THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2020.1830327

The interconnectedness between cultural humility and

broaching in clinical supervision: working from the
multicultural orientation framework
Connie T. Jonesa and Susan F. Brancob
a
Department of Counseling and Educational Development, The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA; bClinical Mental Health Counseling Program, The Family
Institute at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The necessity for clinical supervisors to engage in multicultural Cultural humility; broaching;
competent supervision has proven crucial in practice. Yet, the multicultural orientation;
implementation of foundational tenets of multicultural sensitive clinical supervision;
supervisor multicultural
supervision practice have yet to be constructed as a cohesive
competence
model. In this article we share a model to describe how the
concepts of cultural humility, broaching in counseling, and
multicultural orientation work as a whole for clinical supervisors.
We offer a rationale for the bidirectional nature of cultural
humility and broaching grounded within a multicultural orien­
tation framework. The three concepts are defined, and the
interconnectedness of cultural humility and broaching are
explored. Recommendations for clinical supervisors are offered.

In recent years an increasing number of articles have been published concern­

ing the relevance of two phenomena in clinical supervision: humility and
broaching. Several of these articles have been published in The Clinical
Supervisor (Jones et al., 2019; Watkins et al., 2019b, 2019a). The purpose of
this commentary is to discuss how cultural humility and broaching are inter­
connected. It is our aim that the readers will be able to understand the
symbiotic nature between cultural humility and broaching in clinical super­
vision. We will begin with an overview of the relevance of cultural humility
and broaching as two separate constructs in clinical supervision, followed by
a description of the multicultural orientation (MCO) framework, and an
explanation of the interplay between cultural humility and broaching. We
will conclude with recommendations.

Cultural humility in clinical supervision

Watkins et al. (2019a) stated that, in order for clinical supervision to be
effective, the clinical supervisor must work from a humble stance, as

CONTACT Connie T. Jones ctjones4@uncg.edu Department of Counseling and Educational Development,

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
2 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

supervisor humility enhances supervision best practices. Humility is com­

prised of both intrapersonal and interpersonal components (Hook et al.,
2013; Watkins et al., 2019a). The primary tenets of humility include 1)
openness, 2) focus on other-orientation, 3) accurate self-assessment of
one’s own personal characteristics and achievements, and 4) recognizing
one’s own areas of needed growth, mistakes, and limitations (Bollinger &
Hill, 2012; Watkins et al., 2019a; Worthington et al., 2017). There are three
types of humility that are often referred to in clinical supervision literature,
relational, cultural, and intellectual (Watkins et al., 2019a). Although all
three types of humility (i.e., relational, cultural, intellectual) are beneficial
to clinical supervision, for the purposes of this commentary we will focus on
cultural humility.
Cultural humility is a construct that is rooted in multiculturalism and is
“characterized by respect and lack of superiority toward an individual’s cul­
tural background and experience” (Hook et al., 2013, p. 353). Hook et al.
(2013) explored cultural humility in the therapist-client relationship. The
construct can be described as taking a culturally humble stance to stay open
to the other (other-oriented) when cultural identities are introduced that are
important to another person (Hook et al., 2013). Although the identity(ies)
may be different from the individual (e.g., therapist, clinical supervisor),
individuals are still able to demonstrate respect and a lack of superiority in
relation to cultural identities, values, and worldviews. Individuals who are
culturally humble are open and able to work collaboratively with the other.
They collaboratively work with those culturally different from themselves and
strive for understanding of the unique intersecting nature of the other’s
identities to determine what impact it may have on the relationship (Hook
et al., 2013).
Cultural humility has proved to have positive outcomes with cross-cultural
and intercultural interactions (Drinane et al., 2017; Paine et al., 2016). Watkins
et al. (2019a) stated that, “cultural humility focuses on humbleness with regard
to cultural beliefs, values, viewpoints, and differences” (p. 61). In clinical
supervision, “supervisor cultural humility takes as its focus with regard to
cultural beliefs, values, viewpoints, and differences that are expressed or
experienced in supervision” (Watkins et al., 2019a, p. 65). Clinical supervisors
who work from a culturally humble stance convey openness and respect not
only for their supervisees’ culture(s) and sociocultural identities, but also the
supervisees’ clients’ sociocultural identities and cultures (Watkins et al.,
2019a). They are able to explore their supervisees’ sociocultural identities
from a space that is free of bias and judgment. Supervisors should engage
with each supervisee and each interaction with a supervisee from a culturally
humble stance, as every supervisee has their own sociocultural make-up that
has impacted their lives in very unique and nuanced ways, any of which can
become salient at any point during the supervisory relationship.
 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR 3

