Author Note

Bradley A. Janey is at the Department of Psychology and Counseling at Marywood University.

This study was supported by the Fulbright Scholarship Program administered by the Council for the International Exchange of Scholars.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bradley A. Janey, 2300 Adams Ave., Scranton PA, 18509, USA. Email: janey@maryu.marywood.edu

Introduction.

If asked, most professional counseling graduates could readily name their clinical supervisors from their initial field placements. In part because individual supervision has been a required training modality since CACREP’s inception (CACREP, 1981), but also because of the formative, enduring nature of the relationship that develops between a supervisor and supervisee. Counseling graduates would also likely be able to provide detailed characterizations that could run the gamut between “fondness” and “fear.” An unending list of adjectives might follow to describe these first supervisory relationships with such terms as “rocky,” “warm and supportive,” “scary,” “enlightening,” etc. Each clinical psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist, or any other related clinician would probably be able to do the same, since Bernard and Goodyear argue it is the “signature pedagogy” of all mental health professions (Bernard & Goodyear, 2018).

The widespread use of clinical supervision as an educational intervention extends beyond formal training programs, into pursuit of post-graduate certification and licensure.  All 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, require an average of two years or 3000 hours of supervised experience to become Licensed Professional Counselors (American Counseling Association, 2015). Requirements for post-graduate credentials are similar for psychologists (APA; Dittmann, 2004) marriage and family therapists (Association for Marriage and Family Therapists, N.D.) and social workers (Russiano, 2020). Thus it can be said that wherever mental health services are offered to the public, one will also find practicing clinical supervisors.

For some time, as counseling and associated fields have propagated and spread to other countries, clinical supervision has followed close behind. For example, it is an obligatory training component in Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe (O’Donovan, Halford, & Walters, 2011; Hunsley & Barker, 2011; Ögren & Sundin, 2008; Burke, Moore, Newman, & Orr, 1999). Supervised clinical practice is also required for membership in professional organizations such as the International Mental Health Professionals Japan (IMHPJ: Enns & McRae, 2007) and the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP: N.D.). Furthermore, clinical supervision has received increasing attention from scholars in Korea (Bang & Park-Saltzman, 2009; Bang & Goodyear, 2014), South Africa (Hendricks & Cartwright, 2018) China (Deng, J., Qian, M., Gan, Y., Hu, S., Gao, J., Huang, Z., & Zhang, L. 2022) Malta (Dione, 2008) Kenya (Kiteki, Yong, Hart & Onyambu, 2022) and India (Bhola, Raguram, Dugyala & Ravishankar, 2017)

All of these indicators suggest clinical supervision is in a robust international growth phase. While it is too early to characterize it as universal across the globe, it does seem to be ubiquitous. There is however, one notable exception: The Russian Federation. A search of English and Russian language journals on supervision brings up a very limited number of publications. One paper mentions the ethics code of the Russian Psychological Society in which the practice of clinical supervision is briefly addressed twice (Falender, 2020). First in the context of psychologists’ obligation to ensure those under their direct supervision adhere to ethical standards as outlined, and second that ethical dilemmas should be resolved with “the appropriate combination of reflection, supervision, and consultation” (Russian Psychological Society Code of Ethics, 2012, section 2, competence). The only other paper from Russia that mentions clinical supervision, pertains to the supervision of peers working alongside psychologists and other staff in a narcology hospital using manualized care (Gnatienko, Han, Krupitsky, et al, 2016).

There were only two empirical studies in which supervision was tested as a variable using Russian samples. One was in English, and the other in Russian. The first tested the relationship of a number of variables including supervision to predict burnout among psychiatric trainees in 22 countries, one of which was Russia (Jovanović & Podlesek, 2016). The second published in Russian, investigated supervisor and supervisee views of what constituted a successful experience with supervision (Varga, Galasyuk, Mitina, 2022). This study used a sample of 103 trainees and results indicated they considered their supervision successful if they increased in their knowledge base, resulted in a stronger professional identity, and the development of supervisees’ enhanced capacity to focus on their clients. From the perspective of supervisors, these domains were viewed as complementary and inseparable from each other (2022).

