern state and who had earned the designation "supervising counselor." Participant supervisors completed self-assessments, and they were instructed to complete supervisee assessments for the supervisee with whom they had most recently completed the supervision process.
There were 119 participants (80 female supervisors, 39 male supervisors), who were between the ages of 31 and 74 years (mean age, 50.5 years) and who reported a range of 6 months to 40 years (mean 10.9 years) of supervision experience. The majority of the supervisors had earned a master's degree (90), 21 had earned a doctorate degree, and 8 reported "other" qualifications. Eighty-seven participants reported a mean of 16.59 hours of specific training in multicultural issues. The majority of participants self-identified as White (n = 108, 90.8%), 10 (8.4%) participants self-identified as African American, and 1 participant self-identified as Latino. Among supervisees, White supervisees were the largest group (n = 93, 78.2%), followed by African Americans (n = 24, 20.2%). Two supervisees reported that they were of Middle Eastern descent (1.7%). Of the 119 participants, data for 117 were complete, and these were used to form groups of supervision dyads on the basis of racial identity and race of supervisor and supervisee.
Questionnaire packets consisted of instruments that ascertained (a) supervisors' measurement of their own racial identity development, using the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS; Helms, 2002a, 2002b; Helms & Carter, 1990) if they self-identified as White or the People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS; Helms, 1995a, 1995b) if they self-identified as a person of color; (b) supervisors' measurement of the racial identity development of one of their supervisees, using the Perceptions of Supervisee Racial Identity for Whites (PSeR1W) if the supervisee was identified as White and the Perceptions of Supervisee Racial Identity for POC (PSeRIP) if the supervisee was identified as a person of color. These instruments were adaptations of the PSRI developed by Ladany et al. (1997); (c) supervisors' measurement of the working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, using the Working Alliance Inventory--Supervisor version(WAIN; Bahrick, 1989); and (d) supervisors' designation in a demographic questionnaire of the race of the supervisor and of the supervisee.
Scores on the WRIAS, PRIAS, PSeRIW, and PSeRIP were used to categorize supervisors and supervisees in either a high or a low racial identity development group. The categorizations were used to develop groups of supervisory dyads that were matched or unmatched on the dimension of racial identity development.
White racial identity development was measured using the WRIAS, which was originally developed by Helms and Carter (1990) and expanded by Helms (2002a, 2002b). The expanded version of the instrument assesses six White racial identity attitude statuses, that are identified in Helms's model of White racial identity development, and consists of 60 items that are rated on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items on the WRIAS measure responses that are consistent with attitudes related to the six statuses of White racial identity development. Representative items for each status include the following: Contact, "I hardly ever think about what race I am"; Disintegration, "I feel depressed after I have been around Black people"; Reintegration, "There is nothing that I want to learn about Blacks"; Pseudo-Independence, "Blacks and Whites have much to learn from each other"; Immersion/Emersion, "I believe that I receive special privileges because I am White"; and Autonomy, "I am continually examining myself to make sure that my way of being White is not racist." Some items on the version used in the current study were replaced (Helms, 2002b) based on Helms's research findings and elaborations of the theory after the original instrument was developed. Ten items were added to the current version to assess Immersion/Emersion attitudes (Helms, 2002b). The original measure (Helms & Carter, 1990) did not measure Immersion/Emersion attitudes. Helms (2002b) recommended that users of the instrument compute reliability coefficients.
The following Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were obtained in the current study: Contact = .40, Disintegration = .79, Reintegration = .69, Pseudo-Independence = .34, Immersion/Emersion = .80, and Autonomy = .45. Scores on the first three statuses were combined to form Phase I WRIAS scores (Contact, Disintegration, and Reintegration), and scores on the latter three statuses were combined to form Phase II WRIAS scores (Pseudo-Independence, Immersion/Emersion, and Autonomy). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for Phase I WRIAS and Phase II WRIAS were .77 and .79, respectively. The Phase II WRIAS Cronbach's alpha was similar to that obtained in a recent study that combined Pseudo-Independence and Autonomy scores (Roysircar, Gard, Hubbell, & Ortega, 2005).
