RESTORYING SOCIAL WORK
SUPERVISION
Kieran O’Donoghue
Dunmore Press, Palmerston North,
Aotearoa New Zealand
ii
© 2003 Kieran O’Donoghue
© 2002 The Dunmore Press Limited
First Published in 2003
by
The Dunmore Press Limited
P.O. Box 5115
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Copyright. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles
and reviews.
iii
CONTENTS
Forward by Merv Hancock
iv
Introduction
v
1. Constructing Supervision in Social Work
1
2. Supervision stories internationally and within Aotearoa New Zealand
30
3. The social story and its influence
51
4. Personal stories and their influence
69
5. Towards a contextual framework for social work supervision
86
6. The Foundations of the Framework
104
7. Deconstructing the narratives of the persons involved
120
8. Deconstructing the local and global stories
134
9. Towards a restoried practice of supervision
153
References
159
Index
171
iv
FORWARD
In Aotearoa New Zealand, historically each generation of social workers have had to
face circumstances that are unique and invariably challenging to them. A detailed
historical account of what has happened is yet to be told.
One of the exciting things about Kieran O’Donoghue’s book, Restorying Social Work
Supervision, is that he provides, from his point of view, pictures of Supervision in
social work throughout the Twentieth Century and before.
The pictures, whether of the present day, or the 1920’s, or post-war social work
supervision have plenty of colour. They are good to look at and call for a response
from the reader.
It is the depth in pictures that is especially attractive. You can put yourself in the
picture of a particular supervision model or a particular practical approach to social
work supervision.
Once you are in the picture, there is no escape from engaging in reviewing your own
personal view of social work supervision. Reviewing your supervision practice is not
sufficient. You have to go on, taking account of the foundations, the context and
framework of what you have been doing. It is a demanding approach but full of
interest and stimulation.
Yes, the pictures are a challenge, but there is more. There are exercises to do. You
cannot avoid them if you want to be fit in your social work supervision practice.
Finally – Question, Question, Question. There are many many questions in the book.
They make the book more formidable than if they were not asked.
The emphasis and support in the book to the view that social work practice and social
work supervision belong together is of major importance.
Kieran O’Donoghue’s book is appearing at an important time for social work
supervision. Statutory registration is imminent for social workers. The social work
profession is gaining strength at the same time, as there is a deepening of international
connection and links among social workers. The bicultural policy of the Aotearoa
New Zealand Association of Social Workers is illuminated by close attention to the
keystone – Te Tiriti O Waitangi, and the issues of Human Rights, Social Justice and
Empowerment.
Kieran O’Donoghue firmly anchors his book in theory and in story. His account of
his own position using a constructionist approach is detailed and clear. He invites the
theory to assist in his proposed restorying of social work supervision. I can tell you it
is worth the effort.
Merv Hancock
October 2002
v
INTRODUCTION
This book developed from the research study I completed in 1999 and from my
practice and teaching of supervision. During the research process I became
increasingly dissatisfied with Northern Hemisphere approaches to supervision.
The next major step in this book’s evolution came at the Auckland College of
Education supervision conference “From Rhetoric to Reality”, held in 2000. At this I
ran a workshop entitled “The Persons and Their Environments Contextual Framework
of Social Work Supervision”. This workshop invited participants to deconstruct their
supervision context and their perceptions of the persons involved, then having done
this they were encouraged to develop their own contextual approach to supervision.
The feedback I received from the workshop participants indicated that such an
exercise was valuable and the participants’ suggested that the exercise could be
enhanced if the supervisor did it with the practitioners they supervised.
The final step in the book’s evolution emerged out of my work developing and
teaching the Advanced Certificate in Professional Supervision at the Waikato Institute
of Technology. It was through teaching this course that my belief in the need for a
local text on supervision was galvanised and I was inspired to attempt the feat of
writing this book. My current lecturing in social work theory and practice at Massey
University’s School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work has served to
reinforce my desire to produce a text that is anchored in the Aotearoa New Zealand
context.
This book takes the idea of developing one’s own approach or theory of
supervision from an assessment of the context and characters further through
examining:
a) the influence and interface between global, local, and personal stories and
voices;
b) the nature of the languages spoken by the voices of the characters involved
in supervision; and
c) the principles that underpin both social work practice and supervision in the
21st Century.
Who is this book for
It is intended that this book is used as text in social work courses on supervision and it
has been primarily written for that purpose. Having said this, there is much in the
vi
book of value and use to social workers and supervisors who are not enrolled in a
supervision course. In other words, one does not have to be enrolled in a supervision
course to read this book. Arguably, the book could be construed as a course in
supervision because: 1) it asks the reader to examine their supervision story and
consider how it relates to the characters and context; and 2) it then asks the reader to
revise their story so that their supervision practice intentionally meets the needs of the
characters and context.
Whilst, the primary audience for this book is intended to be social workers and
supervisors in Aotearoa New Zealand. The material provided in the book may be
applicable to social workers and supervisors in other countries, because it encourages
them to examine the story of supervision in their setting and challenges them to
develop a supervision story and practice that is responsive to the characters and
context.
The Structure of the Book
There are three main parts to the book. The first, which includes chapters 1-4, outlines
the theory that underpins restorying supervision. In the second part, chapters 5 and 6,
the framework and the principles informing restorying are described. Finally, in
chapters 7-9, the reader is invited to restory their supervision. A brief description of
each chapter follows.
The first chapter considers the construction of social work supervision and
introduces the constructionist approach used in this book.
Chapter 2, explores the historical narratives. An international narrative, which is
based upon the recognised supervision literature, will be discussed, followed by a
supervision narrative from the Aotearoa New Zealand.
In chapter 3, the concept of social construction and its influence upon social
work supervision will be examined through the identification and critique of the
voices that author the social story of supervision. Both global and local voices are
identified and their influence on social work supervision practice is discussed.
Chapter 4 considers the concept of personal stories as they relate to
supervision. This is achieved through identifying the voices of the characters involved
in the supervision loop and discussing the influence each has in the construction of
social work supervision. The voices identified are those of clients, social workers,
supervisors, managers, educators and other social service and health professionals.
Chapter 5 discusses and examines a contextual framework for social work
supervision through describing the theoretical underpinnings of the framework, which
vii
are based in the persons and their environments paradigm of social work, and the
construction of supervision as field of practice within social work. These arguments
are supported by a discussion of social work practice theory and supervision theory.
The chapter concludes with a discussion about the application of the contextual
framework as a tool for restorying supervision.
Chapter 6 describes the foundational principles of the contextual framework
introduced in the previous chapter. This occurs through a discussion of the principles
of human rights, social justice, power, empowerment, anti-oppressive/antidiscriminatory practice, and Te Tiriti O Waitangi as the foundation for supervision
practice within Aotearoa New Zealand.
In chapter 7, the reader is invited to deconstruct the stories of the characters,
involved in their supervision though specific exercises and reflection questions.
Chapter 8 invites the reader to deconstruct their supervision context. This once
again involves the use of reflective questions and exercises that assist the reader to
critically examine the global, social, political, professional and service provision
discourses in their supervision context.
The concluding chapter (Chapter 9) reviews the main points discussed in the
previous chapters and looks towards the restorying of supervision practice. The book
concludes with an invitation to the reader to reconstruct the context and narratives of
their supervision and to develop a new personal practice theory or story of
supervision.
1
CHAPTER 1
CONSTRUCTING SUPERVISION IN SOCIAL WORK
Somewhere a social worker or social workers and supervisor(s) are engaging in the
activity that is called supervision. The particular content, approach, type, form, mode, and
process of their supervision is likely to be shaped by those who are directly and indirectly
participating in the supervision and the setting in which the practice of supervision is
embedded. Using our imagination we can picture the following scenes:
•
A social worker employed by the Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services meeting for an individual supervision session with their social work
supervisor who also has line-management and performance management
responsibility for the supervisee. The content of their supervision is
determined by both the supervisor and supervisee and involves a review of
cases, the discussion of problem or high-risk situations, and perhaps the
•
social worker’s workload and feelings about their work.
A social worker new to the mental health field is engaging in a session with a
client and their family/whanau. Also in attendance is the social worker’s
supervisor (a more experienced colleague) who works in the same or another
mental health team. The supervision is live and this type of supervision is
learning and developmentally focussed involving direct observation and joint
•
reflection upon the supervisee’s practice.