Given the paucity of published studies on clinical supervision in Russia, there appears to be ample opportunity to make unique contributions to the supervision literature by expanding the map where it is studied to include the Russian Federation, generally, and specifically in Siberia. Data gathered in this region would have the advantage of substantial ecological validity. Results could be of significant utility for supervisors working in Russia who wish to be as informed as possible on what their peers may be doing, and how that may impact the professional development of their supervisees.

With these potential benefits in mind, the research team settled on an exploratory, qualitative design. Such a design was favored over quantitative methods for two reasons. First, a qualitative approach would permit a smaller sample than quantitative methods (Crouch & Mackenzie, 2006). This is an important practical advantage in a region where supervision is less common, and therefore less likely to yield enough potential participants to support quantitative hypothesis testing. Second, the published literature on clinical supervision from Russia is such that a deductive process of formulating and testing hypotheses would require an overreliance on Western supervision literature. This would fall short of the “enlightened globalization” aspiration argued for by Falendar & colleagues (Falendar, et a., 2021). Thus, the phenomenological, inductive nature of a qualitative design was considered by the research team to be a better fit for investigating clinical supervision in the Siberian region of the Russian Federation.

Method

Participants

Because experience with supervision is uncommon in the Siberian region of the Russian Federation, chain reference sampling was used to identify and recruit clinicians that had received clinical supervision either during their initial training, or at some point during their careers. Nineteen working clinicians were identified and provided with an informed consent letter that described the risks and benefits associated with their participation. After signed consent letters were returned, participants were scheduled for interviews. They ranged in age from 25 to 62 (M = 37.71, SD =8.7). Seventeen identified as female, two as male, and all were working full time as professional psychologists when interviews were conducted. Experience ranged from 2 to 20 years (M = 10.42, SD = 5.24). All reported receiving either individual or group supervision as a part of their initial training, or in the course of their duties in a variety of settings. These settings include public schools (1), private practice (6), university settings (3), the Russian military (2) or private corporations (4).

Researchers and Interview Protocol

The lead researcher was a visiting scholar from a graduate counselor education program in the north eastern United States. The research team members consisted of eight undergraduate students attending a university in the Siberian region of the Russian Federation. Two identified as male, and five identified as female with an age range of 19-22, (M =20.54; SD = 1.2). Before data collection, team members received 10 hours of instruction and practice in basic interviewing from the lead researcher. To ensure a minimum level of competence after initial training, each was asked to submit a transcribed practice interview that was evaluated for consistent and appropriate use of counseling micro-skills (Ivey & Ivey, 2014). At the time of data collection, interviewers had an academic understanding of clinical supervision, but none had direct experience receiving it either individually or in a group.

All interviews were conducted in Russian and followed a long form semi-structured format (McCraken, 1988). Data was analyzed using the Consensual Qualitative Research process (Hill, Thomas & Williams, 1997) which involved identifying the ideas expressed by interviewees. These ideas were organized for qualitative themes, which were continually cross-checked with raw data. Objectives were broad, and queries centered around an exploration of each interviewee’s experience receiving clinical supervision either as part of their initial training, and/or later clinical practice. Before interviews commenced, participants were provided with an operational definition of clinical supervision adopted by the research team, translated into Russian (Inskipp & Proctor, 2001). If participants felt that definition fit with their experience, they were retained in the sample and were interviewed by research team members.

Data gathered consisted of narratives that were presumed to represent the inner experience of, and reaction to, interactions with clinical supervisors while consulting on client cases obtained from supervisees’ work settings. Narrative data from interviews was analyzed using a rough approximation of the consensual qualitative research method (CQR; Hill, et al., 1997). As such, it was a bottom-up inductive process. The research team organized data into broad domains that emerged across individual interviews. These domains were further developed into core ideas the research team considered to represent their collective understanding of the interview data. Through each iteration, identified themes were continually cross-checked with original interview transcripts.