Racial identity development for supervisors who self-identified as people of color was measured using the PRIAS (Helms, 1995a, 1995b). This instrument was designed to measure the four racial identity statuses experienced by POC proposed by Helms (1995b). The PRIAS purports to measure racial identity development statuses of all POC or all who do not self-identify as White and who live and function in a predominantly White society. Representative items for each status include the following: Conformity, "Sometimes I am embarrassed to be the race I am"; Dissonance,"I feel anxious about some of the things I feel about people of my race"; Immersion/Resistance, "I reject all Anglo-American (White) values"; and Internalization, "I am comfortable being the race I am." The instrument consists of 50 items that are rated on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Alpha coefficients for the subscales computed were as follows: Conformity .29, Dissonance .69, Immersion/Resistance .81, mad Internalization .57. Scores on the first two statuses were combined to form Phase I PRIAS scores (Conformity and Dissonance), and scores on the latter two statuses were combined to form Phase II PRIAS scores (Immersion/Resistance and Internalization). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for Phase I PRIAS and Phase II PRIAS were .60 and .66, respectively.
The supervisory working alliance was measured using the WAI-S (Bahrick, 1989). Consistent with Bordin's (1983) conceptualization of the working alliance, three aspects of this alliance are measured by the instrument. Examples of items on each of three subscales are as follows: Goals: "--and I have a common perception of her/his goals in supervision." Tasks: "--and I agree about the things he/she needs to do in supervision." and Emotional Bond: "I feel I really understand--." Ratings are based on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always. Scores were obtained by totaling the number of responses on pertinent subscale items. Higher scores reflect increased strength in that particular aspect of the working alliance. Alpha coefficients for the subscales were as follows: Task, .83; Bond, .74; Goal, .87. A composite working alliance score was used by combining Task, Bond, and Goal scores. The Cronbach's alpha for the full WAI-S was .93.
PSeRIW AND PSeRIP
Supervisors used the PSeRIW and PSeRIP to assess the racial identity development statuses of their supervisees. The instruments were adapted for the present study from the original instrument, PSRI (Ladany et al., 1997), by substituting the word supervisor for the word supervisee. The PSRI consists of short paragraphs that describe overt behaviors that are indicative of each racial identity development status for POC and Whites. The PSRI for POC consists of four paragraphs, and the PSRI for Whites consists of six paragraphs. Respondents rate the extent to which each paragraph reflects their supervisors' racial identity status (ranging from 1 = not descriptive at all to 9 = completely descriptive). The measure was validated by seeking input from four expert raters who were selected on the basis of their scholarship and professed knowledge and expertise in racial identity theory (Ladany et al., 1997).
The demographic questionnaire elicited information on gender, age, education completed, supervision experience, and multicultural training. Supervisors reported on the race of the supervisor and the supervisee, allowing the researchers to determine if the supervision dyad was racially matched or unmatched.
Random sampling was used to select the final sample from approximately 2,500 counseling supervisors. A determination of sample size was made on the basis of recommendations by Cohen (1988), using the statistical power of .80, alpha of .05, and a medium effect size of .25 as the determinants. A decision to oversample by a factor of 2 in counties in which the White population was less than 90% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) was made to increase the likelihood of obtaining a more racially diverse sample.
DESIGN FOR SUPERVISOR-SUPERVISEE GROUPING
Participant supervisors and their supervisees were grouped according to racial matching in supervisory dyads on the basis of the race of supervisor and supervisee reported on the demographic questionnaire. Table 1 shows the four groups obtained on the basis of racial matching or nonmatching: POC supervisor-POC supervisee (n = 4; POC-POC), POC supervisor--White supervisee (n = 7; POC-W), White supervisor--POC supervisee (n = 21; W-POC), and White supervisor--White supervisee (n = 85; W-W).