A social worker employed by a community agency is working as a social
worker in a school (SWIS). This social worker is visited in their agency or
goes to visit a supervisor contracted to provide her with supervision. The
supervisor is either self-employed or employed in another agency. The agenda
of this supervision session is set by the social worker in the supervisee role.
The content of this session involves the social worker’s well being in the work
situation, the management of issues of isolation, conflict with the agency team
2
of counsellors in client review meetings, and discussion of the social worker’s
•
work with a particular client.
A Maori social worker visits her Kaumatua and Kuia for cultural supervision.
The process and content here are Kaupapa Maori.
In each of our four scenes the relationship, process, content, context, and approach is
different. Yet for those involved, both directly and indirectly, there is a shared
understanding that supervision is occurring.
The Terrain of Supervision
In this section the current terrain of supervision will be explored by discussing definitions
of supervision, the forms, modes, kinds and types of supervision, the supervision
mandate, contracting, supervision sessions, ethics, legality and liability and current
issues.
Defining Supervision in Social Work
The current shared understanding of social work supervision is encapsulated in the
definitions of social work supervision found in the supervision literature. This literature
contains a plethora of definitions. Rich (1993: 137) commenting upon this states that “no
single definition or theory exists by which to describe its meaning, methods, or purpose,
uniformly.” That said, what is common in these definitions is that they describe social
work supervision as a process, activity, and relationship(s), based in an organisational
professional and personal mandate, with designated roles, and boundaries, in which
particular functions are performed with the aim of facilitating the best/competent
service/practice with clients (Kadushin, 1992; Munson, 1993; Morrison, 1993; Shulman,
1995; Kaiser, 1996; Brown et al., 1996).
The detail of the process, activity and relationship(s), the basis of the mandate, the
designation of the roles and boundaries, the functions performed and emphasised are the
subject of the forms, modes, kinds, types and media of supervision that are present within
the wider terrain.
3
Forms, Modes, Kinds, Types and Media
Supervision in social work exists in a range of forms, modes, kinds, and types. It is also
delivered through a range of media (Morrison, 1993; Brown et al., 1996; O’Donoghue,
1999). Forms of supervision are essentially different domains of supervision with
particular characteristics or areas of emphasis. Some common forms of supervision are:
Student or fieldwork supervision
Managerial supervision
Clinical/professional supervision
Peer supervision
Cultural supervision
Each of the above domains differs in its process, relationship and the emphasis it places
on particular functions. For example, on the one hand, fieldwork supervision or student
supervision tends to emphasise the practitioner development and learning process through
focusing on the educative or teaching function of supervision within an educator- student
relationship. On the other hand, managerial supervision tends to emphasise an
achievement-based process, which places its focus on the administrative function of
supervision within an employer- employee relationship.
The concept of a mode of supervision refers to the size of the client group
receiving supervision. Traditionally, individual supervision has been the primary mode of
delivery of supervision by supervisors to practitioners (Kadushin, 1992). There are other
less prevalent modes of supervision, namely, group supervision and team supervision that
are utilised either as a substitute for or supplement to the individual one to one mode of
supervision. The different modes of supervision like the different forms previously
discussed necessitate a range of different processes and relationships between the
supervisor(s) and practitioner(s) (Brown et al., 1996).
An interesting discussion that is occurring in the terrain of supervision concerns
the kind of supervision. This discussion constructs two kinds of supervision, namely,
internal supervision and external supervision (O’Donoghue, 1999). Internal supervision
is essentially supervision provided by a supervisor employed and working within the
organisation, whereas, external supervision is supervision provided by a supervisor who
is not working within the organisation but rather is contracted as a consultant to provide
4
supervision. A recent study by Itzhaky (2001: 73-86) which examined the differences
between the two kinds of supervision in Israel found that external supervisors provided
more constructive criticism to practitioners than internal ones, carried out more
confrontation when necessary and appropriate. They also possessed more expert-based
authority and less formal authority than internal supervisors did. This study also found
that there were no significant differences between internal and external supervisors
related to role ambiguity and conflict. These findings illustrate that the basis for the
supervision mandate, the nature and interactions within the relationship differ between
the two kinds of supervision.
The notion of different types of supervision is based upon the range of methods
used in the delivery of supervision. This range of methods includes the following:
Open door (informal ad hoc as and when required).
Consultative (i.e. based on regular consultations).
Contracted (i.e. based on an agreement, which specifies contact, roles,
relationship and method).
Recall and review (i.e. sessions in which practitioners, describe, explain,
scrutinise, justify and evaluate/revise their work and their knowing, decisions
and actions in the social work role through using a process of interpersonal
process recall).
Observational (i.e. involves the use of methods of observation such as live
observation, audio/video-taping, process-recordings, etc.)
The most common methods employed in supervision appear to be the consultative,
contracted, and review and recall methods (Kadushin, 1992; Munson, 1993;
O’Donoghue, 2001). The open door method and the observational seem less common
(O’Donoghue, 1999). It is worthwhile to point out that the recall and review and the
observational seem to be methods that are employed in the clinical/professional form of
supervision. On the other hand, the open door and the consultative types seem to be
methods tending to be used in the managerial and peer forms of supervision (Kadushin,
1992; O’Donoghue, 1999; O’Donoghue, 2001).
Recent developments in information technology have raised questions concerning
the media by which supervision occurs. Traditionally, supervision has taken place via
5
face to face meetings supplemented by telephone consultations. In the United States of
America some online supervision is occurring by email, chatroom, audio and video
conferencing (Stofle et al., 1998). The developments in this area tend to mirror those
concerning cyber-counselling and are very much in an infancy stage (Geraty, 2000). That
said, the media by which supervision is delivered has become a conversation in the
supervision terrain.
Before moving on to discuss the mandate for supervision it is necessary to state
that this discussion of forms, modes, kinds, types and media of supervision highlights that
the construction of social work supervision as an activity, process and relationship is one
that subject to a range of features that are variable. Furthermore, the boundaries and the
interaction between the various features, (i.e. forms, modes, kinds, types and media) is
dynamic and fluid with them not acting in isolation but rather interacting and existing
together or in relationship with each other in the practice of the activity that we call
supervision.
The Supervision Mandate
The mandate or “the right to act” as a supervisor comes from the same sources that a
social worker’s mandate with clients comes from, namely, from their organisation,
profession, and from the person who is using the service (Morrison, 1993: 30). In other
words a supervisor’s authority is derived from these three sources.
In the case of the organisation the supervisor’s authority derives either from them
being employed (in the case of an internal supervisor) or contracted (in the case of
external supervisor) to provide the supervision. The professional mandate to act as a
supervisor comes from being recognised by the profession as a social work supervisor on
the basis of supervisory competence or by virtue of the attainment of a supervision
qualification (NZASW, 1998a; 1998b). The third mandate, namely, that conferred by the
practitioner to the supervisor generally takes one of the following two types. The first is
the mandate ascribed through the choice made by the practitioner that this is the person
they have decided is their supervisor. The second type is the authority given through the
degree of recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance by the practitioner that their
organisation or professional body or registration board has authorised this person to be
6
their supervisor. In Aotearoa New Zealand, because of the dominance of the organisation
and the low level of professionalisation amongst social workers the organisational
mandate tends to dominate both the professional and the practitioner’s mandate
(O’Donoghue, 2001).
Generally, the setting and the parties involved shapes the relationship between the
three mandates. This diversity has necessitated the development of supervision policies
and supervision contracts or agreements as structures that help clarify the supervision
mandate. Supervision policies are a means by which an organisation and/or a professional
body can specify the mandate for supervision, establish and support the right of
supervisors to be and act as supervisors, and establish and affirm the rights of
practitioners concerning the provision of and their participation in supervision (Morrison,
1993; O’Donoghue, 1998). Contracts or agreements on the other hand exist under the
umbrella of supervision policies and provide a means by which the practitioner’s mandate
can be recognised and affirmed. Figure 1.1 illustrates below in diagrammatic form the
key points and the relationship between the three mandates described in this section.
