See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326044603

Attending to Social Justice in Clinical Social Work: Supervision as a

Pedagogical Space

Article  in  Clinical Social Work Journal · June 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10615-018-0667-4

CITATIONS READS

0 36

2 authors, including:

Kenta Asakura
Carleton University
27 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Virtual Simulation Platform View project

Choose Your Own Therapeutic Path: Using virtual simulation to teach direct practice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kenta Asakura on 29 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Clinical Social Work Journal
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0667-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Attending to Social Justice in Clinical Social Work: Supervision

as a Pedagogical Space
Kenta Asakura1 · Katherine Maurer2

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Although social justice is a central professional value of social work articulated in ethics codes, clinical social workers have
been long criticized for not clearly incorporating this professed commitment into practice. Supervision is an optimal space
within which clinicians can develop knowledge and skills to attend to the issues related to social justice in their practice. A
growing body of literature emphasizes social justice in the delivery of clinical services, yet there is a death of literature on
how clinical supervision can promote social justice seeking clinical work. In this paper, we draw from existing literature
to identify key elements involved in social justice seeking clinical supervision. Using Goodyear’s (Clin Superv 33:82–99,
2014) learning mechanisms of clinical supervision, which consists of modeling, feedback, direct instruction, and self-directed
learning, we discuss a case composite to illustrate ways in which clinical supervision can serve as a pedagogical space to
advance clinical social workers’ commitment to social justice.