Authors have identified several potential benefits concerning cultural humi­

lity in clinical supervision (Cook et al., 2020; Watkins et al., 2019b, 2019a).
These benefits include lessening harmful supervision, establishing and
strengthening the supervisory working alliance, deepening supervisee disclo­
sure, and strengthening the supervisory relationship with culturally diverse
supervisees (Cook et al., 2020; Watkins et al., 2019b, 2019a). Cultural humility
may aid clinical supervisors in avoiding microaggressive behaviors and/or
preventing or correcting cultural ruptures (Davis et al., 2016; J. N. Hook,
Watkins et al., 2016; Watkins et al., 2019b). Also, supervisors who demonstrate
cultural humility in clinical supervision may be able to decrease supervisees’
intentional nondisclosure (Cook et al., 2020). Supervisors who work from this
humble stance are more apt to identify and engage in discussions related to
sociocultural factors and sociopolitical contexts; these conversations can be
considered as broaching dialogs.

Broaching in clinical supervision

Broaching is a cultural strategy that has been recommended for use in the
counseling relationship between counselor and client (Day-Vines et al., 2007).
In the counseling context, broaching describes the counselor’s effort to explore
cultural factors and the complexity of the client during the counseling process
(Day-Vines et al., 2007; Jones & Welfare, 2017). Exploring broaching in
clinical supervision is a new phenomenon. Jones et al. (2019), in a piece
published in The Clinical Supervisor, discussed the benefit and necessity of
incorporating broaching behavior into clinical supervision. When utilized in
clinical supervision, broaching can aid in intercultural understanding, com­
munication, and providing multicultural supervision (Jones et al., 2019).
Broaching in the clinical supervision context refers to a clinical supervisor
initiating and/or engaging in discussions concerning similarities and differ­
ences as well as the impact of sociocultural identities in the supervisor-
supervisee relationship (Jones et al., 2019). These intercultural discussions
may be focused on the sociocultural identities themselves or sociocultural
differences, similarities, and the impact of cultural factors between the super­
visor and supervisee within their supervisory dyad; sociocultural identities
and/or the impact of sociocultural similarities and differences between the
supervisee and their clients; or the sociopolitical nature of the supervisee’s
identities or cultural make-up (Jones et al., 2019). Although broaching is more
complex than discussing world events or learning about a particular cultural
group, both of these things may be included in broaching dialogs (Jones et al.,
2019).
The focus of broaching is typically on the multicultural interaction and
nature of those involved in the supervisory relationship (i.e., supervisor/super­
visee, supervisor/supervisee/client) and the intersectional nature of their
4 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

sociocultural identities, particularly the ones that present as most salient

during the supervisory interactions. Broaching is a strategy or skill that is
intended to begin and/or continue ongoing facilitation of dialogs concerning
how the supervisors and supervisees’ cultural make-up may impact the work­
ing relationship and alliance throughout the supervisor-supervisee relation­
ship, supervisee and client relationships, and supervisees’ overall development
(Jones et al., 2019). Supervisors can utilize broaching to initiate conversations
concerning cultural similarities and differences with genuine and respectful
inquisitiveness (i.e., positive factors of cultural humility) (Jones et al., 2019).
Some benefits of broaching include the following: it strengthens the super­
visory relationship, aids in building rapport, deepens supervisee disclosure,
demonstrates the supervisor’s cultural competence, increases supervisee self-
awareness, and increases the satisfaction in the supervisory working alliance.
Discussion of cultural identities and their impacts in clinical supervision have
been associated with supervisees’ improved case conceptualization skills, abil­
ity to address culture in counseling sessions, and a more collaborative coun­
selor-client relationship (Ancis & Marshall, 2010; Jones et al., 2019; Nilsson &
Duan, 2007). Broaching conversations not only promote the importance of
diversity, social justice, and multiculturalism in clinical supervision; these
these discussions also positively affect the professional and personal growth
of the supervisee (Jones et al., 2019).