Figure 1.1 The Supervision Mandates
Organisational
Practitioner
Policy
Employment or
Contract
Contract
Choice made
Or Recognition
Given
Professional
Policy
Competence
Qualification
Contracting
Contracting is a mechanism used for establishing shared understandings concerning the
purpose, mandate, roles, responsibilities, relationship, expectations and processes used in
supervision. The supervision literature related to contracting emphasises that the process
of contracting is as significant as the content of the contract (Morrison, 1993; Brown et
7
al., 1996; Kaiser, 1996). The literature also suggests that the following areas are included
in the contracting process:
Sharing past experience, values and expectations and understandings of
supervision.
Approach, form, mode, types, kind and media of supervision.
Accountabilities and responsibilities.
Mandate, purpose and focus.
Ethical code and confidentiality.
Practical Arrangements i.e. timing, frequency, venue, record keeping, storage
of record, and fee payment.
Process matters –i.e. Preparation, agenda setting, and techniques used.
Recognition of difference, power and authority and a commitment to antioppressive practice.
Hewson (1999) writing about contracting in counselling supervision highlights the
important role that contracts have in making supervision an overt and transparent process.
Furthermore, she also highlights that supervision contracts usually involve at least three
parties, namely, the agency, supervisor and the practitioners and she strongly advocates
for the explicit involvement of all parties involved in the contracting process and final
agreement. Hewson (1999) contends that its is only through an overt and transparent
process that covert agendas and collusion are minimised.
The types of contracts or agreements present in the current terrain of social work
supervision, are the written, and the verbal contract. Written contracts provide a reference
point, which captures the understandings of the parties at a moment in time, which can be
referred to in the future. Whilst, there is not a set and established format for a written
supervision contract, Morrison (1993) and Brown et al. (1996), provide guidelines and
examples. Written contracts are particularly important in environments and relationships
where trust needs to be developed or where there is low trust (Hewson, 1999; Morrison,
1993; Brown et al., 1996). Verbal contracts on the other hand rely on memory and/or the
records of the participants. They are most appropriate in a high trust environment and
where the culture is orally based (Hawkins et al., 2000). Regardless, of the type of
8
contract or agreement it is important that all parties involved in the supervision have a
shared understanding of the following:
what will happen;
what won’t happen; and
what may happen in supervision.
Figure 1.2 below summarises the key stages and features involved in contracting for
supervision.
Figure 1.2 Stages and Key Features of Contracting
Closure/
Ending
Reviewing/
Evaluating
Implementation
Recording
Agreeing
Review,
Summarise
Future focus.
Date, Process,
Form.
Contact, meetings,
actions.
Negotiating
Drafting
Reviewing
Agreeing
Reflecting back. Clarifying,
Summarising.
Discussing/
negotiating
Meeting
Agreeing to
Meet
Values, Beliefs, Experiences, Background, and Expectations.
Mandate, Accountabilities, Recording and Reporting.
Structures, Process, Content, Methods, Goals and Review.
Welcoming
Attending
Engaging/
Joining
Containing.
Date, Time,
and Venue.
Thus far we have discussed contracting related to the supervision relationship. This is not
the only form of contracting that occurs within supervision. There are two further forms
9
of contracting, which are ongoing through out the life of a supervision contract. These are
sessional contracting, and actions contracting. Sessional contracting involves establishing
an agreement about the work that will be done in the session. Actions contracting, on the
other hand, involves making an agreement about the actions that have resulted from
supervisory conversations (Shulman, 1993).
Supervision Sessions
The most common forum for supervisory conversations is the individual supervision
session or conference (Kadushin, 1992; Rich, 1993; Shulman, 1993). In this section the
literature related to content, process and structure of sessions will be briefly discussed.
The content of supervision sessions is in most cases shaped by the people
involved and the setting. That said, what appears common in the content of sessions is
that they generally involve discussion about the practitioner’s work, the people they work
with be they clients or colleagues, the worker themselves in relation to their worker, and
their training and development (Kadushin, 1992; O’Donoghue, 1999).
Kadushin
(1992:142) describes this well when he refers to the content of supervision involving
consideration of “people, place, process, personnel and problem”.
The process of supervision sessions generally mirrors that of the social work
interview and involves preparation, an introductory phase, a phase where the purpose or
the agenda is clarified and ordered, a working phase and a review or ending phase
(Kadushin, 1992; Shulman; 1993; Rich, 1993; O’Donoghue, 1999). Furthermore, the
approaches and processes used in supervision are also reflective of those used in practice
with clients (Kadushin, 1992: 157). In essence, this means that a task-centred practitioner
will use task centred methods as a supervisor and likewise a strengths-based practitioner
will use strengths-based practice methods as a supervisor.
The main structures related to supervision sessions are the length of sessions and
the frequency of sessions. The length of sessions seems to range from thirty minutes
through to two hours with most sessions appearing to between an hour and ninety
minutes (Kadushin, 1992; O’Donoghue, 1999:137). The frequency of sessions on the
other hand ranges from weekly through to six weekly with the most common frequencies
being weekly and fortnightly (Kadushin, 1992; O’Donoghue, 1999). In this section we
10
have discussed the content, process and structures concerning supervision sessions. In the
next section we will briefly give consideration to factors that guide action in supervision
sessions namely, ethics, legality and liability.
Ethics, Legality, and Liability
Ethics, legality and liability lurk under the surface of any supervisory conversation. It is
worthwhile at this point to distinguish between the three terms. Ethics is concerned with
what is right and correct. Legality is concerned with whether actions and situations are
legal or lawful. Liability relates to legal responsibility for actions or situations.
Ethics
Briggs et al. (2000) contend that because the supervision practice reflects social work
practice that the ethical principles that apply in social work practice ought to apply in the
supervision. Making reference to Corey et al. (1998: 12-13) they assert that these
principles are as follows:
Autonomy (Self-determination);
Non-maleficence (Doing no harm);
Beneficence (Promoting good for others);
Justice (equal and fair treatment);
Fidelity (Trustworthiness and faithfulness in promises and commitments);
Veracity (Truthfulness).
These ethical principles provide the foundation to considering issues from an ethical
perspective rather than from a practice perspective. The difference between the two is
essentially the difference between “what is right” and “what is best”. The challenge for
supervisors and practitioners when faced with ethical dilemmas is to create a forum for
ethical dialogue in which the question of “what is right concerning both persons and the
situation” can be thoroughly assessed. In this forum consideration is given to ethical
principles, value tensions, ethical codes, risks and consequences, and priorities. This
assessment ought to result in informed and justifiable action (Briggs et al., 2000).
Bernard et al. (1998:180-198) writing in the United States of America, assert that
the major ethical issues for supervisors in supervision are as follows:
Due Process or Natural Justice (i.e. the right to notice and a hearing)
11
Informed Consent
Dual Relationships
Competence
Confidentiality
The issue of due process and natural justice applies both to the client and practitioner.
According to Bernard et al. (1998), this issue tends to relate to practitioners in
supervision who are the subject to performance evaluations, ethical or disciplinary
investigations and decisions made with regard to fitness to practice.
The issue of informed consent likewise relates both to the practitioners and
clients. Informed consent for practitioners involves them being made aware of the
supervision procedures, availability of supervisor, and relevant background of the
supervisor, particularly qualifications, expertise areas and experience (Bernard et al.,
1998). The second area where informed consent is an issue relates to the practitioner’s
practice with clients, which should conducted with the client’s informed consent. Cohen
(1987: 194-96) argues that practitioners have an ethical responsibility to inform clients,
that they are supervised, who their supervisor is and how to access her/him. He also
argues that practitioner’s should inform client’s about supervision even if it takes place in
secret.
The issue of dual relationships relates to both sexual and non-sexual relationships
between supervisors and the practitioners they supervise. The entering into a sexual
relationship with a practitioner whom one is supervising is widely prohibited in most
ethical codes (Bernard et al., 1998). The NZASW Code of Ethics (1993: 9) clearly
prohibits such relationships when it states that:
In no circumstances should a social worker enter into a sexual relationship
with a client….This section applies to relationships between social workers
and members of the client’s family, and relationships with students and others
whose work is supervised by the social worker.