Keywords  Clinical supervision · Social justice · Teaching and learning

Introduction clients are deeply rooted in and/or affected by social injustice

Social justice is a central professional value of social work
(Marsh 2005; National Association of Social Workers
[NASW] 2017), defined in the Social Work Dictionary as:
An ideal condition in which all members of a society
have the same rights, protection, opportunities, obli-
gations, and social benefits … historical inequalities
should be acknowledged and remedied through spe-
cific measures … social justice entails advocacy to
confront discrimination, oppression, and institutional
inequalities. (Barker 2003, p. 405)
There has, however been a long-standing debate about
whether and how clinical social work practice, with its focus
on individual-level problems, can also be social justice
seeking (Specht and Courtney 1994; Wakefield 1998). The
individual-level problems presented by many social work
* Kenta Asakura
kenta.asakura@carleton.ca
1
Carleton University School of Social Work, Ottawa, ON,
Canada
2
McGill University School of Social Work, Montreal, QC,
Canada
(i.e., oppression and marginalization), such as discrimina-
tion, violence, poverty, and other structurally rooted prob-
lems (Berzoff 2011). Clinical social workers are called on to
address the ways in which structural inequalities affect the
clients’ everyday lives, mitigate further harm, and promote
social justice within the clinical space. A growing body of
literature emphasizes social justice in the delivery of clini-
cal services (e.g., Baines 2011; Fook 2012; Larson 2008),
yet there is a paucity of literature on how to address social
justice in clinical supervision.
The purpose of this paper is to suggest clinical super-
vision as a pedagogical space to promote social justice in
clinical practice. Supervision aims to address three levels
of function, namely administrative, supportive, and educa-
tional (Bogo and McKnight 2005; Kadushin and Harkness
2014). In this paper, we will focus primarily on the edu-
cational aspect of supervision, which “aims to develop the
professional capacity of supervisees through enhancing their
knowledge and skills” (Bogo and McKnight 2005, p. 52). In
discussing a case composite, we will illustrate ways in which
clinical supervision may serve as a pedagogical space to
enhance clinical social workers’ ability to enact social justice
principles in practice (Hair 2015).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Social Justice and Clinical Social Work
Despite social work’s mission to promote social justice
(NASW 2017), several scholars, notably Margolin (1997)
and Specht and Courtney (1994), previously asserted the
incompatibility of clinical social work and social justice.
In rebuttal, Wakefield (1998) suggested that the purpose of
clinical social work is to assist clients in restoring or build-
ing a minimally acceptable level of emotional wellbeing,
so that they can better engage other aspects of their lives
(e.g., social and work lives). Swenson (1998) proposed
the following definition of social justice-focused clinical
practice by explicating its specific elements:
… profound appreciation for a client’s strengths,
contexts, and resources. Experiences of race, gen-
der, class, religion, sexual orientation, and ability,
because these shape clients’ worlds and meaning-
making, are seen as central … we engage in thorough
analyses of professional and organizational power
and actively work to increase client power … We
engage in the work of exploring our own experiences
of oppression, and of privilege and power … We
assess clients’ ‘relative deprivation’ and ‘minimally
acceptable levels of resources’ in the economic,
political, physical, social, spiritual, and psychologi-
cal domains. (p. 534)
Maschi et al. (2011) conducted a content analysis of the
literature (n = 36) addressing the debate on the compatibil-
ity of clinical social work and social justice. Their study
found that although there had been considerable scholarship
addressing the topic, (1) only a quarter of the articles pro-
vided definitions of social justice, (2) most of the reviewed
articles (80%) engaged theories and frameworks, such as
empowerment, the strengths perspectives, and postmodern-
ism, to conceptualize integrating both psychological and
external resources as a mechanism to enact social justice
work. The lack of agreed upon definitions of social justice
continue to plague its integration into clinical practice, the
authors note. The content analysis summarized key concepts
in social justice seeking clinical practice: critical reflection
on power, privilege and oppression, transparent use of eth-
ics and values (e.g., client’s right to self-determination),
the use of assessment and interventions that account for the
impacts of political, social and cultural factors on the client’s
presenting problems, and client advocacy for resources and
social or policy change. Importantly, Maschi et al. (2011)
note at several points in their analysis the dearth of literature
representing the lived experiences of clinical social work
practitioners of social justice seeking practice.
Recent empirical research corroborates and substan-
tiates the centrality of the concepts of social justice in
13
Clinical Social Work Journal
clinical practice identified by Maschi et al. (2011). Advo-
cacy work was an important element of social justice prac-
tice in O’Brien’s (2010) study of 191 New Zealand social
workers. In Morgaine’s (2014) study, though there was a
lack of a unified definition, most social workers (n = 17)
defined social justice as individual rights-based (i.e.,
every person has the right to be treated fairly and access
to goods). Yet, the participants shared their frustrations
about the difficulties in enacting change due to workload
and time constraints. McLaughlin et al. (2015) conducted a
study with child protection workers, using individual inter-
views (n = 25) and focus groups (n = 19 across groups).
The workers conceptualized social justice as both a goal
and a process of their practice. Social justice is equality,
fairness and rights to aim for, while they also saw it as a
relational process grounded in empowerment and respect
within a therapeutic relationship.
Social Justice and Clinical Supervision
The existing literature on social justice and clinical super-
vision remains largely conceptual and commonly suggests
that supervision is an optimal space for the clinicians to
address the issues of social justice (e.g., Chang et al. 2009;
Hair and O’Donoghue 2009). This sentiment is supported
by a Canadian survey (Hair 2015) of registered social work-
ers (n = 636). Participants expressed interest in supervisors
engaging them in discussing various aspects of social justice
during supervision, such as cultural diversity, challenging
unjust policies and practices, and the impacts of oppres-
sion and privilege on clients. When asked if “a purpose of