Cultural humility and broaching align with multicultural orientation

(MCO)
Although MCO has typically been discussed in the context of therapeutic
relationships, we believe that the MCO framework can be applied to
clinical supervision. Cultural humility has been conceptualized as the
foundation of MCO and, subsequently, MCO is the foundation of multi­
cultural competence (Watkins et al., 2019a). Multicultural competence is
complemented by MCO and in turn cultural humility (Hook et al., 2017,
2013). Multicultural competence has been described as the “doing of
multicultural interaction” (Watkins et al., 2019a, p. 68). A primary focus
of multicultural competence is learning and growing in multicultural
skills. Broaching is a multicultural skill that is grounded in cultural
humility. Figure 1 offers a visual to our conceptualization of how
MCO, cultural humility, and broaching work in unison.
Both broaching and its influence on demonstrating cultural humility are
grounded in MCO (Owen et al., 2011). Owen et al. (2011) described MCO as
a “way of being with a client” (p. 274) reflecting the therapists’ demonstration
of the overall priority placed on exploration and curiosity of both therapist’s
and client’s racial, cultural, and ethnic identities and worldviews. MCO was
further refined in definition with the addition of three central tenets: 1)
 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR 5

Figure 1. The interconnected nature between cultural humility and broaching.

cultural humility (Hook et al., 2013), 2) cultural missed opportunities

(J. N. Hook, Watkins et al., 2016), and 3) cultural comfort (Owen et al.,
2017). Cultural humility, as described earlier, reflects therapists’ overall ability
to maintain self-reflection into their own cultural stances as well as to demon­
strate openness, respect, and curiosity toward clients’ positionality (Hook
et al., 2013). Cultural missed opportunities refer to those in-session data points
that offer portals to explore the client’s identity(ies) but are not enacted upon
by the therapist (Owen et al., 2016). Owen et al. (2017) define cultural comfort
as therapists’ ability to “calmly and openly” (p. 104) engage in and respond to
discussions surrounding cultural identities with their clients.
Given the MCO context, we can reflect back to broaching as
a steppingstone to demonstrate cultural humility, which is one tenet
of the MCO framework. We posit further that the act of broaching and
the subsequent supervisor-supervisee exchange will heighten clinical
supervisors’ vigilance and responsiveness to cultural opportunities in
the supervisory session, thereby enabling them to act upon – rather
than “miss” – such important moments in session. In so doing, clinical
supervisors who broach issues of race, ethnicity, and culture, and the
intersectional nature of cultural identities, will also develop an increased
level of comfort, ultimately reflected as a genuine ease and fluency in
which they engage in such discourses with supervisees. Next, we expand
further on the interrelated nature of broaching and cultural humility.
6 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