The ethical issues concerning non-sexual dual relationships are less clear cut and pose
a particular challenge where there is a small population and with the emergence of
peer forms of supervision. The key ethical challenge in this regard relates to the degree
of compromise or conflict of interest experienced by the supervisor due to the dual
12
relationship and how they manage this. The NZASW Code of Ethics provides some
guidance here when it speaks of not using such relationships for “personal,
professional, political, financial or sexual gain” (NZASW, 1993: 9). It is also helpful
when it emphasises that one of a social worker’s responsibilities to their colleagues is
“the need to ensure that their private and professional conduct and integrity is beyond
reproach” (NZASW, 1993: 13).
The ethical issue of competence according to Bernard et al. (1998), relates to
the areas of monitoring the practitioner’s competence, the supervisor’s own
competence as a supervisor, and remaining competent. The monitoring of the
practitioner’s competence relates to knowledge of the practitioner’s work with clients
and regularly reviewing and or observing that work in supervision sessions. The
ethical issue of the supervisor’s own competence relates to their need to have their
supervision practice supervised and to be cognisant of their limits and work within
their limits (NZASW, 1993: 10). The issue of the supervisor remaining competent
relates to their ethical responsibility to undertake continuing professional education
and training (NZASW, 1993: 14).
Confidentiality is an ethical responsibility in all helping relationships. The
issues of confidentiality with regards to supervision tend to centre on disclosure. The
ethical guidelines prescribed in the NZASW Code Ethics (1993: 10-11) and the
Ministry of Health’s (1998: 20), Guidelines for Clinical Risk Assessment and
Management in Mental Health Services are particularly helpful in this regard.
Legality
It is generally expected that both social work and social work supervision practice will be
conducted lawfully. Cooper et al. (2002: 4) in a recent article argue that, “Supervisors
…need to be expert practitioners with extensive, legal, technical, ethical and practice
knowledge and skills”. Essentially, the key challenge for supervisors with regard to the
law is that they know how to access, interpret and apply the law in relation to social work
and supervision practice. They also need to know and be able to access expert legal
advice in areas beyond their competence. Figure 1.3, below contains a legislation selfinventory which will assist the reader consider their level of legal fluency.
13
Figure 1.3 Legislation Self-Inventory for Supervisors
I can identify and distinguish between the major branches of law
i.e. between criminal and civil law, consumer law, criminal law, employment
law, contract law, family law, property law, and social legislation, Maori law.
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I am clear about types of laws made.
i.e. - statutes, statutory regulations, case law, by-laws.
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I am clear about the different Jurisdictions of Courts and Tribunals
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I have directly accessed the Statues of New Zealand
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I have assisted practitioners access the Statutes of New Zealand
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I can explain the major parts a statute and the conventions for citation of statutes
i.e. Analysis, Long Title, Short Title and Commencement, Interpretation, Parts,
Sections, Sub sections and Clauses, Schedules.
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I can suggest the various ways that a person could access legal assistance
i.e. barristers and solicitors in private practice, New Zealand and District Law
Societies, Duty Solicitors, District Legal Services Committees, Criminal and
Civil Legal Aid, government department legal services, Citizens Advice
Bureaux, Community and Neighbourhood Law Centres; Legal Services Act
1991.
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I am aware of the legal responsibilities within my role as a social services or health
professional.
e.g. Accident Compensation Act 1982, Adoption Act 1955, Alcohol and Drug
Addiction Act 1966, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989,
Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, Crimes Act 1961,
Criminal Justice Act, 1985, Domestic Violence Act 1995, Education Act 1989,
Employment Relations Act 2000, Family Proceedings Act 1980, Guardianship
Act 1968, Health Act 1956, Health & Disability Commissioner Act 1996,
Human Rights Act 1993, Medicines Act 1981, Mental Health (Compulsory
Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Parole Act
2001, Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, Sentencing Act
2001,and Transport Act 1962
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
I am aware of my legal responsibilities as a social service and health professional
with regard to personal and official information which are described according to
laws related to confidentiality and privacy, and privilege in the law of evidence.
i.e Official Information Act 1982, Privacy Act 1993, Protected Disclosures Act
2000, common law on evidence, Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980,
specific provisions in legislation governing confidentiality in reports to courts,
committees and statutory agencies, agency codes of conduct, codes of practice
issued by the Privacy Commissioner.
Never( )
Rarely ( )
Sometimes ( )
Always ( )
14
It is not my intention in this section to provide detailed information in regard to how to
access, interpret and apply the law as a social work supervisor. I will however, encourage
the reader to complete the legislation inventory and draw attention to the fact that the
New Zealand Statutes are directly accessible via the World Wide Web at
http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/actlists.html.
Liability
The social and health services have over the past 12 years become an increasing litigious
environment with organisations and practitioners taking out professional indemnity
insurance (Reamer, 1989: 445-448). In this environment it has become important for
social work supervisors to be informed of the legal and the liability issues present in the
terrain of supervision. Legal liability for supervisors comes in two forms namely direct
and vicarious. Direct liability is when the actions of the supervisor were the cause of the
harm or wrong, whereas vicarious liability is when the supervisor is being held
responsible for the actions of the practitioner when these were not suggested of even
know by the supervisor (Bernard et al., 1998). Vicarious liability is based on the legal
doctrine respondeat superior, which means “let the master respond” and according to this
doctrine a supervisor is responsible for all the actions of all the practitioners in their
employment (Reamer, 1989:445-448). This does not negate the direct liability of the
practitioner for their actions; rather, it creates a liability on the part of the supervisor for
the actions of the practitioner and means that a client or plaintiff can sue the supervisor as
well as the practitioner. Morrell (2001: 36-41), when discussing liability for external
supervisors indicates that a case of vicarious liability could be brought in New Zealand.
However, she asserts that because external supervision is consultative by nature and that
that this precludes the supervisor from having knowledge of all of the practitioner’s work,
that it would be the employing agency rather than the external supervisor who would be
held responsible for the worker’s actions. Another view is held by Bernard et al. (1998),
who writing in the United States of America, argue that the supervisor becomes liable by
virtue of their relationship with the practitioner and that supervisor’s are only held to be
liable for actions that are performed within the course and scope of the supervisory
relationship. The discussion thus far highlights that there are no definitive legal decisions
15
that determine the extent to which internal and external social work supervisors are
vicarious liable for the actions of the practitioners they supervise. However, this
discussion does indicate that the possibility exists that supervisors could be held
vicariously liable for the actions of practitioners. In the literature, the following
suggestions are made to supervisors to reduced the risk of being vicariously liable for a
supervisee’s malpractice (Bernard et al., 1998; Reamer, 1989: 445-448; Morrell, 2001:
36-41):
•
•
Explicit contracting concerning the supervisor’s liability.
Maintain a trusting relationship with the practitioner(s) supervised
and keeping regular contact with them concerning all aspects of
•
•
their work.
Maintaining an up to date knowledge of the law and liability issues
in your field.
Having access to legal advice and holding professional indemnity
insurance.
Current Issues
In the terrain of the supervision one of the most pressing and current issues is the
assessment and intervention provided by supervisors with practitioners who are not
functioning at the levels desired by the organisation or to the profession. The issues that
this relates to are:
•
•
Unethical Practice and Misconduct
•
Burnout
•
Job Performance
Trauma
The actions taken by the supervisor in each of the above situations will be influenced by
the form of supervision they are engaged in, their supervision contract and the
responsibilities of their role. In every situation the responsibilities will be more complex
for supervisors who are internal and who have line and performance management
responsibility alongside clinical and professional responsibility, than external clinical
supervisors. In all of the above situations a worthwhile general practice principle is to
16
offer to work in partnership with the person concerned and invite their participation,
whilst ensuring that vulnerable people (victims, clients, and their families) are protected.
If the affected person is unwilling to work in partnership and refuses to participate in the
resolution of the issues the supervisor works to ensure that vulnerable people (victims,
clients, and their families) are protected. Furthermore, the offer of partnership and the
invitation to participate should never impede the protection of vulnerable people (victims,
clients, and their families). Underpinning the discussion of the following issues is the
question of the practitioner’s fitness to practice. The issue of fitness to practice is well
addressed in The Social Worker’s Registration Bill and I encourage readers to refer to it
and the subsequent legislation when it comes into force.
