EXPOSICIÓN DE MOTIVOS DEL ESTATUTO GENERAL

Participants’ experiences of fieldwork supervision varied from those who had solely positive one-to-one encounters, to those whose experiences included difficult supervision with strained relationships. Lachlan was one of the participants who had very positive fieldwork supervision experiences. He described his fieldwork supervisor as “…helpful and encouraging…super friendly…warm…collaborative…useful and helpful [providing the] sense at the end of the session that you got what you were hoping for.” Similarly both Rona’s one-to-one supervision experiences were positive and she recalled them as “supportive, challenging, open, [and] reflective.” In contrast to these affirming experiences, Rangimarie experienced supervision with one supervisor as “long and drawn out…[as if] it’s there, but it’s not.”

68

Although some participants had experiences of unsatisfactory fieldwork supervision, all participants had at least one positive experience of supervision. Heeni for example described another of her supervision arrangements as “fantastic” and Rangimarie described two of her supervisors as “very knowledgeable, very experienced” and who, importantly for her, she believed evidenced the skills to assist her to improve her practice.

Despite receiving unsatisfactory supervision in her first fieldwork supervision experience Heeni reflected on what she had gained from that experience. She described her first experience and her sense of regret of what supervision could have been:

I will be honest it was horrible at first and it grew better over time as I kind of gained an understanding of supervision and how I could best utilise it and how my field educator liked to run supervision and stuff...It wasn’t an ideal relationship for me…it sounds horrible to say it, to kind of describe it that way because I did get a lot out of it in the finish. It’s just there was potential for me to learn so much more and I kind of regret that I didn’t…either that a) I didn’t take charge of the sessions more, and b) I didn’t have a very good grasp of what supervision was and what I wanted from it so, there was a lot of potential for it to get better, but it was mostly just tolerable.

In appraising the quality of supervision he received, Lachlan cited the extremely unsatisfactory workplace supervision experiences he had between his two fieldwork supervision encounters as useful comparisons. For him those negative workplace experiences emphasised the value of the fieldwork supervision he had experienced: “I mean it’s kind of easier to explain because you have experienced other kinds of supervision too…because you can only know really what something’s like if it’s kind of compared to something else.”

Jordan had great difficulty in assessing his fieldwork supervision experiences, in part due to the extensive unsatisfactory experience of supervision he had prior to undergoing his social work training. Jordan’s previous experiences highlighted the tension he experienced in supervision being used for measuring performance, a pressure repeated by virtue of being a student on practicum. For him, this contributed to his lack of clarity about what he could reasonably expect from supervision.

69

With the exception of Jordan who changed placements part-way through practicum and consequently needed a supervisor for his new fieldwork agency, the provision of alternative supervision arrangements were driven by supervisor circumstances rather than student need. Examples included previously unscheduled supervisor absence from the workplace, the resignation of a supervisor, and the opportunity to undertake supervision as professional development. The supervision model experienced by Nina in her first practicum reflects a co-supervision model, a model strongly endorsed by Coulton and Krimmer (2005).

Other one-to-one supervision experiences include cultural supervision which Rangimarie and Heeni both had for one of their practicum. Rangimarie requested cultural supervision for her first placement so was pleased to be able to engage someone familiar to her from the list of training provider-approved supervisors. Heeni had access to a kaumatua for cultural support at her first fieldwork placement, although she and the kaumatua did not meet regularly. Because Heeni was still grappling with what supervision was and how best to use it in her first placement, her cultural supervision was an evolutionary process as she developed her understanding of what she needed and determined what the kaumatua could provide. She recalls: “It was more just for me like the experience of working alongside him and talking to him, it was just about cultural development is kind of what I labelled it in the end. Which I guess is supervision...” Cultural supervision was also part of supervision with her Māori fieldwork educator in the Kaupapa Māori organisation where she completed that particular fieldwork placement, but because of a relationship breakdown with that supervisor, supervision tapered off over time.

Participants had limited experience of cultural supervision. Jordan for example was provided cultural supervision as part of his one-to-one supervision with his fieldwork educator in his first placement, and he had access to Māori staff for cultural supervision in both his other placement agencies. While Jordan did not access any of these personnel specifically for cultural supervision, his first placement was in a small town where he had been for a long time, and where he had excellent networks in the Māori community. Because of this, Jordan felt that the strength of his existing networks allowed him access to appropriate people for cultural guidance if needed.

70

Overall, participants’ views about Kaupapa Māori and cultural supervision highlighted questions of what might constitute ‘cultural supervision’. In seeking to understand participants’ use of the term ‘cultural supervision’ it was apparent that the term was widely used yet varyingly understood. ‘Cultural supervision’ as referred to by the participants might relate to: situations where participants specifically sought advice and guidance on a cultural matter; discussing an issue relating to a Māori client (whether the supervisor was Māori or non-Māori); or the development of the participant’s own bicultural practice skills. Limited probing around these questions demonstrated how differently these forms of supervision were understood or utilised, and raised the question of whether or not these various elements represent ‘cultural supervision’ as defined in the literature (O'Donoghue, 2010; Walsh-Tapiata & Webster, 2004b).

In summary, participants indicated a range of satisfaction levels from their one-to-one supervision experiences, although over time the experiences allowed participants to grasp the purpose and process of supervision more clearly, thereby shaping the participants’ future expectations of supervision. This finding corresponds to O’Donoghue’s (2012) study of the impact of supervision histories on supervisees’ expectations and behaviour. There was a perceived difference between the supervision content with fieldwork educators compared to external supervisors.

Cultural supervision (in one case externally provided and in the other case internally provided) was provided for two Māori students at their request. It was also available for a non-Māori student although he did not define the consultation he sought regarding Māori clients as cultural supervision. The various understandings of what constitutes cultural supervision prompts questions about how cultural supervision is understood by both students and by supervisors, and how it is accessed and resourced in fieldwork placements.