Interconnected nature between cultural humility and broaching

We postulate that there is a bidirectional relationship between broaching and
cultural humility (Figure 1). Cultural humility is needed in order to broach
effectively. Subsequently, broaching reinforces cultural humility as it aids in
establishing and maintaining a stronger supervisory relationship and leads to
a more open and genuine intercultural dialogue (Jones et al., 2019). Broaching
can be seen as cultural humility in action. Hook et al. (2013) stated that an
expression of cultural humility includes the following: “being open to explore
the client’s cultural background, asking questions when uncertain, expressing
curiosity and interest about the client’s cultural worldview” (p. 361); these
expressions of cultural humility are broaching behaviors (Day-Vines et al.,
2007; Jones & Welfare, 2017). Both broaching and cultural humility work on
the premise that the clinical supervisor will not assume anything about the
supervisee’s cultural background, worldview, or experiences.
There is an undeniable positive relationship between cultural humility and
broaching. We believe that one of the first actions in displaying cultural
humility as a clinical supervisor is to initiate broaching conversations sur­
rounding sociocultural diversity, differences, similarities, identities, and
sociopolitical contexts. Clinical supervisors should invite supervisees to
engage in broaching dialogs by plainly and overtly acknowledging the
importance of culture, sociocultural identities, and sociopolitical factors.
They must also be open to receive what the supervisee may say and be
committed to work through concerns and multicultural topics during the
supervision process. To engage in effective broaching, the supervisor must
work from a culturally humble stance, including acknowledgment of differ­
ences and similarities, openness, and commitment. When the supervisor is
not working from a culturally humble stance [i.e., openness, other-oriented
(i.e., focused on the supervisee and their clients, not self, ability to accurately
self-assess supervisory achievements and characteristics, and recognizing
their own supervisory limitations, imperfections, and mistakes], broaching
may be ineffective.
Openness is the foundation of humility and makes the other tenets possible
(Paine et al., 2016; Watkins et al., 2019a). We believe the same concept
translates to broaching in the clinical supervisory relationship (Jones et al.,
2019). Jones and Welfare (2017) found a key theme related to broaching with
clients is counselor willingness to be open to discussing culture, “open to
share, open to receive what the client will say without becoming defensive, and
open to extending an invitation to the client to discuss multicultural consid­
erations throughout the therapeutic relationship” (p. 56). Both cultural humi­
lity and broaching have a foundation rooted in openness. Neither can take
place without openness from the clinical supervisor.
 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR 7

Broaching and cultural humility tenets

The four primary tenets of cultural humility – 1) openness, 2) focus on other-

orientation, 3) accurate self-assessment and 4) recognizing one’s own growth
area (Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Watkins et al., 2019a; Worthington et al., 2017) –
all contribute to effective broaching. The clinical supervisor must be open to
discussing culture, open and welcome to receive what the supervisee may say,
open to appropriate sharing, and, finally, extend an open invitation to the
supervisee to discuss multicultural considerations throughout the supervisory
process (Jones & Welfare, 2017; Jones et al., 2019). When broaching, the
clinical supervisor should also work from an other-oriented perspective. The
focus should be on supervisees, their clients, and the supervisory relationship,
not the clinical supervisor’s personal orientation, worldview, or superiority.
The supervisor also has to engage in honest, critical self-assessment to identify
areas of growth and mistakes when broaching. Both constructs (openness,
other-oriented perspective) require that the clinical supervisors conduct accu­
rate self-assessments and identifies areas in which growth may be needed.
Supervisors must identify their biases and honestly self-critique themselves
(Jones et al., 2019; Watkins et al., 2019a). Lastly, clinical supervisors must be
aware of their own cultural identities and worldview, and how they are socially
situated in not only society but in the supervisory dyad. Broaching is most
effective when the clinical supervisor operates from an ongoing attitude of
openness and a genuine commitment to focus on the other, meaning to learn
about the supervisee and grow in their own self-awareness (Jones et al., 2019).
In order to effectively broach the supervisor must welcome the supervisee’s
worldview, beliefs, and values and not view their own beliefs, values, and
worldview as superior. This openness, respect, and lack of superiority is rooted
in and demonstrating cultural humility (Hook et al., 2013).
Cultural humility and broaching both aid in meeting the needs of super­
visees because all supervisees bring their sociocultural make-up and contexts,
just as the supervisor does, into the supervision process. Each and every
supervisory relationship is intercultural in nature (Ancis & Marshall, 2010;
Bernard & Luke, 2015; Jones et al., 2019). Due to the intercultural nature of
clinical supervision, it is a must that clinical supervisors work from the multi­
cultural orientation (MCO) framework, and this involves working from
a culturally humble perspective and implementing the multicultural skill of
broaching into their supervisory work with supervisees.