Once the research team felt the analysis was finished, data was translated from Russian into English, first using online translation. A translator fluent in Russian and English checked the online translation for accuracy, and where appropriate, corrections were made before work commenced on early drafts of the manuscript.

Results and Discussion

The focus of these interviews was the experience of interviewees’ post graduate experience with clinical supervision either in private practice, or within the context of an institution that provides mental health services. There were three primary domains that emerged from the analysis of ideas gathered in the semi-structured interviews.

Principle Domain 1: Procurement and surrogates.

Post graduate clinical supervision is difficult to find in Russia. In the first domain, participants revealed the challenges they faced in procuring a supervisor when the need for one became apparent to them. When a supervisor could not be found, some reported on stopgap measures they were left with.

Theme 1a: Procurement challenges & resistance.

There seems to be an enduring desire from interviewees to be connected to other working clinicians and to have more access to supervision. This desire stemmed from the recognition that their effectiveness could be compromised by working in isolation. Thus, limited access to a clinical supervisor was mentioned with some frequency. As one subject noted:

“…it (supervision) is done exclusively in institutions (i.e., psychiatric hospitals, the Ministry of Emergencies). The university occasionally hosts such events, but again they are one-time.”

Respondents report on periodic supervisor training opportunities and supervision does exist within larger Russian institutions, but there is a dearth of available post-graduate training opportunities to learn practical clinical supervision skills. Not surprisingly, this translates into fewer practitioners who can provide post-graduate supervision to colleagues.

The nature of the supervisor access problem appears to be logistical. A solution may come from the collective experience of coping with COVID-19, when the adoption of virtual, telepresence services became widespread. Recent research on the use of telesupervision is encouraging, and seems to indicate supervisees have an experience which is equivalent to an in-person format (Jordan & Shearer, 2019).

Some readers might expect that Russian professional organizations would have an important role to play in developing the infrastructure for accessible telesupervision. This may indeed be the case, but some interviewees were not enthusiastic about such prospects. The community of helping professionals in Siberia seems to be diffuse, and in some respects, it lacks the support of the Russian public:

“…lack of psychological communities or low percentage …practical psychology is not sufficiently recognized in our country…it is not a natural way of regulating difficulties. Such help is not approved.”

Part of this response may indirectly reference an unfortunate chapter in history from the Soviet era, in which psychiatry was used as a means to punish political dissidents, by incarcerating them in “Psikhushkas” (психушка: Russian colloquialism for psychiatric hospital; for a detailed history on the punitive use of psychiatry in the former USSR, the form it takes in modern Russia, and the diagnoses used as a pretext, see Gluzman, 1989; 2018, Smulevich, 1989, and Human Rights in Mental Health-FGIP, 2021, respectively).

According to some of those interviewed, another challenge is resistance from some colleagues. As noted by one clinician, this resistance is a symptom of larger territorial struggles among different mental health professions in Russia:

“In the institution where I work, psychologists are very small, and the management or staff are not interested in it (supervision). There is now rather a war for the role and place of a psychologist in the institution.

In sum, it appears that proponents of the discipline of supervision face formidable logistical and attitudinal challenges in Russia generally, and Siberia specifically. Given these difficulties, it is not unremarkable that some Russian clinicians persist in their efforts to procure clinical supervision in pursuit of continuing professional growth.

Theme 1b: Surrogates and stopgaps.

When participants had to proceed with clinical work without oversight and consultation with a formal supervisor, they resorted to informal methods. These included consultation with proximate colleagues, self-study, and intuition:

“When it is not clear (diagnosis) I appealed to an older colleague, or the “senior doctor.”

“…They brought me a girl who lost her mother. It was difficult to cope with this. I managed by buying books and reading a lot…intuitively understanding that I should give support.”