supervision is to help social workers promote social justice
and change,” a majority (70.1%) agreed, 13.5% disagreed
and another 13.1% reported “not sure.” The 26% who did
not agree may be hampered by the definitional ambiguity of
social justice (Reisch 2002) or lack of clear operationaliza-
tion into specific practice elements and actions.
In thematically reviewing the literature on clinical super-
vision, we identified that social justice is broadly opera-
tionalized into the following three specific elements and
discussed from these themes: (1) attending to power rela-
tions in a supervisory dyad, (2) promoting the supervisee’s
reflective practice, and (3) cultivating advocacy skills among
supervisees.
Attending to Power Relations in Supervisory
Relationship
There is an inherent power differential in a supervisory rela-
tionship (Bernard and Goodyear 2014) due to the supervi-
sor’s expert knowledge and workplace position (De Stefano
et al. 2017) and a greater focus on risk management and
Clinical Social Work Journal
administrative aspect of supervision (Beddoe 2010; Hair
2014). Both the supervisor and the supervisee carry unique
socio-cultural experiences and identities, and the intersection
of these identities contribute to particular power dynamics
and impact the process and outcomes of supervision (Berger
et al. 2017; Falender et al. 2014; Jernigan et al. 2010). For
instance, research has documented white supervisors’ lack
of comfort and competence in addressing racial differences
and dynamics with supervisees of color (Burkard et al. 2006;
Hird et al. 2001). Furthermore, even when the supervisor
and the supervisee were both people of color, the discussion
of race and culture did not always occur with ease, and the
supervisees of color reported negative feelings about them-
selves as practitioners when the supervisors were not open
to discussion on the topic of race and culture in supervision
(Jernigan et al. 2010).
As with the clinical therapeutic alliance, safety within
a supervisory relationship is essential for the supervisees’
effective clinical work, especially when discussing social
justice issues (ChenFeng et al. 2017). There is general con-
sensus that the supervision dyad (supervisor and supervi-
see) should each attend to their own respective socio-cultural
identities (Berger et al. 2017; Hernández and McDowell
2010) and the associated oppression and power, such as
racism and white privilege (Adams 2009; Hays and Chang
2003; Hernández and McDowell 2010). These authors
advocated for dialogue about socio-cultural identities and
power relations within the supervisor–supervisee dyad
as an essential practice to promote the supervisees’ clini-
cal competences. Hair and O’Donoghue (2009) critiqued
a modernist notion of “cultural competence,” in which the
supervisor, often influenced by Euro-Western worldviews,
guides the supervisee to understand about the client’s socio-
cultural background, they instead advocated for “culturally
relevant” supervision. Using a social constructionist epis-
temology, they recommended that the supervisors examine
their own socio-cultural assumptions about their knowledge
and collaboratively engage the supervisees and other key
stakeholders (e.g., community members) in co-developing
culturally-informed knowledge. ChenFeng et  al. (2017)
similarly suggested that the supervisors and the supervisees
together explore and discuss each other’s socio-cultural iden-
tities. They also outlined specific strategies for these tasks,
such as the supervisor’s role-modeling of sharing personal
biases and validation of supervisees’ experience.
Promoting Supervisee’s Reflective Practice
Reflection, a commonly known practice of introspection of
self knowledge and experience that can lead to a new under-
standing, is considered a key mode of learning in clinical
supervision (Carroll 2010). Social work has embraced the
role of reflection, a concept initially developed in education
(Schön 1983), which has evolved over time. Using the
term “the use of self,” the original focus of social workers’
reflective practice was countertransference (the clinician’s
unconscious response to the client materials) from a psycho-
analytic tradition (Mandell 2007; McTighe 2011). A more
contemporary view of countertransference or the use of self
accounts for broader aspects of the clinician’s subjectivities,
not only past experiences, personality structures, but also
social identities (e.g., race, gender); these inevitably enter
the therapeutic relationship with the client and must be used
intentionally to benefit the client’s treatment (Goldstein et al.
2009; McTighe 2011). Critical social work literature has
emphasized the clinician’s intrapsychic processes less and
the social processes involved in the use of self more (Fook
2012; Mandell 2007). Although various terms are used,
such as critical reflection (Fook 2012), critical conscious-
ness (Sakamoto and Pitner 2005), and reflexivity (D’Cruz
et al. 2007), this critical version of the use of self demands
that the clinician uncover how the structural dominance and
power relations might impact the client as well as the clini-
cian–client relationship. Given the overlapping nature of the
use of self and various types of reflection, we will use the
term reflective practice as an overarching term.
Relevant literature on social justice and clinical supervi-
sion draws from a critical version of reflection (e.g., criti-
cal reflection, critical consciousness). Discussing supervi-
sion from a feminist lens, Poole (2010) suggested that the
supervision function as a space where the supervisor and the
supervisee deconstruct the socio-cultural factors involved
in the supervisee’s clinical work. In discussing family
therapy supervision, Garcia et al. (2009) suggested that the
supervisor set aside time and space to discuss issues of sys-
temic privilege and oppression involved in the supervisee’s
practice. These “critical conversations” (p. 29) should take
place on an ongoing basis and are essential in facilitating the
supervisees’ abilities to understand the interplay between the
client issues and larger social structures and challenging the
supervisee’s own biases and stereotypes. Similarly, Glosoff
and Durham (2010) suggested that the supervisor encourage
the supervisees to reflect on the roles of power and power
dynamics involved in their relationships with clients. Strate-
gies employed were the supervisor’s use of reflective ques-
tioning, mapping social capital (of not only the client’s but
also their own), and critical appraisal of existing treatment
and forms.
Cultivating Advocacy Skills
Advocacy is a form of social work practice defined as “the
exclusive and mutual representation of clients or a cause
in a forum attempting to systematically influence decision
making in an unjust or unresponsive system” (Schneider and
Lester 2001, p. 65). Very little, however, was found in the
13