Unethical Practice and Professional Misconduct
There are generally three ways that a supervisor becomes aware of unethical practice or
professional misconduct by a practitioner, namely, it is disclosed by the practitioner, the
supervisor directly witnesses it, or there is a complaint about the practitioner from either
the person involved, a witness, or third party. In the first two cases, where the supervisor
has direct evidence their primary duty is to ensure and confirm that action has been or is
being taken to protect the victims and that the matter is reported to the appropriate
authorities (i.e. management and/or ANZASW ethics committee/ Registration Board
[once the Social Workers Registration Bill becomes law], the Police in serious cases
where a crime has been committed). The process by which this happens will depend upon
the severity of the incident, the supervisor’s proximity to it and whether the practitioner
wishes to be involved in the reporting. The supervisor’s bottom line is that protective
measures are in place immediately and that the matter is reported as soon as practicable.
Throughout this process it is important that the supervisor keeps a written record of what
transpires. This record should be precise in its recording of times, events, behaviours and
persons present. During the process of reporting the incident the supervisor should
enquire from the practitioner about other supports for them (e.g. colleagues, family,
lawyer, and union representative). In other words the supervisor has a duty to ensure that
the practitioner has access to appropriate supports. The practitioner’s accessing of
appropriate support should not be at the expense of establishing protective measures or
17
the expeditious reporting of the incident. Furthermore, the provision of support should
not compromise the supervisor’s creditability as a potential witness.
In the case where the supervisor is made aware of a complaint related to unethical
practice or misconduct concerning a practitioner whom they are supervising. The
supervisor needs to balance the practitioner’s right to natural justice concerning the
allegations made in the complaint and the duty to support the practitioner as their
supervisor with the need to protect vulnerable people (victims, clients and their families).
The supervisor should ensure that they are apprised of the outcome of the investigation in
to the complaint. Finally, it is important that the supervisor consults their own supervisor
when involved in disclosures, witnessing or complaints concerning unethical practice or
professional misconduct, throughout the process.
Job Performance
The supervisor’s involvement in performance management and their role in the process is
also something is dependent upon the form of supervision provided and the supervisor’s
organisational mandate. Once again, it is a task where internal supervisors with both linemanagement and clinical supervision roles have a wider responsibility than that of
external consultant clinical supervisors. According to Tsui (1998:51-63) job performance
is a social construct that involves standards, behaviour and process. He describes each as
follows:
•
•
•
A standard is an accomplishment that should be as concrete and measurable as
possible.
Behaviour is “what is done by staff” that is observable.
Process consists of those activities that contribute to the production of the final
output.
In recent years social workers performance in Aotearoa New Zealand has generally been
assessed on the basis of standards and behaviour (O’Donoghue, 2000). This has meant
that the process element has been ignored. Tsui (1998:51-63) asserts that it is the process
element that is particularly important for social workers. It is this process element that is
particularly related to a social worker’s professional performance namely, their
application of professional values, knowledge and skills in practice with clients, whereas,
18
the standards and behavioural elements relate to their personal and agency performance
(Kadushin, 1992).
Tsui (1998: 51-63) also argues that staff performance needs to viewed in the
context of the organisation’s performance and that it is a result of individual and
organisational factors. This means that questions concerning a social worker’s
performance need to consider factors such as workload, support and resources as well as
the social worker’s individual performance. Moreover, the assessment of a social
worker’s performance is essentially a matter of judgement based on data gathered by the
assessor. Essentially, Tsui (1998:51-63) challenges those involved managing and
assessing the performance of social workers to do so from an informed and holistic basis
that parallels the social work paradigm of considering both person and their environment.
From this three further challenges arise for the supervisor in the assessment of a social
worker’s job performance. The first is to gather data from a range of sources and also to
ensure that their data covers the three areas of standards, behaviour and process. The
second concerns a valid interpretation of the data and the third challenge relates to the
discussion of the findings with the social worker. This process like that of social work
assessment is improved through utilisation of the processes and procedures of qualitative
research (Milner et al., 1998). Ideally, the process of performance assessment would be
implemented according to the principles of partnership, participation and protection
discussed above.
So far we have discussed job performance of social workers in general terms. A
particular challenge for all supervisors is that of working with a practitioner with a
particular performance issue that either you or their manager has identified. Morrison
(2001) suggests the use of a “Bridging Interview” approach in such situations. This
approach involves verifying the discrepancy between the performance and the standard,
exploring and understanding this discrepancy and reducing and removing the
discrepancy. The supervisor’s preparation for this process should involve consideration
of the following:
•
•
Has the standard been formally established and what specifically is it?
Is the social worker aware of the standard?
19
•
•
•
If not, what is the standard do you wish to establish, and does this compare
with agency and professional standards?
Does the social worker have the knowledge, skills, personal attributes, health
and well-being to achieve the standard?
•
Does the social worker have the confidence?
•
the standard?
•
•
•
•
Does the social worker have the resources and the time available to achieve
What specifically is the deficit and how long has it been apparent?
What training and supervision has the worker had?
How have matters of performance been raised with this social worker in the
past? What was their response? What was the outcome?
What are benefits of performing/not performing?
Is the issue worth resolving?
In this process it is important that the supervisor has clear, specific evidence of the
performance problem and that the focus is on the issues whilst remaining specific about
the discrepancy between actual performance and the standard. It is also important to
document and keep a record of the process and events. Throughout this process the
practitioner concerned is entitled to “due process” in other words they should be given
notice of this problem, have time to respond to it and arrange for support people present.
It should be signalled to them that there is a concern prior to any meetings taking place
and the social worker should also be informed of the purpose of the meeting, venue, date,
time and length, and its agenda and process. The meeting itself should follow a problem
solving process, which involves the following stages:
•
•
role and purpose clarification;
•
describing and sharing perceptions of the problem;
•
problem;
exploring and gaining a shared understanding of the nature and scope of the
identifying solutions and developing and agreed plan which includes the
monitoring and follow up of progress and tasks.
The skills used by the supervisor in this meeting are very much the core supervision and
practice skills of reflective listening, contracting, and goal setting. It is also important for
20
the supervisor to be clear about the bottom lines in this process and to ensure that the
social worker is also aware of them (Kadushin, 1992). The process outlined above and
the implementation of it is on the basis that the supervisor is internal and has a linemangement responsibility. The role of an external clinical supervisor in this situation
would be different. For external supervisors in these situations it is important that they
are clear about their mandate, obligations and role. The ANZASW Code of Ethics
(NZASW, 1993: 9) is helpful here when it states that:
Within the context of their legal obligations, social workers are expected to
acknowledge that client interest and welfare are their first priority and to work
accordingly.
The above quote emphasises that the first concern is that of client interest and well-being.
For the external clinical supervisor, the protection of clients’ interest and well-being is
their first concern. Their second concern, is that of the interest and well-being of their
direct client (the practitioner). Essentially, the role of the external clinical supervision in
such situations is one of mediation and advocacy. Mediation in regards to the interface
between the management, the practitioner and practice and advocacy in terms of the
cause of client interest and well-being and in the case of the practitioner.
Burnout
Burn out is defined by Maslach et al. (1997: 17) as:
the index of the dislocation between what people are and what they have to do. It
represents an erosion in values, dignity, spirit and will--an erosion of the human
soul. It is a malady that spreads gradually and continuously over time, putting
people into a downward spiral from which it is hard to recover.
They describe the symptoms of burnout as exhaustion, cynical detachment from one’s
work and feelings of effectiveness. They also argue that burnout is a problem of the
social environment in the workplace caused by "major mismatches" between the nature
of the person doing a job and the nature of the job itself. The greater the mismatch, the
21
greater the potential for burnout. The following are the areas of mismatch identified by
Maslach et al. (1997):
•
•
overloaded work schedule
•
breakdown of community
•
•
lack of control
unfair treatment of workers
conflict of values
Brown et al. (1996: 106-118) in discussing burnout assert that it results from the
accumulation of stress from social and political pressure, agency, team, practice and
personal situations and experiences. They outline the following four-stage burnout
process, which is characterised by:
1. Initial enthusiasm
2. Premature routinisation
3. Self doubt
4. Stagnation, collapse or recovery
Brown et al. (1996) recommend that supervisors take a proactive response to stress and
burnout by:
•
•
•
being aware and sensitive to the physical and behavioural signs of stress in
the people the supervise;
by being aware of the stages of burnout; and
utilising stage specific interventions.
