IJSP Number 4, 2022

8 given the same opportunities as the U.S. supervisees ” ) are more common comparatively in this dyad, leading to supervisees ’ disappointment, helplessness, and non-disclosure of client information [13]. On the other hand, in a parallel delayed dyad, where both clinical supervisor and supervisee are at the delayed stage [22, 23], the supervisee ’ s personal/ professional growth may be impeded due to the supervisor ’ s lack of multicultural competency [13]. Either way, investigating supervisees ’ perceptions of supervisor-supervisee dyad can bring a more in-depth understanding to the clinical supervision experienced by international supervisees. Second, multicultural competency of the supervisor is an important factor for training and learning [8, 25]. Research suggests that international students ’ clinical self-efficacy is highly associated with their supervisors ’ multicultural competencies [26]. In this study, we particularly aimed to examine the supervisor ’ s multicultural sensitivity in response to their supervisees ’ personal challenges as international students in the U.S. (e.g., such as acculturation/language proficiency/ accent vis-a- vis clinical work, microaggressions, subtle prejudice, and cultural discussions [27]. Reflected by the supervisor-supervisee cultural dyad [23], highly acculturative international students are more likely to have stronger supervisory working alliances [5] and engage in cultural discussions [28]. But it is the supervisor , not supervisee, who is responsible for initiating conversations about cultural issues [26, 29]. Absence of multi/cross-cultural discussions in supervision can lead to supervisees ’ experiences of frustration and isolation, even pressure to surrender to and tolerate derisive comments [13]. It may also contribute to inaccurate evaluation of international supervisees ’ clinical skills [30]. Based on this conceptual framework, we queried for supervisees ’ experiences of multi/cross-cultural discussion in supervision, and the impact of cultural differences in clinical supervision [31]. We also inquired about a specific rupture in clinical supervision, enabling us to examine cross-cultural conflict resolution in clinical supervision. Drawing from the findings in which international trainees may opt to not disclose clinical information to their supervisors when they perceive that their supervisors may not fully understand them [13] , we also inquired about a time that international trainees were hesitant in bringing up concerns or challenges to their supervisor. Third, the topic of power and privilege is rarely explored in the literature of international students ’ supervision, although power is inherently embedded in supervisory relationship [32, 24]. Particularly, most Asian supervisees have been found to value hierarchy and respect for authority, and such widely upheld ethnic cultural values may continue to directly or indirectly influence existing power differential in the supervisory relationship [30, 32, 33]. In our study, we aimed to explore topics such as discussions of dynamics of power and privilege, possible misuse of privilege, and supervisor ’ s advocacy and empowerment. Studies have shown that international students ’ cultural differences and linguistic minority status are often viewed from a deficiency and inferiority perspective within the training environment [12], this pattern may appear in the supervisor-supervisee dynamic. Lastly, the systemic issues such as limited financial opportunity, limited career choices, and visa-associated instability may impact international trainees ’ personal and professional development [11]. Thus, we encouraged participants to recall both