Participant supervisors and their supervisees were grouped according to racial identity interaction within supervisory dyads, using a method presented by Ladany et al. (1997) in previous research on the topic. The following steps were completed to obtain racial identity interaction in each supervisory dyad: (a) racial identity development scores of supervisors (from the WRIAS or PRIAS) and supervisees (from the PSeRIW or PSeRIP) were obtained; (b) Phase I and Phase II scores of racial identity development for each supervisor and supervisee were calculated; (c) a measure of racial identity intrapersonal contrast for each supervisor and each supervisee was calculated by dividing Phase II scores, which reflect higher statuses of racial identity development, by Phase I scores, which reflect lower statuses of racial identity development; (d) a median split was conducted on the measures of intrapersonal contrast for supervisors and supervisees, separately; (e) each supervisor was categorized as having higher or lower racial identity development compared with other supervisors in the sample, and, similarly, each supervisee was compared with other supervisees in the sample and was categorized as having higher or lower racial identity development; and (f) the categorizations allowed supervisor--supervisee pairs to be placed in one of the four racial identity interaction groups: progressive (supervisor with high level of racial identity development, supervisee with low level of racial identity development), parallel high (both supervisor and supervisee with high racial identity development), parallel low (both supervisor and supervisee with low racial identity development), and regressive (supervisee with high level of racial identity development, supervisor with low level of racial identity development). Table 1 reports the numbers in each of the groups that were formed on the basis of racial identity interaction (progressive, n = 28; parallel high, n = 35; parallel low, n = 26; regressive, n = 28).
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for each of the groups of supervisory dyads (formed on the basis of racial identity interaction and racial matching) on the Task, Bond, and Goal subscales of the WAI-S, as well as on the combined working alliance score.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using combined working alliance as the criterion measure showed that the difference in supervisory working alliance between the four racial identity groups (parallel high, parallel low, progressive, and regressive) was significant, F(3,113) = 5.16, p < .01, with a small to medium effect size ([[eta].sup.2] = .12). Post hoc tests (Tukey's HSD) revealed a significant difference (p < .05) in working alliance means between the parallel high group (M = 71.22, SD = 5.33) and the parallel low group (M = 65.41, SD = 6.86), and between the regressive group (M = 70.04, SD = 6.52) and the parallel low group (M = 65.41, SD = 6.86). Because of the uneven number of participants in the four groups formed according to race, a nonparametric test equivalent to the ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test) was used. No statistically significant difference was found in working alliance for the four racial matching/nonmatching groups of supervisory dyads ([chi square] = 4.91, df = 3, p = .18).
discussion and recommendations
RACIAL IDENTITY AND SUPERVISORY WORKING ALLIANCE
Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant relationship between the racial identity development of supervisees, as rated by supervisors, and the strength of the supervisory working alliance when the total score of supervisory working alliance was used. Dyads with parallel high racial identity interaction had the strongest working alliance, whereas dyads with parallel low racial identity interaction had the weakest working alliance. Supervisors at more advanced statuses of racial identity development, who rated their supervisees at similar advanced statuses, also rated the working alliance with these supervisees favorably. This finding is plausible given that, according to racial identity development theory (Helms, 1995b), persons at the most advanced statuses of racial identity development have the capacity to value their own racial identity and at the same time appreciate and empathize with the experiences of other racial groups. In supervisory dyads with parallel high racial identity interaction, the strongest working alliance could be explained by the fact that both parties had similar, open attitudes toward racial issues and, thus, worked well together. Supervisee perspectives in previous research indicated a similar finding of dyads with parallel high racial identity interaction having the strongest working alliance (Ladany et al., 1997).
Supervisory dyads with parallel low racial identity interaction reported the weakest working alliance. Once again, this finding can be understood within the context of racial identity development theory. Supervisors and supervisees at Phase I of racial identity development are more likely to avoid, suppress, or not consider as relevant any discussion regarding race. As noted in previous work on this topic, it is possible that the lack of awareness regarding race may stem from a general lack of insight, thus limiting the development of a strong working alliance (Ladany et al., 1997).
The significant difference in working alliance between the dyads with regressive racial identity interactions and dyads with parallel low racial identity interactions was unexpected. In previous research, both regressive and parallel low relationships had the weakest working alliances (Ladany et al., 1997); in the current study, however, dyads with regressive relationships had a stronger working alliance than parallel low dyads. It is possible that in regressive relationships, supervisors with lower racial identity development than their supervisees may view the working alliance in an artificially elevated manner. Perhaps their lack of awareness and insight regarding racial and cultural issues might be experienced in other areas, such as the assessment of the strength of the working alliance.