One excellent resource that supervisors can use in working with practitioners
experiencing
burnout
is
the
Friedsocialworker.com
website
http://www.friedsocialworker.com.
Trauma
The management of work-related trauma and the role of supervision in that process are
also issues of currency in the supervision terrain. A work-related trauma is described as
an unexpected and unexplained event that causes physical and emotional distress (e.g.
22
assault by a client, death of a client, death of a colleague, job loss, etc…) (Brown et al.,
1996). Adamson (2001: 33-43) in an excellent paper which considers both supervision
and critical incidents from an ecological perspective asserts that critical stress incident
management and supervision are fundamentally different process with the latter
contributing strengths that may complement and supplement the process of trauma or
critical stress incident management. The obvious strengths that good supervision and a
competent supervisor offer practitioners experiencing trauma are, knowledge of the
worker, their history and a supportive relationship. Adamson (2001: 33-43) infers that
supervisors can further add value to the management of trauma through the development
of a knowledge and skill-base in relation to critical stress incident management and
through engaging the practitioners in anticipatory conversations and through mediative
and restorative responses. Brown et al. (1996: 122) describes mediative responses as the
supervisor’s actions in the wider system, which ensure that the system and colleagues do
not compound the trauma experience by the practitioner and enhance the practitioner’s
recovery. Restorative responses on the other hand, are the supervisor’s actions with the
practitioner in subsequent supervision after the initial management of the event. They are
essentially responses that promote the practitioner’s recovery. Such responses are
particularly enhanced if they are informed by knowledge of the effects of trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and critical stress incident defusing and debriefing. In regards to
the latter it is suggested that supervisors make arrangements for this to be done by an
external consultant where possible (Brown et al. 1996). Finally, the supervisor needs to
ensure that their own needs are met and that they arrange for both their own debriefing
and supervision accordingly.
Summary and Review
The main points in this section concerning the supervision terrain are as follows:
• There is no single definition of social work supervision. However, the plethora of
definitions describe supervision as a process, activity, and relationship(s), based in an
organisational professional and personal mandate, with designated roles, and
boundaries, in which particular functions are performed with the aim of facilitating the
best/competent service/practice with clients.
23
• Supervision consists of a range and combination of differing forms, modes, kinds,
types and media.
• The mandate for supervision is drawn from the organisation, profession and the person
of the practitioner being supervised.
• Supervision policies are a means by which an organisation and/or a professional body
can specify the mandate for supervision, establish and support the right of supervisors
to be and act as supervisors, and establish and affirm the rights of practitioners
concerning the provision of and their participation in supervision.
• Contracts or agreements exist under the umbrella of supervision policies and provide a
means by which the practitioner’s mandate can be recognised and affirmed.
• Contracting is a mechanism used for establishing shared understandings concerning
the purpose, mandate, roles, responsibilities, relationship, expectations and processes
used in supervision.
• There are three types of contracting in supervision, namely contracting concerning the
relationship, sessions, and actions.
• The most common forum for supervisory conversations is the individual supervision
session or conference. Supervision sessions have particular content, process and
structures, which are generally determined by those involved and their organisation.
• Ethics, legality and liability issues are important considerations in supervision.
• A significant current issue in the supervision terrain is the management of
practitioners who are not functioning according to the desired levels of their
organisation and profession. Four areas, related to this are unethical practices and
misconduct, job performance, burnout, and trauma.
• A general principle for supervisors when working with practitioners who are not
functioning well is to offer to work in partnership with the person concerned and
invite their participation, whilst ensuring that vulnerable people (victims, clients, and
their families) are protected. Throughout this work the offer of partnership and the
invitation to participate should never impede the protection of vulnerable people
(victims, clients, and their families).
24
The emergence of postmodern ideas in social work
The four scenes outlined at the beginning of this chapter as well as alluding to a shared
understanding of supervision also allude to diversity in the practice of supervision.
Likewise, the previous section, which discussed the terrain of supervision, has also
revealed that there are multiple discourses and constructions of supervision. In other
words, there is no one way to practice social work supervision and that supervision
practice is shaped by the context within which it takes place and the participants
involved. Moreover, the social setting and the personal perspectives of those involved
create the supervision.
The ideas that there is not solely one way to do something and that an activity is
constructed by the context in which it is embedded and by those who story it, are central
to a constructionist perspective. Another important constructionist idea is that the way we
story supervision constructs what happens in supervision. An example of this would be
the current dominant form of supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand for social workers,
i.e. the individual supervision session (O’Donoghue, 1999; 2000; Kane, 2001). The
storying of supervision in this case involves the agency, supervisors and social workers
having a shared understanding that supervision equals an individual supervision session
of one hour during which the supervisee talks about their work related problems. Because
supervision as an activity is storied in these terms, it is no surprise to find that what takes
place in supervision is synonymous with the accepted story about the activity.
The three ideas previously mentioned above in italics are derived from
postmodernism. Over the last ten years postmodern ideas have developed a currency in
social work practice literature as well as in the social sciences as a whole (Carpenter,
1996; Kelley, 1996; Parton et al., 2000). The entry of these ideas into social work came
through Solution Focused, Narrative Therapy and Strengths-Based practice approaches.
These practice approaches promote collaboration, partnership, service user agency and
active participation in the process of social work practice. They promote the following
values:
•
•
that clients are the expert on the problem and themselves;
that client strengths and exceptions to the problem are the starting point to
solving the problem;
25
•
that clients and their community contain within them the resources to
solve the problem.
Postmodern ideas and values differ from the ideas of modernist social work practice,
which developed from the “medical model” paradigm. Modernist practice placed
expertise and knowledge with the social worker who would apply a recognised
assessment/diagnosis and intervention/treatment model in their work with clients (Trotter,
1999; Reid, 1996). The modernist approach is based upon positivist research and is
currently most evident in the empirical/evidence based social work practice movement.
This movement promotes certain methods as the methods that ought to be applied to all
clients with certain problems because of the effectiveness of the method with people who
have these certain problems. What the movement often neglects in its generalisation of
the effectiveness of a method is that the effectiveness is always contextual to the setting
and the persons involved in the study. The modernist approach also places the work of
the practitioner at the centre and arguably asserts that if the practitioner applies the
method correctly it is highly likely that a positive change in the client will result.
Parton et al. (2000) argue that modernism is characterised by its belief in
unalterable truth, the pursuit of objective unbiased knowing, the certainty or ability to
generalise from its knowledge, and the provision of expert status to the holder of the
knowledge. Whereas, postmodernism is characterised by many perspectives and truths,
contextually based knowledge (shaped by the social, cultural, ideological, political and
historical setting), subjectivity, and uncertainty. Furthermore, it views people as cocreators of knowledge and interpreters of meaning who exercise self-agency (Amnon,
2000; Parton et al., 2000).
Despite, the entry and recognition of postmodern and constructionist ideas in
social work there is little written on social work supervision from a constructionist
perspective (Amnon, 2000; Cohen, 1999). This is not surprising given that most of the
research undertaken in relation to social work supervision has been predominately
quantitative and informed by the positivist tradition (Tsui, 1997a). The literature on social
work supervision has in the main been dominated by a modernist perspective that holds
up definitive texts which describe the functions of supervision and prescribes the skills to
26
enact as a supervisor (Bruce et al., 2000). The modernist perspective has also promoted in
the supervision literature models of supervision that one can learn and then apply in any
practice setting (Brown et al., 1996; Hawkins et al., 2000; Kadushin, 1992; Kaiser, 1996;
Morrison, 1993; Munson, 1993; Shulman, 1993). Furthermore, it has led to the relentless
pursuit of the mega-theory or the comprehensive model of social work supervision (Tsui,
et al., 1997). Such has been the dissatisfaction by certain commentators that there has not
been a definition and theory of supervision that definitively describes it, that there was
even a call for a moratorium on new supervision models (Rich, 1993).
