SESIONES TÍPICAS DE ECAs

Charlotte was based in a community development organisation in an inner-city area with a large social housing population. The agency ran a series of services in conjunction with the residents and provided placement opportunities for four to eight social work students each year. The agency was well respected and worked closely with a range of organisations, including the neighbouring university. Charlotte was a very experienced Field Educator, having supervised students from a range of universities over a period of more than 10 years. Charlotte saw supervising students as a Field Educator an expression of her commitment to the social work profession. She saw her perspective on supervision as tied to her personal qualities and was critical (or doubting) of herself as a Field Educator.

In the videotaped supervision session, Charlotte was supporting Judith, completing her final placement of an undergraduate degree. Judith had a prior tertiary qualification but had chosen to study social work as a consequence of her experiences as a refugee. She was approaching the midpoint of her placement. Judith was engaged in the general work of the agency, and seemed particularly aware of the poverty and inequality she encountered in this community.

At the time of the interview, Charlotte was supervising two social work students, and so was able to make comparisons between the different approaches she took to the different students, as well as compare the videotaped supervision session with previous

experiences. Using the videotaped supervision session as stimulus, Charlotte identified a number of strategies she used to support student learning. A priority for Charlotte was the creation of an environment in which students could learn, although the nature of this environment differed between students:

I think it’s developing students’ social work practice quite simply. But I think it should be a supportive learning environment, where they can be challenged and they can challenge, so the challenge can go both ways, um, and I think Judith is a nice example because over time she’s just shifted hugely. She’s got this really nice balance of asking questions but then taking a lot, going and being very self- directed in her learning, so going away and reading lots and talking to people and she’s very reflective, very reflective. There’s a little bit of a time frame you know we talk about reflecting, reflecting, reflecting to actually taking an action or changing or moving. Supervision in terms of students I think is really about supporting their learning and supporting them to, particularly in fourth year, to start to know what their social work identity is. You know we’re not all clones of each other so to understand what is unique about them and their practice. (Charlotte, Field Educator)

Charlotte thought it was important to acknowledge that each student was an adult learner, already carrying knowledge when they came on placement. This included recognising the students’ history and differences, their strengths and limitations. Such an approach allowed for differences between students and accommodated what Charlotte perceived to be their limitations, including in what they had learned and not yet learned at university. While Charlotte had significant experience as a Field

Educator, she still found the multiple roles of providing support, information, challenges and accountability complex and at times difficult:

I think part of it, I think part of it is setting up the structure, initially, so you know, having a discussion around the purpose of supervision and being honest about [it], [that] … you’re a student, that there is an accountability and

assessment component to it etc, or whatever, um, I think being open about you know, that it is, it is a confidential session, it is about her learning and

development um, (pause) It’s hard … Well probably, it may be having a combination of being willing to provide information, to answer questions, and then at other times asking her to have a think about it. Like asking her, why do you think, why do you think things are like that? So perhaps there’s a balance. (Charlotte, Field Educator)

Charlotte identified that supervision was richest when the student had at least an average level of self-awareness, and was comfortable enough, indeed confident enough, to take risks in a safe environment and state her opinions. Explaining the purpose of supervision—that it was about the student’s learning and development and that the session was confidential—was for her, a key element of building the trust needed to enable learning. But a corollary of this was also being direct about the requirement for accountability and assessment. Establishing a strong relationship and a structure which

incorporated this element aided the student in developing this trust. Supervision

sessions for Charlotte also provided a site in which to connect theory and practice, with a strong focus on reflection and learning. Charlotte indicated she sought to foster an environment which enabled mutual learning between Field Educator and student. In this way, learning was not didactic nor was it sequential, with shifts in understanding

occurring over time:

I think Judith is really open to learning and she has been since the beginning and I think that’s something personal to her. Um, I think that she’s very genuine in terms of where she’s at in her thinking, and being open about – she’s not

concerned, she’s not going to come across as judgemental particularly, but she’s, she’s not curbing her language whereas some students might. I think as in all [our] supervision we just have a relationship which works nicely, with trust there between us which, I won’t say was instantaneous, but it didn’t take long to build up. And I think for me that part of supervision’s really um you know if you can get to that point of a trusting relationship, where it’s OK to question, and it’s OK to be the devil’s advocate, and it’s OK to push the boundaries then I think you kind of … it flows nicely, and it’s, you both—supervisor and supervisee—both get something … You know there’s learning for you both in there. I think sometimes I wish I had picked up on some things [in supervision] … may be challenged or, I do and I don’t, because with Judith in particular, because I know that over time she’s reflecting and she’s doing things I think it’s nice for her to come to things in her own time, to reach another conclusion or for her thinking to shift on her own, rather than feeling as though she now thinks that way because she’s been challenged and that’s the way she should think. And I think Judith is mature enough and she’s got such a strong sense of identity that she

doesn’t go along with [whatever I say] she’d be willing to engage more, in being challenging, if she didn’t agree with what you say [she would let you know] in her own quiet, very respectful way (laugh). (Charlotte, Field Educator)