RACE AND SUPERVISORY WORKING ALLIANCE
The low numbers of POC supervisors and supervisees were an issue of concern in analyzing race and supervisory working alliance effects. No significant relationships were found between dyads that were matched or unmatched on the dimension of race alone. The lack of support for race by itself as an influential factor in supervisory working alliance in the current study is consistent with prior findings (Ladany et al., 1997) and with Helms's (1990) theoretical contention that racial identity attitudes rather than race alone are influential in interpersonal relationships.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
One of the limitations of this study is that the findings are based on assessments made by supervisors without input from supervisees. In addition, there were low numbers of POC supervisors and supervisees, and the use of the median split prevented fine distinctions in racial identity development at or around the median point. Implications and recommendations are offered in the light of these limitations.
Supervision models that are currently in use have paid attention to individual differences. However, this study and prior research seem to indicate the importance of incorporating racial identity into the formulation of new or updated supervision models. A deeper theoretical understanding of racial identity interactions may be obtained by assessing and measuring racial identity attitudes of supervisors and supervisees, using a variety of instruments developed on the basis of population-specific theories of racial identity development. Information obtained by assessing racial identity attitudes of specific groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, and Asians) may provide greater understanding than combining all POC into a single group.
Supervisors' perceptions are another area that warrants further investigation. The current study showed that when supervisors' assessments indicated that their supervisees had more developed statuses of racial identity, they also rated the working alliance as stronger. This study had no mechanism to ascertain the accuracy of supervisor perceptions. It is possible that effective impression management on the part of supervisees as well as supervisors could influence supervisor perceptions and, consequently, supervisor perception of the supervisory working alliance.
Implications of the study on training suggest that it is also important for supervisors to receive supervision. If racial identity interactions are associated with the supervisory working alliance, we recommend that all supervisors be intentional about understanding racial identity models and exploring their racial identity development as well as that of their supervisees. This could be done by administering instruments to measure racial identity development and discussing the results in supervision. Supervisors must also be aware that their perceptions of supervisees' racial identity statuses have the potential to shape the supervisory working alliance. Thus, supervisors may benefit from training that focuses on identifying and overcoming possible errors in perception and from engaging in ongoing supervision themselves.
Bahrick, A. S. (1989). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the supervisory working alliance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,, Columbus, Ohio.
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35-41.
Burkard, A. W., Ponterotto, J. G., Reynolds, A. L., & Alfonso, V. C. (1999). White counselor trainees' racial identity and working alliance perceptions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 324-329.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Constantine, M. G. (1997). Facilitating multicultural competency in counseling supervision: Operationalizing a practical framework. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Hardin (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and supervision (pp. 310-324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Constantine, M. G. (2001). Perspectives on multicultural supervision. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 98-102.
Constantine, M. G. (2002). Racism attitudes, White racial identity attitudes, and multicultural counseling competence in school counselor trainees. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 162-174.
Cook, D. A. (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 132-141.
Cook, D. A., & Helms, J. E. (1988). Visible racial/ethnic group supervisees' satisfaction with cross-cultural supervision as predicted by relationship characteristics. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 268-274.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001). CACREP 2001 Standards. Retrieved November 10, 2005, from http://www.cacrep.org/2001Standards.html#3
Daniels, J., D'Andrea, M. D., & Kim (1999). Assessing the barriers and changes of cross-cultural supervision: A case study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 191-204.
Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive "snapshot" of cross-racial supervision in university counseling center internships. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 131-146.
Fukuyama, M. A. (1994). Critical incidents in multicultural counseling supervision: A phenomenological approach to supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 142-151.
Gatmon, D.,Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., et al. (2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation variables in supervision: Do they really matter? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 102-113.
Haynes, R., Corey, G., & Moulton, P. (2003). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E. (1995a). Preliminary scoring key Jar the People of Color (POC) Racial Identity Attitude Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture, Boston College.
Helms, J. E. (1995b). Pal update of Helms' White and People of Color racial and identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Helms, J. E. (2002a). Preliminary. scoring information for the WRIAS social attitudes inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture, Boston College.