Benefits of multicultural supervision

Providing multicultural supervision is necessary for effective clinical super­
vision (Eklund et al., 2014). The supervisory bond is affected by many factors,
including the social and cultural identities of the supervisor and supervisee
8 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

(Beinart, 2014). Due to the intercultural nature of supervision, the Supervision

Best Practices Guidelines (Borders, 2014; Borders et al., 2011) highlight diver­
sity and the importance of clinical supervisors’ cultural competence,as noted
on Figure 1. When clinical supervisors intentionally or unintentionally choose
not to engage in broaching or discuss cultural differences, and demonstrate
a lack of cultural competence, the supervisory relationship can be harmed
(Haskins et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2013). And the opposite
has been found when supervisors are open to initiating discussions with
clinical supervisees concerning cultural identities (i.e., broaching): the super­
visory working alliance is strengthened (Haskins et al., 2013; White-Davis
et al., 2016).
Despite clinical supervision having many positive outcomes, one cannot
deny that the evaluative nature inherent in clinical supervision can be
harmful to the supervisory relationship (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019;
Borders & Brown, 2005). The evaluative nature creates a power imbalance
between the supervisor and supervisee (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders
& Brown, 2005). Because mostly everyone will have marginalized and privi­
leged identities (Ratts, 2017), these identities may also impact or contribute
to the existing power imbalance in the supervisory relationship.
Approaching the differences of identities and how the differences impact
the existing power imbalance from a culturally humble stance may aid in
mitigating the effects of this power balance, which can lead to effective
clinical supervision. A broaching dialogue rooted in cultural humility allows
for an open, honest, and safe discourse to occur in clinical supervision.
Broaching should be initiated by clinical supervisors (Jones et al., 2019), as
they are the individuals in the position of greater authority and power in the
relationship (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders & Brown, 2005). The
power imbalance can have a negative effect on the supervisory relationship.
Therefore, it is vital for clinical supervisors to initiate broaching from
a culturally humble stance to ensure the supervisor is focused on the super­
visee and to mitigate the effects of the imbalance of power.
Moon and Savage (2019) explored how the MCO framework and tenets of
cultural humility need adaptations to be effectively utilized by therapists of
color, and we suggest that clinical supervisors be aware of this as they provide
supervision to therapists of color. As emerging therapists, supervisees are often
asked to use themselves in therapeutic sessions (i.e., use of self; Wosket, 2016);
however, supervisees with marginalized identities might struggle with micro­
aggressions or discrimination from clients with privileged identities (Branco &
Bayne, 2020). Broaching from a culturally humble stance aids in supervisor
awareness of and responses to supervisees’ experiences with client-directed
microaggressions and racism. Broaching rooted in culturally humility also
facilitates nuanced dialogs to support supervisees. It is beyond the scope of
this commentary to comprehensively explore how broaching can aid in having
 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR 9

these discussions, particularly for supervisors and supervisees of color, and

worth future examination.

Recommendations
We encourage clinical supervisors to recognize the importance of providing
multicultural supervision and work with supervisees from a culturally humble
stance. In order to demonstrate cultural humility, we urge supervisors to engage
in broaching. Utilizing the broaching strategy is a defined multicultural skill
rooted in cultural humility that facilitates the openness, genuine commitment,
and respect of the holistic person from supervisor to supervisee(s). In so doing,
supervisors model the MCO framework within the supervisory relationship
through the actionable skill of broaching to further engage in cultural humility.
Such a framework then offers the supervisee the benefit to provide similar stances,
cultural humility by way of broaching and grounded in MCO, to their clients.
By engaging in cultural humility and broaching, clinical supervisors may
strengthen the supervisory relationship and working alliance. More positive
outcomes may arise from clinical supervision when the relationship is strong
and fewer harmful supervision practices occur. Supervisees who experience
clinical supervision from a supervisor who models the MCO framework and
engages in broaching behaviors rooted in cultural humility may contribute to
the supervisee’s personal and professional growth. We suggest the first steps of
engaging in this work is for supervisors to initiate a thorough reflection and
review of the core tenets of cultural humility themselves. In other words,
supervisors must complete the following (Bollinger & Hill, 2012; Watkins
et al., 2019a; Worthington et al., 2017):

● Assess their level of openness.