literature describing how social workers cultivate knowledge
and skills about advocacy through supervision. In fact, the
Best Practice Standards in Social Work Supervision (NASW
2013) did not mention advocacy or any other similar practice
concepts. Advocacy, however, is discussed as an imperative
element of social justice work by other allied professions,
such as counseling psychologists (Chang et al. 2009) and
marriage and family therapists (ChenFeng et al. 2017).
Chang et al. (2009) suggested that it is the supervisor’s
responsibility to promote the supervisee’s skills development
to become an effective advocate. They proposed a model of
supervision to promote advocacy skills among clinicians.
In this model of supervision, supervisees develop a deeper
understanding of their own biases in relation to the client’s
socio-cultural contexts (self-awareness), assist clients in
accessing resources more easily (client issue), and engage
in lobbying efforts to make the resources more accessible to
those in need (community collaboration). Similarly, Chen-
Feng et al. (2017) stressed clinicians’ professional identity
as advocates and suggested that supervisees go outside the
therapy room and challenge institutional practices that per-
petuate the marginalization of their clients.
Clinical Supervision as a Pedagogical Space
for Social Justice
There is general consensus that it is the supervisor’s respon-
sibility to initiate conversations about social justice in clini-
cal supervision (Glosoff and Durham 2010; Hays and Chang
2003). Goodyear (2014) conceptualized clinical supervision
as an essential pedagogical process consisting of four mech-
anisms: modeling, feedback, direct instruction, and self-
directed learning. In modeling, the supervisor intentionally
uses the self to provide the supervisee opportunities to vicar-
iously learn appropriate interpersonal and practice behaviors
through the supervisory relationship. Providing performance
feedback is an essential teaching and learning mechanism in
supervision. Feedback may have several dimensions, includ-
ing specificity (direct, clear, and specific feedback), valence
(positive feedback), and formality (formal performance
Table 1  Principles of social justice informed clinical supervision
Pedagogical ­processa Attend to supervisory power relations
Modeling Modeling on supervisory power relations
Feedback Feedback on supervisory power relations
Direct instruction Direct instruction on supervisory power
relations
Self-directed learning Self-directed learning on supervisory
power relations
a
 Goodyear (2014)
13
Clinical Social Work Journal
evaluation). Direct instruction is the most frequently used
pedagogical process in supervision, in which the supervi-
sor teaches supervisees specific skills and then provides
them with feedback. Using Van de Pol et al.’s work (2010),
Goodyear suggests scaffolding as a key strategy for direct
instruction. In providing a structure around the supervisees’
skill development, the supervisor seeks to develop an indi-
vidualized approach that caters to each supervisee’s unique
needs and styles. The supervisor might gradually step back
from direct instruction and expect the supervisees to engage
in the task independently. Finally, self-directed learning is
an essential pedagogical process that occurs when the super-
visee engages in reflective practice. While the supervisor
might actively engage modeling, feedback giving, and direct
instruction, supervisees use supervision to learn and develop
their capacity to become a reflective practitioner.
Case Illustration and Discussion
The following case composite is designed to illustrate ways
in which clinical supervisors might engage Goodyear’s
(2014) four learning mechanisms of supervision inter-
sectionally with the three social justice elements of clini-
cal practice previously identified: power relations, reflec-
tive practice, and advocacy skills. Table 1 illustrates our
approach to integrating the supervisory pedagogy and social
justice promotion in clinical practice.
Case Composite: Carole, Sylvie, & Dianne
Carole, the supervisee, is a 29-year-old white cisgender, het-
erosexual woman and a new Master of Social Work gradu-
ate. She has been working for the past 2 years in an adult
mental health outpatient clinic, located in a metropolitan city
in Northeast U.S.A. The supervisor, Sylvie, is a 46-year-old
Afro-Caribbean cisgender, heterosexual woman. She has
several decades of supervisory experience. The client in this
case composite is Dianne, an African-American cisgender,
heterosexual woman, age 54, widowed for 10 years.
Promote reflective practice Cultivate advocacy skills
Modeling for reflective practice Modeling advocacy
Feedback for reflective practice Feedback on advocacy
Direct instruction for reflective practice Direct instruction on advocacy
Self-directed learning for reflective Self-directed learning on advocacy
practice
Clinical Social Work Journal
Dianne’s husband died suddenly of a heart attack in his
late 40 s. She receives some income from his pension and
social security. She is unemployed due to a back injury as
the result of a car accident around the time of her husband’s
death. She experiences intermittent moderate physical pain.
She is seeking support because she is currently raising her
14-month old grandson, Jevon. Her son, Marcus, is Jevon’s
father and is currently in jail following a confrontation
with neighbors in which police were involved and Marcus
assaulted the police officers when they tried to calm him
down. Marcus is experiencing complicated grief due to the
death of his partner, Nicole, during childbirth. He blames his
son for Nicole’s death and is not able to engage with him.
Nicole’s family lives in another state and they blame Marcus
for her death. They have never had any contact with Dianne
or Jevon. Marcus and Nicole lived with Dianne and paid the
bulk of her rent and utilities.
Dianne is concerned about being able to keep her apart-
ment and take care of Jevon, with her son no longer con-
tributing to the household expenses. She is very anxious
that child protective services may become involved if she
misses a rent payment. She does not have a formal custody
arrangement with her son. She has confided in Carole that
she sometimes leaves Jevon with a neighbor while she goes
to underground gambling venues. She is very successful
and has been able to generate enough income this way to
keep her bills paid. Carole, the clinician, has expressed con-
cern about this behavior both that it is illegal and whether
this behavior might be early stages of gambling addiction.
Dianne dismissed Carole’s concerns, sharing that she does
not understand how things work for “poor folk.” Dianne fre-
quently brings her grandson, despite the clinician’s assertion
that she come alone, as therapy should be “her time.” Some-
times, Jevon is fussy and most of the session is focused on
him. Dianne has started to arrive late and even miss sessions.
Carole is seeking guidance from her supervisor, Sylvie, on
how to address the gambling behaviors, the continued pres-
ence of the grandson in sessions, and what she perceives to
be a therapeutic impasse with Dianne.
Case Discussion
In the scenario, Carole has related her concerns to Sylvie
about Dianne’s reliance on gambling to generate the income
needed to pay her bills, a discussion about which she worries
led to a therapeutic impasse with Dianne. Sylvie noted that
the exchange between Dianne and Carole involved several
different components related to social justice seeking clini-
cal practice. In order to take advantage of the opportunity
for learning (Bogo and McKnight 2005), Sylvie suggested
to Carole that together they explore each element of the
encounter and in doing so disaggregate different features of
the encounter to facilitate a reflective discussion (scaffolding
for supervision).
As a starting point, Sylvie asked Carole to explain her
concerns about Dianne’s gambling to supplement her income
(direct instruction for reflective practice). Carole explained
that she felt conflicted in thinking about her ethical obliga-
tions versus Dianne’s right of self-determination. On the
one hand, Carole felt that if she did not acknowledge that the
gambling was illegal, she would be endorsing or validating
the behavior. Further, although she was not legally obligated
to report Dianne for criminal activity, she did feel that she
might need to be “on record” as having expressed concern.
Yet, she expressed discomfort with “policing” the client’s
behavior especially given Dianne’s considerable economic
vulnerability (i.e., female, unemployed, over 50, physical
disability, single caregiver). Carole added that she wondered
if Dianne’s behavior was putting her grandson at risk in a
way that could be construed as neglect (e.g., exposure to
crime or individuals engaged in crime). As such, was Carole
obligated to report child protection services?
Sylvie suggested that she and Carole explore the value
tensions (Mattison 2000) that informed the ethical dilemma
articulated in the role of monitoring or surveilling the
criminal behavior of clients (direct instruction or feedback
for reflective practice). Using reflective modeling, Sylvie
engaged Carole in a discussion of the power dynamics of
therapeutic relationship (Fook 2012). Carole articulated
that although she had participated in theoretical discus-
sions about the role of social workers historically (Specht
and Courtney 1994) and currently (Lee and Ferrer 2014) as
agents of social control, this was her first experience of iden-
tifying with the desire to enact control over a client. Through
discussing this tension with Sylvie (feedback for reflective
practice), Carole was able to identify that although she rec-
ognized that Dianne was making an informed choice in the
context of her multiple vulnerabilities, Carole was concerned
about Dianne’s grandson and how her behavior might affect
him. She felt ambivalent about being a mandated reporter
and the consideration of involving child welfare services
(e.g., McLaughlin et al. 2015; self-directed learning through
reflective practice).
Sylvie validated Carole’s experience of uncertainty
and ambivalence through direct feedback. Sylvie reflected
back on her own lack of experience regarding child welfare
reporting when she began as a practitioner (modeling and
feedback for reflective practice). She, like Carole, had taken
a required mandated reporter training but knew little else
about child protection (modeling on the supervisory power
relations). They discussed the importance, in accordance
with the Code of Ethics (NASW 2017), of not engaging in
practice without training or expertise. Thus, Sylvie provided
instructions for Carole to engage in self-directed learning on
the definition and the operationalization of neglect in their
13