Participants go into some detail in later themes as they describe the contributions they felt supervisors made to their clinical effectiveness. Those participants forced to use surrogate sources in place of an actual supervisor perhaps did not experience commensurate levels of growth described later, but their conscientiousness and commitment to the welfare of their clients was such that they did not settle for trial and error.

Principle Domain 2: Supervisor qualities.

Personal qualities of individual supervisors was a prominent theme when participants described their experiences. The majority of qualities that emerged tended to be quite positive. There were, however, some qualities that supervisees experienced as negative and unhelpful.

Theme 2a: Emotional stability with a task orientation.

Cases involving child trauma can provoke intense emotional reactions from clinicians. The capacity of a supervisor to maintain a calm, detached demeanor while consulting on such cases was recognized as a crucial positive supervisor attribute. According to descriptions, it helped supervisees remain centered.

“I would probably say that calmness contributed to a sense of comfort. This supervisor was always calm, and calmly explained to you some elementary things that previously provoked negative emotions, for example. And as the supervisor explains, you understand that in fact it’s cool, great, he calms himself. That is, calmness, discretion, there can be somewhere life experience.”

Another participant echoed this sentiment, with the addition of having a task orientation in supervision. This served as a counterbalance to the intense emotions that accompanied a particular case:

“He was detached about that event. He saw that he was in charge, and had to control the situation. This was very important that there should be work, and not just for nothing, the analysis of something, and empathy, tears and so on.”

Some readers may recognize these descriptions as suggestive of an interpersonally sensitive supervision style (Friedlander & Ward, 1984) which has been linked to a stronger supervisory working alliance in western and South Korean samples (Son & Ellis, 2013). This theme is also the first of several other responses that appear to support assumptions from developmental supervision models; In the case of this latter statement, the clinical supervisor may have facilitated the supervisee’s transition from a sensorimotor to a concrete cognitive orientation. This would seem consistent with Rigazio, Daniels & Ivey’s (1997) systemic cognitive-developmental supervision model.

Theme 2b: Experience and authority.

 The level of perceived experience was viewed by participants as an important and positive supervisor quality:

“…here an important role is played by the fact that she (the supervisor) looks at the problem every time from the height of her great professional experience, and can show how the problem is represented in the world.”

Based on this description, the appearance of experience made the supervisor more credible and earned for them more authority and influence. Another participant reinforced the value of supervisor experience, adding that a novice supervisor could be viewed as having less authority and more worthy of criticism:

“…plus she is older, so she has more experience. Somehow you trust her more, listen to her. If I turned to a girl that is younger than me who just got a job, her opinion could be criticized…”

Consistent with findings from Schultz, Ososkier, Fried, Nelson and Bardos (2002) supervisors’ use of what these authors characterized as expert power had the effect of enhancing supervisee trust, resulting in a productive working alliance.

Theme 2c: Openness, benevolence & unselfishness.

In this context, the reference to openness pertained to transparency as part of the supervision process:

“Respect for the supervisor was formed because he was open and benevolent, and at the same time competent?” “…yes, absolutely right…”

 This openness was one layer among others that also included the appearance of generosity with their time and experience:

“How to see a professional job? How should this be done? This kind of person shares his experience — He does not mind…Here I saw that a man really gives his work, and explains what he does…”

In the context of this generosity supervisors maintained a professional demeanor, which implied a commitment to ethical practice by upholding informed consent with regard to compensation for services:

“She (supervisor) showed me in a real situation the role of money in the occurrence of conflict. And here, her softness, sobriety, and at the same time judiciousness, accuracy (and mine too, probably) helped to avoid any negative emotions.”

Dealing with sensitive issues such as payment for services might be qualitatively different for Russian practitioners than those in the west, since the Russian health insurance industry is significantly underfunded (Sharudenko, 2020).

Theme 2d: Authoritarian style and administrative incompetence.