● Shift their worldview to an other-orientation via an examination of their
own sociocultural identities and the impact that they have on their
worldview.
● Inventory their own personal strengths and achievements.
● Reflect upon and identify growth areas, limitations, and biases.

Only after these steps can the clinical supervisor truly begin to work from
a culturally humble stance and effectively engage in broaching. Future research
is needed to further establish the empirical link between the two phenomena of
cultural humility and broaching, and the benefits in clinical supervision.

Conclusion
The interconnected nature between cultural humility and broaching is distinct
and clear. In this commentary we described the symbiotic relationship
10 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

between the two phenomena. Our model (Figure 1) showcases how the
bidirectional nature between cultural humility and broaching are rooted in
the MCO framework. Cultural humility is one of the foundational tenets of the
MCO framework, and broaching is cultural humility in action. Broaching
reinforces cultural humility. Because all supervisory relationships are inter­
cultural, the interplay between cultural humility and broaching aids clinical
supervisors in fulfilling their ethical duty of providing multicultural super­
vision and attending to diversity and multiculturalism in the supervisory
relationship (Borders, 2014; Borders et al., 2011).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Connie T. Jones, PhD, LCMHCA, LCAS, NCC, ACS, holds a PhD in Counselor Education and
Supervision from Virginia Tech. She is an Assistant Professor at The University of North
Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) in Greensboro, NC, and has a background in clinical mental
health and addictions. Her areas of research and teaching interests include addictions, multi­
culturalism, and social justice. Dr. Jones also has a particular interest in the concept of
broaching and has published on the topic and continues to research this concept. Dr. Jones’
work reflects her many years of experience as a clinical supervisor for clinical mental health and
school counselors in training.
Susan F. Branco, PhD, LPC (VA), LCPC (MD), NCC, ACS, BC-TMH, holds a Ph.D. in
Counselor Education and Supervision from Virginia Tech. She is a Clinical Assistant
Professor at the Family Institute at Northwestern University. She has a background in clinical
mental health and family counseling, specifically with adoptive families and individuals. Her
research interests examine how school and clinical mental health counselors work with persons
adopted transracially and clinical supervision practices with counselors of Color. In addition,
Dr. Branco has several peer-reviewed publications related to the research interests mentioned
above.

References
Ancis, J. R., & Marshall, D. S. (2010). Using a multicultural framework to assess supervisee­
s’perceptions of culturally competent supervision. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88
(3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00023.x
Beinart, H. (2014). Building and sustaining the supervisory relationship. In C. E. Watkins Jr. &
D. L. Milne (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 257–281).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch11
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.).
Pearson.
Bernard, J. M., & Luke, M. (2015). A content analysis of 10 years of clinical supervision.
Counseling Education and Supervision, 54(4), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12024
 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR 11