The strategies used by Charlotte were shaped by the context of the setting, a large social housing community in inner Sydney, and practice approach (community development). For Charlotte, this context was not one which was well supported by the social work degree, resulting in many students struggling:

I mean it’s a challenge for um, the students to come into a community development setting, because so much of the degree is focused, as much as I know most of the staff will say it’s about individual, family and community, the students don’t experience it like that—90% of the students who come through here. And we’d have these conversations about ‘where the hell is this

community content in the course?’ and we’d say well it’s not there. Or if it is, it’s interwoven with so many other ways that it’s not clear to students. It doesn’t sit as a unit of study like … and families or health inequalities or social policy … (Charlotte, Field Educator)

Not surprisingly given this context, power and structural disadvantage were two concepts which occurred repeatedly in Charlotte’s interview and videotaped supervision session. Such concepts included power derived from personal knowledge, the power of the social work profession and institutional power. These emerged as overarching concepts in the videotaped supervision session, with Judith reflecting on resident experiences and her own. Interestingly, this exploration of power was also shaped by Judith’s personal history as a refugee, which enabled her to identify the abuse of power and to illustrate her understanding of how disempowering such abuse can be. This enabled a nuanced discussion of power, with Judith acknowledging her professional

power as a social work student in the community. This understanding of power and privilege emerged over the placement from reflection, experience and knowledge. The following extract (drawn from the videotaped supervision sessions) illustrates this:

Judith: [When I first started here] I said ‘oh, they are having everything, medical is free, they are getting all the services and they are still going down [to

emergency relief for help]’. And looking at the school kids I said ‘they have got a bus ticket, they have got computers and everything, they have got everything, at their disposal, and they are still not making use of it, so they are the ones which are responsible for their situation’.

Charlotte: So what’s changed in your mind?

Judith: What has really changed me was [remembering the] social policy [unit of study]. We did something [in class] about the money, like the welfare, the

money which is being given to families, and when you look at what they are supposed to spend, and with this money you want to fit it all in there and when you think of raising up a child in this country, it’s very expensive.

Charlotte identified a number of challenges for students specific to the community development practice context; in particular, ‘boundary management’:

And I guess the other, the other part about boundaries and seeing other

colleagues practice community work, there’s a huge difference in terms of how people will um, manage boundaries. Social workers tend to be similar, but because in community work we are working with people who are not from a social work background, they do that quite differently. And I think we’re ingrained in social work, you know it’s one of those things we are trained so heavily in, is the management of boundaries but [social work education is] very much based on that worker–client relationship, but I think in community work,

um, it is very different and the longer you work in a community as well, the more they get to know about you and I think the more you feel comfortable you get to know the community of people, you get a sense of what’s useful and what’s not useful. (Charlotte, Field Educator)

For Charlotte, theory offered a range of ways of working; it informed and supported a social worker’s practice. How this happens depended on the context of practice, which theories were drawn on and how theory was used. She spoke of her way of helping the student, that if they came wanting to talk about a theory she would ask for some advance warning so she can prepare. If the student did not want to talk about theories or was not interested, she would ask them specifically to come next time with a theory or an article which both would prepare and discuss. For Charlotte, ‘it is much more intentional’. The use of theory to inform practice was identified by Charlotte as one of the biggest differences between social workers and welfare workers:

Social work theory? Well it’s knowledge and framework which supports the way we practice. Given the range of um, gives us a range of options in terms of how we do that. So depending on how you draw on theory or which theory you draw on yourself, across the various contexts of social worker, and I guess that’s possibly um, the biggest difference between welfare workers and social workers, is having that theory which does inform what we do and supports what we do … and sometimes it’s a bit of an excuse for decisions we are making, and I think it does, it does, give the profession a bit of rigour in a way. You know we’re not I guess … in simplistic terms, we’re not just here being do-gooders. There’s a rationale, there’s a reason for what we’re doing and that kind of knowledge, the base knowledge which the degree provides in terms of um sociology,

theories are then more specific about, we engage in various context. (Charlotte, Field Educator)

During the interview Charlotte reflected she had found that the linking of theories and practices was different for each student, and she sought to work with each student’s style. She had seen that some settled on just one theory, while others went back and forth between experience and theories. In Charlotte’s opinion, one of the theories which was particularly useful in community work was systems theory, as it helped to lift the students’ view of social issues beyond the individual to social structures and more complex issues. She found that some students came with a really clear understanding of structural issues, while others came much more focused on what was happening for individual.