This theme was populated by a relatively small number of comments that depicted an unhelpful cluster of supervisor qualities. These qualities tended to induce stress and discomfort for supervisees. The most salient was an inflexible, ridgid adherence to a formal session structure. Some viewed this as serving the needs of the supervisor more than the needs of the supervisees:

“The sensations were uncomfortable because we spoke different languages…Everything was according to the rules. He (supervisor) was very authoritarian and demanding and tough…how many questions and what kind of answers…”

This inflexible approach to supervision was perceived as selfish. It provoked a negative reaction in the supervisee that bears a tonal resemblance to results from Hutt, Scott and King’s exploration of experiences in supervision (1983) in which a rigid and authoritarian supervision approach accounted for the supervisees’ negative reactions. Some respondents speculated this inflexibility was a manifestation of impairment due to unresolved personal issues:

“It turned out that he (supervisor) solves his personal problems at the expense of you. He took the role of teacher. Directivity. Hard, ugly estimates. It turned out to be unproductive and this man went away…he did not care about my development. His development was important to him.”

The final comment implies administrative incompetence, as evidenced by poor screening of members in a group supervision setting:

“Once I was in group supervision in another city with an unfamiliar group. The supervisor did not clearly define the rules of supervision and one participant started to attack. It seems to me that he should have gently sent this participant to her own therapy. It destroyed the boundaries of this space. The supervisor must interview the group (members) before including the person in the group.”

The obvious must be stated; Supervision does not always go well. In the case of the latter comment, the misstep from the group supervisor may have taken the form of unclear ground rules, and ineffective screening of group members. These errors apparently set the stage for role conflict and ambiguity which are elements known to undermine productive supervision (Nelson & Friedlander, 2001).

Principle Domain 3: Benefits of clinical supervision.

As noted earlier, obtaining postgraduate supervision in Russia can be a challenging process, especially outside of Moscow. Since there is no licensure for counselors or psychologists in the Russian Federation, there is less incentive to obtain a clinical supervisor. There are however, those who are sufficiently motivated to seek out supervision anyway, either as a regular adjunct to their clinical work, or on an episodic basis. For those that have had such firsthand experience sufficient to develop informed opinions, what benefits did they experience as a result?

Theme 3a: Deeper awareness of your work.

 This theme speaks to an expansion of the supervisees’ awareness of the process and mechanisms of clinical work. Participants credit supervisors for making them more astute observers of what they were doing, and for helping them to see their work in a more expansive context.

“Expanding visions about the ways of working with the client, the possibility of expanding consciousness, understanding, working out difficult places, identifying zones of growth.”

Awareness included blind spots that were reduced and larger themes common across cases were revealed, in consultation with a clinical supervisor:

“After (supervision) came the awareness of the blind zones in the work…how to work…and how it is realized.”

“When you have experience of long-term relationships with customers, you notice that something is common when working with all of them.

Countertransference becomes more apparent while it is happening, giving supervisees the confidence they needed to put it in a more helpful perspective:

“I learned to abstract a little from the experiences in the work. I understood that there is a man with some difficult life situations, and I should not dive into emotions. My task is to help. That is, I put up such a glass barrier.”

These comments seem to credit supervisors who facilitated the reflection process with their supervisees. This reflection allowed a deeper understanding of the process that may have utility with other clients. In this case, reflection seemed to be related to the issues of case conceptualization and personhood (Bernard, 1979, 1997), which appears to be consistent with assumptions from reflective developmental supervision models (Schön, 1987).

Theme 3b: Resolving an impasse (or not).

It can be frustrating and confusing for a therapist when they have gotten ‘stuck’ or reached an impasse in a challenging case. For some participants, it was just such an impasse that led them to seek out consultation with a supervisor:

“The request with which I came: Difficult places…I do not understand where to move on. We define it with the supervisor. Supervisor helped the client to advance on his own request. On supervision, I can understand more about the client.”

“I turn to the supervisor when I get stuck with a client at some place…”

In some cases, guidance from a supervisor was key to the resolution of such an impasse:

“This one supervisory session was enough for me to understand the client very fully…to change the treatment tactic, goals, potential treatment time.”