jurisdiction. With this instruction, Sylvie’s aim was to guide
Carole to interrogate her quick and unexamined anxiety that
Jevon was possibly subject to neglect.
In a subsequent supervisory session, Sylvie and Carole
engaged in a collaborative dialogue to discuss critically the
research that Carole had conducted to better inform herself
about local child welfare regulations (feedback for and self-
directed learning through reflective practice). Following a
summary of her research, Carole noted that her focus had
shifted from looking at Dianne’s gambling as a behavior
that might put Jevon at risk to understanding it as part of her
adaptation to a drastic loss of resources with which to meet
caregiving needs. This led into a discussion of class, which
was then linked to race, as evidenced in the strong associa-
tion between child neglect, low family income, and racializa-
tion found in the literature (Besharov and Laumann 1997;
Child Welfare Information Gateway 2011). Sylvie engaged
with Carole in exploring how cultural values inform “appro-
priate” childcare (feedback and self-directed learning for
reflective practice) and how values and perspectives link to
individual- and community-embedded resources and social
capital (feedback and self-directed learning for advocacy
work). The two discussed the historical and present ways
in which these value-laden perspectives construe behaviors
borne of lack of resources as child neglect. Carole remarked
that, for example, she now understood Dianne’s bringing
Jevon to therapy sessions as a matter of equitable access
to affordable child care, not just as Dianne’s intrapsychic
resistance to therapy (self-directed learning through reflec-
tive practice for advocacy work). Sylvie noted that these are
not mutually exclusive but could be explored with Dianne to
better understand her access to non-income resources (e.g.,
babysitting help from neighbors; feedback for reflective
practice and advocacy work).
Sylvie additionally provided instructions that Car-
ole might look into the literature on kinship care (Testa
2017). Research shows that typically the majority of kin-
ship caregivers are female, low-income, and over the age of
50 (e.g., Ehrle and Geen 2002), similar to Dianne. Sylvie
remarked that informal kinship care has a long tradition in
African–origin communities (Brown et al. 2002) such as
the one in which she grew up, which is not dissimilar to
Dianne’s (modeling for reflective practice). Sylvie noted,
however, that while she and Dianne are both Black women,
she is from a very different culture (Afro-Caribbean rather
than African-American) and a different community (upper
middle class, suburban) than that in which Dianne lives. In
fact, Sylvie had done much work on the intersection of class
and race in her own life and how that influenced her clini-
cal thinking and practice (modeling for reflective practice).
Although she did not share this extensively with Carole, she
did share that having grown up in a very well-resourced mid-
dle class environment and coming to work in a low-income,
13
Clinical Social Work Journal
resource-poor community necessitates her engagement in
ongoing reflective practice; she has to be aware of not only
her biases but also those within her own culture who are
critical of both low-income and middle-class individuals
(Pattillo-McCoy 1999). Sylvie’s intentional self-disclosure
(modeling for reflective practice) facilitated a conversation
around low- and high-resourced communities and how the
differential access to opportunities affects the community in
which the clinic was situated, as well as the broader societal
level in structural barriers that reproduce social and eco-
nomic oppression and discrimination (Loury 2002).
Carole shared with Sylvie that kinship care is also a tra-
dition in her community. Sharing her struggles with the
intersectionality of her racial identity (White) and class
(working class upbringing), Carole reported that she is still
learning how to express her lived experience without enact-
ing oppression on her clients of color when she is afforded
de facto middle-class status that goes hand-in-hand with the
power dynamics of whiteness in social work practice (Lee
and Ferrer 2014). Carole’s social justice conceptualization of
her work with Dianne started to shift only when she engaged
in critically reflecting upon the intersectionality of her own
race and class.
Sylvie observed how socio-cultural identity and power
relations within the client–clinician relationship and the
supervisory relationship mirror each other (Hernández and
McDowell 2010). She noted that the three women involved
in the case composite represent overlapping yet distinct
socio-cultural identities (e.g., race, class, professional posi-
tions) and hence, power dynamics are complex even when
social location appears shared (e.g., cisgender, heterosexual,
Black). As this example shows, interpreting power dynamics
within clinical dyads—supervisory or client–clinician—is
best done critically with careful consideration of the inter-
sectionalities of gender, race, and class (Cho et al. 2013).
Once trust was established in this supervision dyad (Chen-
Feng et al. 2017), Sylvie explored collaboratively with Car-
ole their racial differences (modeling on supervisory power
relations), while discussing marginalization, oppression,
and historical and current power dynamics in play for the
Black woman client (modeling for reflective practice). The
overlapping yet distinct socio-cultural identities presented
opportunities for Sylvie to explore with Carole the inversion
of the power balance due to Sylvie as supervisor being in the
dominant position, which is normally afforded to the white-
identified person in relationship with a racialized individual
(Hernández and McDowell 2010; modeling on supervisory
power relation and reflective practice).
In further conversations with Dianne, aided by the
reflective work that she and Sylvie had undertaken, Carole
explored collaboratively with Dianne options for augmenting
