Editor’s note

The articles in the December 2022 issue of The Clinical Supervisor illustrate several key aims and goals of the journal, particularly as the only multi-disciplinary and multi-national publication on clinical supervision.

First, the five articles were written by authors located in four countries: China, India, South Africa, and the US. Such an international presence is an intentional hallmark of The Clinical Supervisor, as indicated by its subtitle (“an international and interdisciplinary journal of theory, research, and practice”). It is notable that supervision scholars in multiple nations selected The Clinical Supervisor as a preferred outlet for sharing their important work.

Second, most of the authors in this issue incorporated relevant clinical supervision literature from professions other than their own. In line with former Editors Larry Shulman and Andrew Safyer, I (Borders, 2022) also have lamented that authors tend to have “disciplinary tunnel vision” (Shulman & Safyer, 2004, p. 1). In their discussion sections, the authors sometimes highlight their “new” or “novel” findings, when quite similar, relevant results have been published in other fields. There are certainly differences in the delivery and context of clinical supervision in various fields and countries. Over the decades, however, many commonalities – core foundations and key dynamics at the heart of clinical supervision practice – have been reported, consistently and repeatedly, in the literature, across disciplines and nations. It is a high priority for The Clinical Supervisor to assist readers in becoming aware of others’ perspectives around the clinical supervision issues driving their own scholarship. Reading – and incorporating – clinical supervision literature from other disciplines and countries can only extend, enrich, and deepen our thinking, to the advantage of all supervision researchers, practitioners, and educators (Borders, 2022).

Third, across the five articles, readers will find a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, as appropriate to the research questions and existing knowledge about each topic. The state of knowledge around clinical supervision certainly signals the ongoing need for multiple approaches to discovering new knowledge, in new and evolving areas, as well as confirming and extending existing knowledge.

Finally, the authors in this issue addressed pressing, contemporary issues impacting both supervisees’ clinical work and supervisors’ approaches for supporting supervisees. For example, readers will find descriptions of supervisors’ responses to the pandemic and the current political climate in the US. Clinical supervision practitioners must constantly adapt their work to address external pressures that impact the lives of clients/patients as well as the clinicians/practitioners who seek to serve them. And researchers are called upon to document these efforts and explore their effectiveness. The Clinical Supervisor seeks to be at the forefront in reporting such developments in response to current issues.

I hope you learn from and are inspired by the articles in this issue of The Clinical Supervisor. If intrigued, you will find additional ideas and insights in the June 2023 issue of the journal – a special issue on clinical supervision collaborations that were intentionally cross-disciplinary and/or cross-national from the very beginning.

How might you contribute to these key aims and goals of The Clinical Supervisor?