Even when the resolution of an impasse remained momentarily out of reach, consultation with a supervisor reduced the anxiety and emotional burden of it:

“It became more clear…the situation. Because I consulted, and saw there is no feedback, no motivation, no desire to work. And when I discussed…I realized I was doing everything right, but the person (client) simply does not want to change himself.”

These responses seem suggestive of the stagnation, frustration, and integration stages from the Loganbill, Hardy and Delworth supervision model (1982). They may also fit with  “trigger” or “marker” events that initiate the reflective process described in reflective and events-based developmental models (Schon, 1987; Hinett, 2002; Ladany, Friedlander & Nelson, 2005).

Theme 3c: Overcoming difficulties encountered in practice.

This theme illustrates the role that supervisors played when therapists encountered a challenge that came in the form of knowledge or skill deficits they were not cognizant of until it was exposed during clinical work. For example, one participant felt that consulting with a supervisor increased their skill and comfort level working with children:

“It is easier to work with children because I understand them better; what happens, how it happens. And by the way, children respond very well to this. Teenagers are difficult, with difficult destinies. But they came, we talked…understood each other. And even now-we have a small town- meet on the street, catch up, say hello. It’s very nice that the help was effective.”

The contributions this supervisor made appear to stem from an understanding of child and adolescent development, and how this understanding could be used to communicate more effectively with this population. For another therapist working with an adolescent, the challenge was an emotional one which sometimes exceeded their capacity to cope. The supervisor in this case served as an important safety net and source of emotional support:

“When I was working with a girl who lost a child, I had supervision. It was an opportunity at some difficult times, when I realized that there were not enough personal resources. I could leave the office and call (supervisor) and receive some advice, recommendations for work.”

Responses in this category seem to indicate supervisors were either using a blend of the teacher and counselor roles from Bernard’s Discrimination model (1979, 1997) or a supervisory style with a high support and low direction framework (Friedland & Ward, 1984; Hart & Nance, 2003). Without the perspective from the supervisors working with these therapists, it is difficult to be more specific.

Theme 3d: Professional/personal growth.

This theme is the broadest and most diverse the research team was able to identify. The majority of ideas illustrate the personal and professional growth experienced, which participants felt was directly attributable to the supervision they obtained. One participant made direct reference to these domains of growth while also addressing potential misapprehensions of colleagues about the objectives of supervision:

“An important way of professional development is supervising. [There was a] change in attitude towards supervision. Many professionals do not use supervision because they are afraid of getting an assessment. Supervision is not equal to assessment. Supervision is the growth zone.”

Participants felt supervision changed their views on the issues facing specific populations such as adolescents, or strengthened their technical skills with specialized client issues such as grief:

“…I was introduced to very interesting techniques, how to work in a situation of experiencing grief, what to look for, what words to choose, how to support…”

Clinical supervisors were also instrumental in correcting misconceptions supervisees may have had about themselves as professionals. This had the effect of instilling a modicum of confidence that reduced self-recrimination for perceived missteps:

“There was an appeal when it seemed to me that I was a bad therapist, and we worked to find some of my good, therapeutic, sustainable qualities.”

In service to the primary theme, this section seems to cover areas in which these supervisees experienced substantial direct benefits from their experience receiving clinical supervision. As these comments suggest, benefits encompass the domains of conceptualization, personhood, and intervention, as outlined in the Bernard supervision model (Bernard, 1979; 1997).

Theme 3e: An outside perspective.