her income sustainably (self-directed learning on advocacy).
Based on the discussions of the intersectionality of race and
Clinical Social Work Journal
income (e.g., Loury 2002), Carole brought this language
and understanding with her into conversations with Dianne
about her experiences (self-directed learning for reflective
practice). Dianne became more open about discussing the
endless micro-aggressions and blatant racism she experi-
enced when accessing governmental subsidies for which
she qualified. For example, food purchasing assistance was
available as food stamps—substitute currency—at the time
of this case study, and Dianne reported that this brought
unwanted scrutiny when shopping. Dianne explained that
this stigmatizing experience, at least partly, led her to gam-
bling whenever she needed additional income. She did not
have to be subjected to abuse, stereotyping, and disrespect,
nor was she beholden to surveillance of her purchases (not
all food items qualify for the subsidy and those must be paid
for separately). This discussion of macro-level factors served
as an entrée to discussing advocacy (e.g., ChenFeng et al.
2017) to improve access to resources for Dianne and Jevon
focused on specific actions within and outside of the clinic.
Carole had developed a new understanding of Dianne’s
motivations for gambling in the broader context of social
injustice and barriers to access to services. By engaging in
reflective practice around her own biases and stereotyping
of Dianne’s behavior, Carole’s orientation shifted from an
individual-level focus to a systems focus, and she began to
engage in social justice oriented advocacy for Dianne and
for systemic change (ChenFeng et al. 2017; self-directed
learning through reflective practice on advocacy work).
Carole discussed specific actions with Dianne for accessing
resources, such as income supplements for disability and
unemployment, as well as possibly entering into a formal
kinship care agreement to stabilize her income, protect her
rights as the caregiver to Jevon, and reduce the risk of home-
lessness (ChenFeng et al. 2017; self-directed learning on
advocacy). Carole also contacted key stakeholders in the
community to seek funding to subsidize daycare services
for low social and economic resourced caregivers such as
Dianne (ChenFeng et al. 2017; self-directed learning on
advocacy).
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was to illuminate clinical super-
vision as a pedagogical space that might allow clinicians to
integrate social justice in clinical practice. The case-based
discussion illustrated how supervisors might address issues
specific to social justice seeking clinical practice through
Goodyear’s (2014) learning mechanisms (modeling, feed-
back, direct instruction, and self-directed learning). Carole,
Sylvie, and Dianne all shared identification as cisgender and
heterosexual women. In relation to power dynamics, how-
ever, they carried differential experiences of marginalization,
oppression, and privilege based on race, class, and social
positions. Using her personal and professional reflective
practice as a Black woman, Sylvie effectively supported
Carole in addressing the impasse with Dianne, focusing on
power relations, reflective practice, and advocacy.
Our model (Table 1), however, does not signify a fixed
or procedural approach and should be used flexibly to guide
the supervisor when engaging social justice issues that arise
in clinical practice. The supervisor–supervisee–client triad
varies case by case, and this model should be applied to each
situation contextually. Discussion of social justice requires
a strong relational context in which the supervisee feels safe
enough to do so with the supervisor (ChenFeng et al. 2017;
Hernández and McDowell 2010; Inman 2006). In addition
to their teaching responsibilities, supervisors must first and
foremost focus on developing a strong learning relationship
with their supervisees before they engage in this type of
supervision. Collaborative engagement, rather than a uni-
directional approach, is an essential element of this work,
to ensure that those of marginalized social identities (e.g., a
queer woman of color) in the triad do not have to carry all
the burden of initiating and engaging in the discussions of
social justice.
Our model of supervision aims to facilitate transforma-
tion learning, in which the supervisee interrogates habitual
patterns and uncovers new ways of thinking, knowing, and
engaging in practice (Carroll 2010). Given that many, if not
all, clinical issues are not only biological or psychologi-
cal but also social and structural in nature (e.g., depression
perpetuated by homelessness or unemployment), clinical
social workers must hold social (in)justice in mind when
conceptualizing the client case and treatment (Baines 2011;
Berzoff 2011). In specifying the foci of discussion about
social justice and teaching and learning processes, we hope
that this article provides a guiding framework to transform
the supervisee’s conceptualization of and engagement with
their clients. After all, supervision is a process designed to
facilitate one’s “super-vision—new eyes, new perceptions,
new visions” (Carroll 2010, p. 13).
Cautions must be given to our model of supervision. First,
although our model was grounded in relevant literature from
social justice, clinical social work, supervision, and educa-
tion, there is a need for further empirical research to dem-
onstrate its applicability to actual practice. Second, although
the model is organized as a grid, there is no hierarchy to the
pairings of Goodyear’s (2014) pedagogical processes and
the social justice principles (i.e., all processes and principles
are essential for the teaching and learning of social justice
informed clinical supervision). Further, though we have
presented the material in pairings, it is possible to have an
aggregate process such as self-directed learning on super-
visory power relations with modeling for reflective practice.
Third, despite social work’s professed commitment to social
13

