Social work is a profession of doing. It is fundamentally the application of knowledge and practice with others. So, at the core, the function of good social work supervision should be the application of practice. Helping and teaching new social workers how to actually put into place what they know about helping people in the real world. There is, of course, some overlap between the two, and I do not want to suggest a prescriptive approach.
For some practitioners, supervision records will include getting the basics right or compliance with practice standards. For all, it should be an ambitious expectation for the best possible interventions and a place for professional dialogue and debate.
Will they understand how decisions were arrived at and the rationale for particular interventions? The decision-making resulting from supervision is clearly relevant here.
Critically, that same record will be used in future years, when the child, now an adult, seeks to understand their childhood and how they came to be brought up as and where they were. Children and families have a right to receive help and care from properly qualified and experienced practitioners who are continually developing their practice. Effective supervision is a cornerstone of this development, while the way it is recorded is a means of evidencing that professionalism.
Follow Yvette on Twitter. Keep up-to-date with social care news at Ofsted by signing up for email alerts. You can also follow Ofsted on Twitter. Tags: local authorities , social work , supervision. Comment by Vicki Saunders posted on on 29 October Fab but what about guidance in terms of performance issues and how to challenge effectively in supervision? By submitting a comment you understand it may be published on this public website. Lo discusses the importance of understanding the context in which the program will be implemented and how context influences the structure and design of the supervision framework.
This video is part of a series of practitioner learning videos from Cambodia. Brandon and colleagues stress the importance of effective and accessible supervision. This helps staff put into practice the critical thinking required to understand cases holistically, complete analytical assessments, and weigh up interacting risk and protective factors. This underlines the importance of reflective supervision, an area that will be explored in more detail below.
There are many models of supervision, but one that seeks to both promote reflective supervision and to locate it firmly within its organisational context is the 4 x 4 x 4 model.
As Wonnacott explains, this model moves away from a static, function-based model, and instead promotes a dynamic style of supervision that uses the reflective supervision cycle at the heart of the process.
The supervision cycle, 'could be described as the glue that holds the model together' Wonnacott, , p54 and was developed by Morrison from earlier work by Kolb on adult learning theory. According to Kolb, learning involves transferring experience into feelings, knowledge, attitudes, values, behaviours and skills. Morrison contends that if the cycle is short-circuited in any way there is a danger of getting stuck in unhelpful traps, for example, the 'navel-gazing theorist' who never risks putting their theories to the test or 'paralysis by analysis' where learning is limited by the fear of getting it wrong.
Whilst the 4 x 4 x 4 model can perhaps be criticised for underplaying the complexity of the supervisory relationship, in particular the power dynamics involved, it can provide a useful framework for approaching supervision for both the supervisor and supervisee.
This section draws heavily on work undertaken by Davys and Beddoe As has already been identified, the development of a managerialist culture, combined with a tendency to risk aversion, has tended to drive supervision towards a more technical, administrative process, with a desire for 'clean' solutions, which may tend to sideline reflection. The reflective learning model Davys and Beddoe, turns this on its head, and has a working assumption that supervision is, first and foremost a learning process.
Building on Kolb's learning cycle, Davys and Beddoe's approach follows the: event - exploration - experimentation - event sequence. The cycle begins with identification of the goal for the issue which the supervisee has placed at the top of the agenda.
Through their 'telling' of the event, this stage aims to reconnect with the event without becoming overly immersed to the point of losing focus. Keeping a tight focus clarifies the real issues without the narrative swamping reflection with detail. With a clear goal established, the supervisee can move on to the next stage of the cycle, exploration of the issue. This stage clearly recognises the place of the supervisor's practice wisdom and experience, but also that sharing this prematurely may prevent the supervisee from finding their own solutions Kadushin, ; Cousins, The task of the supervisor is to create a space for the supervisee to explore possibilities associated with both their own behaviour and the behaviour of others.