Bollinger, R. A., & Hill, P. C. (2012). Humility. In T. G. Plante (Ed.), Religion, spirituality, and
positive psychology: Understanding the psychological fruits of faith (pp. 31–48). Praeger.
Borders, L. D. (2014). Best practices in clinical supervision: Another step in delineating
effective supervision practice. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 68(2), 151–162. https://
doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2014.68.2.151
Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. Lahaska
Press.
Borders, L. D., DeKruyf, L., Fernando, D. M., Glosoff, H. L., Hays, D. G., Page, B., &
Welfare, L. E. (2011). Best practices in clinical supervision. Retrieved from http://www.
acesonline.net/resources/
Branco, S. F., & Bayne, H. B. (2020). Carrying the burden: Counselors of color experiences with
client microaggressions in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 98(3), 272–282.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12322
Cook, R. M., Jones, C. T., & Welfare, L. E. (2020). Supervisor cultural humility predicts
intentional non-disclosure by post-master’s counselors. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 59(2), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12173
Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Brubaker, K., Owen, J., Jordan, T. A., Hook, J. N., & Van
Tongeren, D. R. (2016). Microaggressions and perceptions of cultural humility in
counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcad.12107
Day-Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake, K., &
Douglass, M. J. (2007). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture during the
counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(4), 401–409.
Drinane, J. M., Owen, J., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2017).
Microaggressions and cultural humility in psychotherapy. In E. L. Worthington,
D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 316–328). Routledge.
Eklund, K., Aros-O’Malley, M., & Murrieta, I. (2014). Multicultural supervision: What differ­
ence does difference make? Contemporary School Psychology, 18(3), 195–204. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40688-014-0024-8
Haskins, N., Whitfield-Williams, M., Shillingford, M. A., Singh, A., Moxley, R., & Ofauni, C.
(2013). The experiences of Black master’s counseling students: A phenomenological inquiry.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 52(3), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.
2013.00035x
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., & DeBlaere, C. (2017). Cultural humility: Engaging diverse
identities in therapy. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000037-
000
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility:
Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3),
353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000114
Hook, J. N., Watkins, C. E., Jr., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Ramos, M.
(2016). Cultural humility in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
70(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.2.149
Jones, C. T., & Welfare, L. E. (2017). Broaching behaviors of licensed professional counselors:
A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 38(1), 48–64. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaoc.12028
Jones, C. T., Welfare, L. E., Melchior, S., & Cash, R. (2019). Broaching as a strategy for
intercultural understanding in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1560384
12 C. T. JONES AND S. F. BRANCO

Moon, S. H., & Savage, S. J. (2019). Cultural humility for people of color: Critique of current
theory and practice. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 47(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0091647119842407
Nilsson, J. E., & Duan, C. (2007). Experiences of prejudice, role difficulties, and counseling
self-efficacy among U.S. racial and ethnic minority supervisees working with white
supervisors. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35(4), 219–229. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.2007.35.issue-4
Owen, J. J., Drinane, J., Tao, K. W., Adelson, J., Hook, J. N., Davis, D., & Fookune, N. (2017).
Racial/ethnic disparities in client unilateral termination: The role of therapists’ cultural
comfort. Psychotherapy Research, 27(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.
1078517
Owen, J. J., Tao, K., Leach, M. M., & Rodolfa, R. (2011). Clients’ perceptions of their
psychotherapists’ multicultural orientation. Psychotherapy, 48(3), 274–282. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0022065
Owen, J. J., Tao, K. W., Drinane, J. M., Hook, J., Davis, D. E., & Kune, N. F. (2016). Client
perceptions of therapists’ multicultural orientation: Cultural (missed) opportunities and
cultural humility. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(1), 30–37. https://doi.
org/10.1037/pro0000046
Paine, D. R., Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2016). Humility as a predictor of intercultural
competence: Mediator effects for differentiation-of-self. The Family Journal, 24(1), 15–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480715615667
Ratts, M. J. (2017). Charting the center and the margins: Addressing identity, marginalization,
and privilege in counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 39(2), 87–103. https://doi.
org/10.17744/mehc.39.2.01
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Hook, J. N., DeBlaere, C., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Owen, J., &
Callahan, J. L. (2019b). Humility, ruptures, and rupture repair in clinical supervision:
A simple conceptual clarification and extension. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(2), 281–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2019.1624996
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Hook, J. N., Mosher, D. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2019a). Humility in clinical
supervision: Fundamental, foundational, and transformational. The Clinical Supervisor, 38
(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1487355
White-Davis, T., Stein, E., & Karasz, A. (2016). The elephant in the room: Dialogues about race
within cross-cultural supervisory relationships. The International Journal of Psychiatry in
Medicine, 47(1), 347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091217416659271
Wong, L. C. J., Wong, P. T. P., & Ishiyama, I. (2013). What helps and what hinders in
cross-cultural clinical supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 66–85. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00110000124426-52
Worthington, E. L., Davis, D., & Hook, J. (2017). Introduction: Context, overview, and guiding
questions. In E. L. Worthington, D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of humility:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1–15). Routledge.
Wosket, V. (2016). The therapeutic use of self: Counselling practice, research and supervision
(2nd ed.). Routledge.