justice (Marsh 2005), today’s neoliberal workplace and prac-
tice cultures might prohibit supervisors from having time
for this type of reflective supervision. Rather than prioritiz-
ing the supervisee’s learning needs or commitment to social
justice, supervision in new managerialism is a powerful
surveillance vehicle used to audit the worker performance
and avoid agency liability (Beddoe 2010). In fact, Durham
and Glosoff (2010) argued that some supervisors might not
believe that addressing social justice issues is a part of their
role responsibilities, while others worry that doing so might
be perceived as problematic by others (e.g., managers) in the
workplace. Although this is the reality of current practice
and is certainly a prohibiting factor when engaging in the
model of supervision proposed in this paper, we nonetheless
argue that we as a professional collective must push against
and go beyond the discourse of supervision as “surveillance”
(Beddoe 2010) and find ways to navigate the neoliberal cul-
ture of supervision. Social justice is social work’s central
professional value (Marsh 2005). Clinical supervision is an
ideal pedagogical space to promote and reinforce social jus-
tice as a value and an action, to develop relevant knowledge
and skills to enact social justice principles within clinical
work practice with supervisees, especially new practitioners.
References
Adams, D. M. (2009). Multicultural pedagogy in the supervision and
education of psychotherapists. Women & Therapy, 33(1/2), 42–54.
Baines, D. (Ed.). (2011). Doing anti-oppressive practice: Social justice
social work (2nd ed.). Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington,
D.C.: National Association of Social Workers.
Beddoe, L. (2010). Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervi-
sion in ‘the risk society.’. British Journal of Social Work, 40,
1279–1296.
Berger, R., Quiros, L., & Benavidez-Hatzis, J. R. (2017). The inter-
section of identities in supervision for trauma-informed practice:
Challenges and strategies. The Clinical Supervisor. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/07325​223.2017.13762​99.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical
supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Berzoff, J. (2011). Why we need a biopsychosocial perspective with
vulnerable, oppressed and at-risk clients. Smith College Studies
in Social Work, 81, 132–166.
Besharov, D. J., & Laumann, L. A. (1997). Don’t call it child abuse if
it’s really poverty. Journal of Children and Poverty, 3(1), 5–36.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/10796​12970​84122​03.
Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2005). Clinical supervision in social
work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervi-
sor, 24(1/2), 49–67.
Brown, S., Cohon, D., & Wheeler, R. (2002). African American
extended families and kinship care: How relevant is the foster
care model for kinship care? Children and Youth Services Review,
24(1), 53–77.
Burkard, A. W., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B., Pruitt, N. T.,
Contreras-Tadych, A., Kozlowski, J. M., Hess, S. A., &
Knox, S. (2006). Supervisor cultural responsiveness and
13
Clinical Social Work Journal
unresponsiveness in cross-cultural supervision. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53, 288–301.
Carroll, M. (2010). Supervision: Critical reflection for transforma-
tional learning (part 2). The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 1–19.
Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., & Milliken, T. (2009). Addressing social
justice issues in supervision: A call for client and professional
advocacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 28, 20–35.
ChenFeng, J., Castronova, M., & Zimmerman, T. (2017). Safety and
social justice in the supervisory relationship. In R. Allan & S.
Singh Poulsen (Eds.), Creating cultural safety in couple and
family therapy: Supervision and training. New York: Springer.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Addressing racial
disproportionality in child welfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field
of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4),
785–810.
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its
meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the
literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90.
De Stefano, J., Hutman, H., & Gazzola, N. (2017). Putting on the face:
A qualitative study of power dynamics in clinical supervision. The
Clinical Supervisor, 36(2), 223–240.
Durham, J. C., & Glosoff, H. L. (2010). From passion to action: Inte-
grating the advocacy competencies and social justice into coun-
selor education and supervision. In M. J. Ratts, J. A. Lewis & R.
L. Toporek (Eds.), ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice
framework for counselors (pp. 139–150). Alexandria: American
Counseling Association.
Ehrle, J., & Geen, R. (2002). Children cared for by relatives: What ser-
vices do they need? The Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-47, 1–8.
Falender, C. A., Shafranske, E. P., & Falicov, C. J. (2014). Multicul-
turalism and diversity in clinical supervision: A competency
based approach. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Fook, J. (2012). Social work: A critical approach to practice (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Garcia, M., Kosutic, I., McDowell, T., & Anderson, S. A. (2009). Rais-
ing critical consciousness in family therapy supervision. Journal
of Feminist Family Therapy, 21, 18–38.
Glosoff, H. L., & Durham, J. C. (2010). Using supervision to pre-
pare social justice counseling advocates. Counselor Education &
Supervision, 50, 116–129.
Goldstein, E. G., Miehls, D., & Ringel, S. (2009). Advanced clinical
social work practice: Relational principles and techniques. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Supervision as pedagogy: Attending to its