Once a decision or understanding has been reached, it is then important that this is tested to establish whether it is possible or realistic. The importance of this stage of the process is that the 'solution' can be examined to ensure that it is sufficiently robust and also that the supervisee has the requisite skills and knowledge in order for any plan to be implemented.
The evaluation stage of the cycle marks the completion of the work and allows for reflection on the process, and in particular whether the supervisee has got what was required with respect to this issue. In short, this model provides the basis for supporting and developing critical practice.
This model might be criticised for not taking sufficient account of the context within which supervision operates, or for being unrealistic in busy working environments. However, if located within the 4 x 4 x 4 model it allows for supervision to be seen within its organisational context, and a clear theoretical model can be helpful: 'The lack of a clear theoretical model about the nature, influence, and critical elements of effective supervision undermines the ability to drive up standards, training, support, and monitoring of supervisory practice.
Supervision does not occur in a vacuum, and is susceptible to a range of external influences. The supervision literature, particularly the strand informed by psychodynamic approaches, explores how the supervisory relationship is influenced by what is going on at other levels of the system. One example of this is mirroring, which Morrison describes as the unconscious process by which the dynamics of one situation such as the relationship between the worker and the service user are reproduced in another relationship such as that between the worker and supervisor.
This process can work in both directions. One of the explanatory devices that is frequently used Hughes and Pengelly, ; Morrison, ; Hawkins and Shohet, is Karpman's drama triangle, which can seen as playing out in direct practice as well as in supervision. The terms persecutor, victim and rescuer in this context signify not only what individuals do or have done to them, but more importantly the roles they take up with respect to each other.
The persecutor cannot bear to experience their vulnerability, and therefore, seeks to project it onto a victim.
In turn a victim cannot tolerate their own hostility and seeks to find someone onto whom this can be projected, namely the persecutor.
The victim also abdicates any sense of responsibility, seeking a rescuer onto whom any competence can be projected. A rescuer can bear neither vulnerability nor hostility and sets out to 'save' the victim, a project which is doomed to fail.
Davys and Beddoe argue that the very nature of health and social care leaves practitioners susceptible to an enactment of the drama triangle.
Hughes and Pengelly stress that in caring professions it is particularly the rescuer tendency, with its failure to acknowledge angry feelings that may lead to unsafe practice, and also the risk of creating dependence on supervisees. A number of variations have been applied to the drama triangle in recent years. In particular, the empowerment triangle Cornelius and Faire, , cited in Davys and Beddoe, , p identifies alternative roles which can be employed to break the repetitive cycle.
For example, if a supervisor finds themself in a persecutor role, the challenge is to become an educator or consultant, for a rescuer the challenge is to become a mediator, and for the victim the challenge is to redefine themselves as a learner.
The complexity of the supervisory relationship may also lead to games being played Cousins, Kadushin outlines a number of games that can be played by both supervisor and supervisee. Examples include the following, with quotes that illustrate the game being played. Morrison contends that the greater workload pressures, external insecurity and change, the more likely it is that these defensive processes will arise.
Further, that in his words, 'it takes two to tango' in that, even if the supervisor or supervisee has not initiated the game, both parties carry an element of responsibility for its continuance. The way of dealing with games being played is firstly to be able to recognise or name what is happening Hawkins and Shohet, and secondly to simply stop playing. This discussion of the dynamics of the supervisory relationship leads into a discussion of the skills involved in supervision.
At best, the supervisory task is like a balancing act, managing the tension between It can leave a good supervisor feeling pulled in all directions, struggling to manage the balance between feeling stimulated and feeling chronically frustrated and unsupervised Hughes and Pengelly, , p Wonnacott , drawing on previous work on parenting, and criticisms of social work practice for being insufficiently authoritative, for example in the Peter Connelly Serious Case Review Haringey LCSB, , takes this into the supervision agenda and argues that what is required is a style of supervision that is both demanding and responsive.
This is a style that she labels as authoritative, where the supervisor is clear about expected standards and provides a safe environment for supervision, based upon an agreement which makes clear both the negotiable and non-negotiable aspects of supervision.
0コメント