A constructionist perspective to supervision is radically different from modernist
perspectives. It does not support the idea that there are particular methods of supervision
(usually developed by experts from the United States and Great Britain) that can be taken
from one context and applied to another as unadulterated higher truths. Rather, a
constructionist approach promotes plurality and considers each perspective to be of equal
validity with the key test being that they are useful to the people (ie. the social workers
[supervisees] and clients) in their particular situations when used at a particular time. In
other words the constructionist approach to supervision differs from other approaches to
supervision because its starting point is the particular situation and context within which
supervision is practiced. Another way of describing the approach is that the cloth of
supervision is cut to fit the setting and the people involved, by the people involved,
whereas with the traditional modernist approach the people and the setting were fit into
an already cut cloth of supervision. Essentially the paradigm shift from modernist
supervision to constructionist supervision is a shift from Outside-In supervision to InsideOut supervision. In other words it is a shift from applying general approaches to
particular situations, to the approach emerging from the dialogue between the persons,
situations and context.
The constructionist approach with its focus on the storying of supervision invites
the telling, deconstruction and reconstruction of supervision stories. It asserts that we
interpret the reality we call supervision through the personal, social, and historical lenses,
which influence whether we read into the story or read out from the story. Reading into
the story means we frame the story according to the hearer’s worldview, whereas reading
out from the story means we seek to understand the story from the teller’s frame of
27
reference. In the process of reading out from the story a practitioner using a
constructionist approach will seek to bring into the foreground the background of the
story. In doing this, the many people and many factors that contribute to the story are
validated. The collectivity, collaboration, and interdependence of social work practice are
also affirmed, because there is recognition that “there are more people in the room than
those sitting in the chairs” and that “there are more voices to be heard than those present
in the building”.
The Constructionist approach to supervision used in this book
The constructionist approach used in this book is an interpretation of constructionism by
the author. It tells a particular supervision story which has been shaped by who I am,
what and who I carry with me, and my interpretation of experiences and social settings.
My thinking in the area of supervision has been influenced by my experiences as
a social worker, supervisor, researcher and educator of supervisors over the past 10 years.
In 1999, I completed a qualitative research study that focused on the perspectives of
professional supervision and its practice of service managers and probation officers
within the Community Probation Service (O’Donoghue, 1999). From this study I learnt
that:
•
the participants’ storying of supervision in terms of their understanding,
•
experiences and expectations influenced their participation in supervision;
•
the Service’s perspective;
•
stories within which it was situated;
the constructions of supervision differed amongst the participants and with
the supervision story was embedded and influenced by the agency and social
the voices of agency management were dominant in the shaping of the
supervision story to the detriment of the voices of the profession, staff and
•
clients;
•
participants;
the study was a supervision story co-created by myself and the research
this story was shaped primarily by my interpretation which gave voice to
their stories;
28
•
•
Social work supervision literature was dominated by authors from Great
Britain and the United States of America; and
this literature did not fit with social work and social work supervision
practice in Aotearoa New Zealand, because it did not take into account Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and the uniqueness of our bicultural setting.
The constructionist approach used in this book aims to disturb your view of supervision.
It asks that you examine your supervision stories and the stories authored by the various
people and systems you work with as a social worker. It argues that social work
supervision is a socially and personally constructed activity. It is socially constructed by
the social and cultural context in which it is embedded. In other words supervision is
influenced and shaped by social and cultural stories. These stories contain within them
the values, ideology and discourses present in societies, cultures, politics, social policies,
law, governance bodies, agencies, professions, pressure and service user groups. The
degree to which a particular story and its values, ideology or discourse influences or
shapes supervision depends upon its dominance or pervasiveness and upon the critical
consciousness of the people involved in supervision to the influence of the dominant
values, discourses and ideologies.
The people both directly and indirectly involved in supervision also construct
supervision at a personal level. They do this through their personal storying and actions
that describe what supervision is and isn’t. It is argued that through the
interaction/transaction of the personal supervision stories of managers, supervisors, social
workers and clients, that the content, process and dynamics of supervision are created. It
is also asserted that personal and social constructions are reflexive organic processes that
are mediated through social and personal systems and structures. In other words the
social story affects and contributes to the personal story and the personal story affects and
contributes to the social story. The degree of influence each story has on the other is
dependent upon the power of its voice.
Power is a concept that is central in the constructionist approach used in this
book. Power is understood here in both its positive and negative senses. In its positive
sense it is seen as the ability to voice and story. In the negative sense power is understood
29
as the ability to diminish, oppress, contain, restrain and subjugate voice and storying.
Power influences whether a voice or story is heard or recognised and legitimated.
Summary
•
•
•
Social work and supervision practice is constructed by the context within which it
occurs and the participants involved.
The storying of supervision constructs the practice of supervision.
Postmodern approaches, which promote collaboration, partnership, client and
community agency, strengths and capacity, have developed a currency in social work
•
over the past decade.
Despite the currency of postmodern approaches in the social work practice literature
there is very little literature written about social work supervision from a
•
constructionist or postmodern perspective.
•
call supervision through personal, cultural, social and historical lenses.
•
reference or read out of the story from the teller’s frame of reference.
Constructionist approaches to supervision recognise that we interpret the reality we
These lenses influence whether we read into the story from our own frame of
The constructionist approach used in this book asks the reader to examine their
supervision stories, consider how supervision is storied by the people and systems
present in their practice setting, and the implications of the stories of supervision on
•
their supervision and client practice.
Power is a concept that is central to the constructionist approach used in this book.
Power is understood as the ability to influence whether a voice or story is spoken,
heard, recognised, and legitimated.
Reflection Questions
1. What is the current terrain of supervision that you experience?
2. What is your supervision story?
3. What voices dominate in your story?
4. What voices are subjugated or silent in your story?
5. How does your story shape your experiences of supervision?
30
CHAPTER 2
SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISION STORIES
INTERNATIONALLY AND WITHIN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND
The story of supervision is argued to be as old as the story of social work (Kadushin,
1992; Munson, 1993). In this chapter the historical narratives concerning social work
supervision will be explored. An international narrative, based upon the recognised
supervision literature, will be discussed, followed by a supervision narrative from the
author’s home, Aotearoa New Zealand.
The International Story
Origins
Traditionally, it is argued that social work emerged from Europe and the USA from the
following:
•
the Christian church;
•
the development of the nation state, particularly the effects of industrialisation and
urbanisation and the resultant Poor Laws;
•
the development of the ‘ancient professions’ of law, medicine and education; and
•
the 19th Century charitable societies (Jordan, 1984).
The American National Association of Social Workers (NASW) as part of their centenary
celebrations attempted a revisionist perspective of the origins of social work through their
milestones project, which traced the roots of social work from pre-biblical times (1750
BCE) through to 1998 (NASW, 1998). What the project revealed was that the evolution
of social work is contestable and dependent upon the author’s construction of ‘social
work’ and selection of the events that contributed to its evolution. Furthermore, as
highlighted in chapter 1 an author’s construction reflects their particular background,
perspective, and understanding of the subject which has been influenced by the wider
social discourses within which the author is immersed.
The literature that describes the history of social work supervision reveals that
little attention has been given to the story itself (Tsui, 1997b: 191-198). The story told by
31
well respected and leading authors in the social work supervision field from the United
States of America locate the origins of supervision as coming from the US and primarily
tell an American supervision story (Kadushin, 1992; Munson, 1993).
This story begins with an assertion that the origins of social work supervision are
intrinsically linked to the origins of social work (Munson, 1993; Tsui, 1997b: 191-198).
This claim is based on the argument that both social work and supervision emerged from
the US Charity Movements of the late 19th Century (Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 1997b: 191198). Only Munson (1993), speculates that supervision may have evolved from an earlier
tradition, which he asserts was most likely based on a model of peer consultation
developed in England by the medical profession and this model was subsequently
exported to America. The literature does not appear to speculate on the contribution of
the Christian church, social and cultural conditions, or other professions to the evolution
of supervision. If the above were considered some interesting questions might be:
•
What influence did biological, anthropological and cultural development play
in supervision? [E.g. How did parenting, family, tribe and clan structures and
systems contribute to supervision].
•
What influence did the Christian church’s pastoral care model of bishops for
their clergy have on supervision? [The Greek word for bishop was episkopos
which translates as overseer or supervisor (Collins, 2001)].
•
What influence did social structures and social status have on the development
of supervision?
•
What influence did ideas such as apprenticeship, mentoring and being a
disciple have on supervision?
If we entertain the above questions and the idea that the supervision story like the social
work story has evolved from a number of strands in the “Human story” and did not
suddenly emerge from nowhere in the 19th Century, then we have the potential to enrich
supervision from our own social and cultural context.