essential instructional and learning processes. The Clinical Super-
visor, 33, 82–99.
Hair, H. J. (2014). Power relations in supervision: Preferred practices
according to social workers. Families in Society, 95(2), 107–114.
Hair, H. J. (2015). Supervision conversations about social justice and
social work practice. Journal of Social Work, 15(4), 349–370.
Hair, H. J., & O’Donoghue, K. (2009). Culturally relevant, socially
just social work supervision: Becoming visible through a social
constructionist lens. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in
Social Work, 18, 70–88.
Hays, D. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2003). White privilege, oppression, and
racial identity development: Implications for supervision. Coun-
selor Education and Supervision, 43, 134–145.
Hernández, P., & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersectionality, power, and
relational safety in context: Key concepts in clinical supervision.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 29–35.
Hird, J. S., Cavalieri, C. E., Dulko, J. P., Felice, A. A. D., & Ho, T.
A. (2001). Visions and realities: Supervisee perspectives of
Clinical Social Work Journal
multicultural supervision. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 29, 114–130.
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its rela-
tion to supervisory process and outcome. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 32(1), 73–85.
Jernigan, M. M., Green, C. E., Helms, J. E., Perez-Gualdron, L., &
Henze, K. (2010). An examination of people of color supervi-
sion dyads: Racial identity matters as much as race. Training and
Educational in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 62–73.
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2014). Supervision in social work
(5th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Larson, G. (2008). Anti-oppressive practice in mental health. Journal
of Progressive Human Services, 19(1), 39–54.
Lee, E. O., & Ferrer, I. (2014). Examining social work as a Canadian
settler colonial project: Colonial continuities of circles of reform,
civilization, and in/visibility. Journal of Critical AntiOppressive
Social Inquiry, 1(1), 1–20.
Loury, G. (2002). The anatomy of racial inequality. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press.
Mandell, D. (2007). Use of self: Contexts and dimensions. In D. Man-
dell (Ed.), Revisiting the use of self: Questioning professional
identities (pp. 1–19). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Margolin, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness: The invention of
social work. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Marsh, J. C. (2005). Social justice: Social work’s organizing values.
Social Work, 50(4), 293–294.
Maschi, T., Baer, J., & Turner, S. G. (2011). The psychological goods
on clinical social work: A content analysis of the clinical social
work and social justice literature. Journal of Social Work Practice,
25(2), 233–252.
Mattison, M. (2000). Ethical decision-making: The person in the pro-
cess. Social Work, 45(3), 201–212.
McLaughlin, A. M., Gray, E., & Wilson, M. (2015). Child welfare
workers and social justice: Mending the disconnect. Children and
Youth Services Review, 59, 177–183.
McTighe, J. P. (2011). Teaching the use of self through the process of
clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 301–307.
Morgaine, K. (2014). Conceptualizing social justice in social work:
Are social workers “too bogged down in the trees?” Journal of
Social Justice, 4, 1–18.
National Association of Social Workers. (2013). Best practice stand-
ards in social work supervision. Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of ethics. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Author.
View publication stats
O’Brien, M. (2010). Social justice: Alive and well (partly) in social
work practice? International Social Work, 54(2), 174–190.
Pattillo-McCoy, M. (1999). Black picket fences: Privilege and peril
among the Black middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Poole, J. (2010). Perspectives on supervision in human services: Gaz-
ing through critical and feminist lenses. Michigan Family Review.
https​://doi.org/10.3998/mfr.49190​87.0014.107.
Reisch, M. (2002). Defining social justice in a socially unjust world.
Families in Society, 83(4), 343–354.
Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R. O. (2005). Use of critical consciousness in
anti-oppressive social work practice: Disentangling power dynam-
ics at personal and structural levels. British Journal of Social
Work, 35, 435–452.
Schneider, R., & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new
framework for action. Belmont: Brooks Cole.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How social
work has abandoned its mission. New York: The Free Press.
Swenson, C. (1998). Clinical social work’s contribution to a social
justice perspective. Social Work, 43(6), 527–537.
Testa, M. F. (2017). Introduction: Kinship care policy and practice:
(First issue). Child Welfare, 95(3), 13–39.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in
teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational
Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social
work revisited. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 69(1),
25–57.
Kenta Asakura  is an Assistant Professor at the Carleton University
School of Social Work in Ottawa, Ontario. He is also the Director of
Integrative Simulation-Based Research Lab that aims to advance clini-
cal social work education and practice. He maintains clinical consulta-
tion practice in Ottawa.
Katherine Maurer  is an Assistant Professor in the McGill University
School of Social Work and member of the Centre for Child and Family
Research. She practiced trauma-focused clinical social work in NYC.
She studies the physiological impact of exposure to extreme stressors
on self-regulation capacities in adolescence and adults.
13