IJSP Number 5, 2023

70 should never take the place of slowly listening and working to understand the supervisee's perspective from within the culture.” Another way through which the supervisors showed cultural humility was that they tended to openly acknowledge the struggles. For example, a supervisor (#5) shared, “I reflect many dominant majority cultures (white, male, heterosexual) I think I feel more need to demonstrate cultural sensitivity and believe, at times, this may come across as awkward, unnecessary, or unwanted, but I do struggle with a default inner critic that will tell me I'm "overdoing it" or that I should be less explicit about integrating these discussions in unless the supervisee seems eager to initiate.” Another example of acknowledging the supervisor’s (#5) own struggle was: “I recall one trainee who was very eager to distance herself from her home culture (which I found out later) so my cultural curiosity and attempts to integrate her identity into our relationship, I think created a sort of invisible barrier between us. In other cases, I think my relative ignorance has, at times, led me to minimize the inclusion of their culture. While not proud of that, do think it has happened.” 5. DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTION Through analyzing data from 10 clinical supervisors who have extensive experiences of cross-cultural supervisions, this study sought to explore useful strategies in working with international students. Findings highlighted that such factors as systemic issues, power dynamics, strengths-based approaches, supervisory relationship, and mutual learning processes all played vital roles in cross-cultural supervision. The study adds valuable perspectives about cross- cultural supervision from the vantage point of clinical supervisors. The themes derived from the narratives of these supervisors contribute to and advance our understanding of cross-cultural supervision. Our data suggested the importance of addressing systemic issues, legal issues, and power imbalances in cross-cultural supervision with international students. Concerningly, there is a lack of comprehensive clinical supervision theories or models addressing clinical supervision from the lens of decolonization, globalization, and social justice [25, 26]. Decolonizing clinical supervision requires supervisors’ awareness of power and privilege from White, European-American, heterosexual, middle and upper class, male-dominant, able, Christian, English- speaking instructors and supervisors [27], explicit acknowledgement and critical examination of such factors in supervisory relationships [25]. As our data suggested, supervisors’ cross-cultural sensitivity is paramount in order to fully address and nurture international supervisees’ challenges. As such, having discussions on intersectionality of identities and power between supervisor and supervisee is important [7]. If left unaddressed, supervisees are likely to distance themselves from their clients/supervisors and exacerbate their experience of feeling unsafe, powerless, diminished, disappointed, and disillusioned, which can further diminish supervisees’ trust in their supervisors [9]. We suggest that supervisors should initiate conversations about systemic oppression, legal issues (e.g., immigration, student visa), racism, and advocate for supervisees through the process