This theme highlights the benefit of gaining a new perspective on clinical work. When working in isolation and without consultation, therapists can become vulnerable to confirmation bias. Assumptions operating in the background can go unchallenged and unchanged. Thus supervision appeared to provide participants an antidote to confirmation bias. As one participant stated:

“When there is [group] supervision and many points of view, it is useful sometimes. When I presented my case for supervision, and those things which I explained inside myself started to surface and appear not so logical. You understand you are deceiving yourself inside. When the (supervision) group begins to ask you simple questions, you cannot hide it from yourself…”

For several interviewees, this new perspective led to approaches they had not considered previously because they were unknown to them. In some cases it was known, but in retrospect had not been given sufficient consideration:

“Supervision is very important-it turns out to be a kind of brainstorming…looking at the problem from different points of view, one immediately remembers what you know, but that you forgot…you see some new sides…You get a whole image of the phenomenon.”

For some, the value of an external perspective helped instill confidence that what they were seeing in some of their cases were not distortions, and they were going in productive directions:

“I turned to her [supervisor] for experience…I realized I had many questions, and we just learned each other’s opinions. I wanted to find out if I think correctly. And she somehow put it all on the shelves. I understood I was right in what I initially thought…I learned something. I really learned something.”

Much of this theme was reflective of the consultation function of supervision (Bernard, 1979; 1997), in which experience and expertise is shared between the supervisor and supervisee in the context of an egalitarian relationship. It sometimes resulted in a new direction with intervention and conceptualization. Other times the therapist was reassured that their perceptions were shared by their supervisors, and a change in direction might not be warranted.

Limitations and directions of future research

This study relied on a small number of participants from a localized area, limiting generalizability. Future researchers might want to conduct similar interviews in different Siberian population centers such as Irkutsk, Barnaul, Omsk, and Novosibirsk. These are some of the larger cities in Siberia with universities that produce large numbers of graduates from disciplines allied with counseling and clinical psychology.

Another limitation may be the depth of the interviews that were conducted by the research team. Each member received substantial training both in basic interviewing, and in the CRQ method used for organizing the data. However, time was limited because of the scheduled departure of the lead researcher. Thus, the team cannot be confident that a saturation point typically associated with CQR methods was reached. For this reason, the broad domains and the resulting themes described should be considered if not superficial, at least preliminary.

A longer stay in Siberia by the lead researcher may have allowed more depth in the analysis, and perhaps follow-up interviews to explore other questions that arose from the initial interviews. One particularly tantalizing topic would have been the response from one interviewee, that may have been indicative of public mistrust of mental health professions, possibly rooted in Soviet history and the punitive use of psychiatry. While team members believe such mistrust is much less prevalent among younger Siberians, what role might it play among older generations considering seeking help, and how do clinicians respond to it?

The results of this study are also limited to the experience of supervisees. This is only half the picture. Researchers interested in the cross-cultural study of clinical supervision may wish to investigate the perspective of Siberian supervisors, and their experiences supervising their colleagues. These supervisors might serve as important sources of information on the topic of post-graduate supervisor training. What training did they receive in preparation for their role, and what are their views on what would constitute effective supervisor training? They might also provide a valuable perspective on the challenges their colleagues face in finding a post-graduate supervisor which emerged in this study.

Conclusion

Very little has been written and published on the practice of clinical supervision in the Russian Federation. The current study appears to be among the first that explores the experience of receiving clinical supervision from more remote regions of Russia. As such, it may be a useful starting point for future researchers who are interested in the study of supervision in Eurasian samples using either exploratory methods, or a quantitative design. The themes that emerged suggest first, the process of finding a supervisor in Siberia is challenging, but professional outreach combined with video conferencing may prove helpful. Second, those therapists who were able to obtain supervisors were richly rewarded both personally and professionally, in ways that western clinicians and educators might find familiar. Qualities of the supervisors referenced here may also serve as an important point of reference for training supervisors practicing elsewhere in the Russian Federation.

A final point that may need to be addressed are the world events that at the time of this writing, are still unfolding. No one is left untouched by these events, including the authors of this paper. And no one can know what the eventual outcome will be. It may be quite some time before scholars from Russia and those interested in Russia, can return to the same levels of cooperation and collaboration they (we) have engaged in for the last 30 years. We are however hopeful that such a time will return. When it does, the Russian public will be in great need of competently supervised mental health professionals.