Helms, J. E. (2002b). The White Racial Identity Attitudes scale. Unpublished manuscript. Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race, and Culture, Boston College.
Helms, J. E., & Cartel R. T. (1990). Development of the White Racial Identity Attitude Inventory. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 67-80). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ladany, N., Brittan-Powell, C. S., & Pannu, R. K. (1997). The influence of supervisory racial identity interaction and racial matching on the supervisory working alliance and supervisee multicultural competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 284-304.
Muse-Burke, J. L., Ladany, N., & Deck, M. D. (2001). The supervisory relationship. In L.J. Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process and practice (3rd ed., pp. 28-62). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Nilsson, J. E., & Anderson, M. Z. (2004). Supervising international students: The role of acculturation, role ambiguity, multicultural discussions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 306-312.
Nilsson, J. E., & Dodds, A. K. (2006). A pilot phase in the development of the international student supervision scale. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 50-62.
Pope-Davis, D. B., Toporek, R. L., & Ortega-Villalobos, L. (2003). Assessing supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of multicultural competence in supervision using the multicultural supervision inventory. In D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 211-224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roysircar, G., Gard, G., Hubbell, R., & Ortega, M. (2005). Development of counseling trainees' multicultural awareness through mentoring English as a second language students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33, 17-36.
Toporek, R., Ortega-Villalobos, L., & Pope-Davis, D. (2004). Critical incidents in multicultural supervision: Exploring supervisees' and supervisors' experiences. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 66-83
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). State and county quick facts. Retrieved November 8, 2002, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html
Utsey, S. O., & Gernat, C. A. (2002). White racial identity attitudes and the ego defense mechanisms used by White counselor trainees in racially provocative counseling situations. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 475-483.
Vander Kolk, C. J. (1974). The relationship of personality, values and race to anticipation of the supervisory relationship. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 18, 41-46.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1997). Defining psychotherapy supervision and understanding supervisor functioning. In C. E. Watkins,Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 3-10). New York: Wiley.
Christine Suniti Bhat, Department of Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, California State University, Long Beach; Thomas E. Davis, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Ohio University. Christine Suniti Bhat is now at the Department of Counseling and Higher education, Ohio University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christine S. Bhat, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, College of Education, McCracken Hall, 201, Ohio University, Attunes, OH 45 701 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Task, Bond, and Goal Subscales and the Combined Working Alliance Score on the WAI-S for Eight Supervisory Dyad Groups Task Bond Supervisory Dyad M SD M SD Racial identity interaction Progressive (n = 28) 67.96 6.31 67.89 8.26 Parallel high (n = 35) 71.86 5.73 71.09 6.01 Parallel low (n = 26) 66.27 6.40 65.50 7.85 Regressive (n = 28) 70.29 7.29 71.08 6.17 Race match/ nonmatch White-White (n = 85) 69.02 7.00 68.66 7.16 White-POC (n = 21) 69.77 5.05 71.05 6.41 POC-White (n = 7) 68.00 7.85 65.71 10.99 POC-POC (n = 4) 74.00 5.10 76.75 6.13 Goal Combined WA Supervisory Dyad M SD M SD Racial identity interaction Progressive (n = 28) 65.14 8.42 67.00 7.02 Parallel high (n = 35) 70.71 6.39 71.22 5.33 Parallel low (n = 26) 64.46 7.61 65.41 6.86 Regressive (n = 28) 68.89 8.08 70.04 6.52 Race match/ nonmatch White-White (n = 85) 67.22 7.98 68.28 6.87 White-POC (n = 21) 68.68 6.90 69.83 4.71 POC-White (n = 7) 63.43 8.99 65.71 8.88 POC-POC (n = 4) 75.00 6.33 75.25 5.36 Note. WAI-S = Working Alliance Inventory-Supervisor version; WA = working alliance; POC = people of color.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Bhat, Christine Suniti; Davis, Thomas E.|
|Publication:||Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Working with immigrant students in schools: the role of school counselors in building cross-cultural bridges.|
|Next Article:||A case study of a Muslim client: incorporating religious beliefs and practices.|