An example of this from my own Irish heritage might be to story supervision out
of the anam cara or ancient Irish soul-friend tradition which arguably dates back to the
Celtic arrival in Ireland between the 3rd and 4th Century BCE. An anam cara was a
32
mentor, teacher, companion, spiritual guide, counsellor, healer and reconciler of their
tribe (Sellner, 1990; O’Donohue, 1997). For Irish social workers and supervisors storying
supervision out of this tradition would most likely influence them to practise and
construct supervision in a more holistic, humane, and reverential way than if it was
storied in terms of oversight and administration. Storying supervision in the latter form
could lead the supervision into the politics of subjugation and rebellion which had been
dominant in the Irish culture since 1171CE when the English King Henry II invaded
Ireland (Anon, 2000).
Early Written History
As stated previously the early-written history of supervision can be traced to the Charity
Organisation Societies Movement, which began in Buffalo, New York, USA in 1878
(Kadushin, 1992; Munson, 1993; Tsui, 1997b: 191-198). The supervision itself involved
the paid agents of this movement being supervised as part of their apprenticeship
(Munson, 1993). The extent to which this supervision included both administrative and
professional aspects is debated (Munson, 1993). Tsui (1997b: 191-198) covers this debate
well and asserts that the supervision began with an administrative emphasis because the
first visitors of the Charity Movement were the employers, who were untrained
volunteers from the upper class and were not supervised. These employers recruited paid
agents towards the turn of the century from the middle and working classes. They then
provided administrative supervision to the paid agents as a means of maintaining
accountability. When a number of paid agents were established, Tsui (1997b: 191-198)
argues, the professional aspects (namely education and support) began to be addressed as
the paid agents implemented an apprenticeship approach. Generally the supervision was
focused like the social work practice of the time on good advice and practical help
(Kadushin, 1992).
Social Work Training
In 1898, the first recorded social work training course was offered by the New York
Charity Organisation Society. This course marked the beginning of agency-based
education and training, and evolved in 1904 into the New York School of Philanthropy.
This school later developed into the first school of social work- the Columbia University
33
School of Social Work (Kadushin, 1992), with the first course in supervision being
offered in 1911(Kadushin, 1992; Tsui, 1997b: 191-198). In the 1920s, social work
training moved from the agencies to universities. As a result of this move, the
professional aspects of supervision were promoted as supervision became viewed as an
educational process for learning social work practice (Munson, 1993; Tsui, 1997b: 191198). The viewing of supervision as an educational process also contributed to the
development of the individual conference as the primary mode of delivery (Munson,
1993; Tsui; 1997b:191-198). Ultimately, the formalisation of social work training led to
the rise of a specific form of supervision for social work students whilst on fieldwork
placements.
The changes in training also contributed to the development of a social work
supervision literature base. According to Kadushin (1992:11) thirty-five articles on social
work supervision were published between 1920 and 1945 by the Family Casework (now
Social Casework) journal. The first book on social work supervision, Supervision in
Social Casework, written by Virginia Robinson, was published in 1936 (Kadushin, 1992).
This book defined supervision from an educational perspective and emphasised the role
of supervision as a form of professional development and training (Tsui, 1997b: 191198).
The era of psychoanalytic dominance
The emergence of the professional aspects of social work supervision, through an
increased emphasis on education, was furthered by the integration of psychoanalytic
theory into social work practice from the 1930s to the 1950s. This integration resulted in
this psychological practice theory having a significant influence in supervision, and the
led to the rise of the notion that supervision was a “parallel process” of casework (Tsui,
1997b:191-198; Munson, 1993; Kadushin, 1992). The inclusion of psychoanalytical
terms into social work also contributed to a focus on individual diagnosis and treatment
to the detriment of social factors. Gowdy, et al., (1993:3-21) make the argument that the
adoption of psychoanalytic theory in social work supervision was unhelpful and resulted
in a shift of focus in supervision from the work to the worker. Their argument hints at a
possible parallel process in which the casework emphasis shifted from the problem to the
34
person with supervision mirroring that shift by the emphasis shifting from the work to the
worker.
Enter Social Science Theories 1950s
In the 1950s, the questioning of the connection between psychoanalytic theory and social
work began. Psychology during this period was also questioning the place of
psychoanalytic theory, which was losing its dominance due to the emergence of the other
psychodynamic schools, and the behaviourist and humanist schools. Munson (1993)
argues that the 1950s saw a social backlash against psychoanalysis, which contributed, to
social workers returning to a social science base to conceptualise their practice rather than
a psychological one. This period saw the rediscovery of the sociological theories (e.g.
consensus theory and symbolic interactionism) and the emergence of social psychological
theories (e.g. role theory and communication theory) by social workers. According to
Munson, (1993) the emergence of these theories restored the social aspects of social work
and created a more balanced psychosocial approach to social work and supervision.
That interminable debate 1956-1970s
Tsui (1997b: 195) argues that the next major historical theme was the debate from 1956
to the 1970’s between “interminable supervision and autonomous practice”. This debate
arose from the increasing professionalisation of social work, and the view espoused that a
social worker’s professional status was compromised by interminable supervision (Tsui,
1997b:191-198). One result of this debate was a trend began to develop away from
interminable supervision to a defined period of supervised practice which was then
followed by autonomous practice (Munson, 1993). This debate also arguably gave rise to
the concept of consultation in social work, and the view that the autonomous practitioner
would consult in particular cases, rather than have an ongoing supervision relationship
(Kadushin, 1977). It appears that as the professional (educational and support) aspects of
social work supervision reached their apex, that the profession’s desire for professional
legitimisation resulted in the devaluing of the professional aspects of supervision.
Theoretical Pluralism, Support and Accountability
During the 1960s and 1970s the number of theoretical approaches to social work practice
35
increased considerably (Turner, 1996). The initial response to this increasing number of
theoretical approaches was to try and find connections between the old theories and the
new (an example of this was the linking of Transactional Analysis’ three ego states
Parent, Adult and Child with Freud’s concepts of the Superego, Ego and Id). A second
later response involved a coming to terms with and the development of an acceptance of
theoretical pluralism and the possibilities it brought with it (Turner, 1996). The
theoretical pluralism of this period was also replicated in the supervision literature with
literature in the late 1970s being written from a functional, role theory and task-centered
perspective (Kadushin, 1976; Pettes, 1979; Munson, 1979).
Kadushin (1992: 14) argues that in the 1970s two further factors emerged. The
first was an increased preoccupation with accountability due to the fiscal constraints of
publicly funded agencies’ and the beginnings of the shift from Keynesian-based demand
economics to the economics of laissez-faire (Easton, 1997; O’Donoghue, 1998). The
natural result of this factor was an increased emphasis on administrative supervision. The
second factor was the discovery of burnout, which emphasised the importance of the
supportive aspects of supervision (Kadushin, 1992). The type of supervision that these
two factors appeared to bring to the fore in the period immediately prior to the new
managerial era, was one focused on administrative accountability and support of the
worker, rather than directly upon professional practice.
New managerialism and Economic Rationalism
The 1980s and 1990s were decades which promoted new managerialism and economic
rationalism. This discourse dominated the both Western world and the social services
context through the imposition of a convergence between neoliberal ideological theories,
managerialism and accrual accounting. It was called Reganomics in the USA,
Thatcherism in the Great Britain and Rogernomics in Aotearoa New Zealand (Cheyne, et
al., 1997). The legacy of these economic and social reforms continues to be felt today
(O’Donoghue, 2000).
The influence that new managerialism and economic rationalism have had on
social work and social work supervision continues to be considerable (O’Donoghue,
1998; 1999; 2000). Some of the effects have been:
36
•
Demands namely the volume and complexity of social
problems, together with public expectations, exceed the
resources available and the ability of social services to deliver
services;
•
A shift from a service culture to a production culture in the
social services. This is characterised by the importation of the
business management ethos and language (e.g. inputs, outputs,
outcomes, budgets, risk, and KPI’s [Key Performance
Indicators]);
•
The employment of Generic Managers who have little or no
social work background running social work agencies;
•
Practice and supervision operating in a fiscally constrained,
managed cost environment;
•
Increased utilisation of contracting in service purchase, practice
and supervision reinforcing a purchaser/provider split in which
the primary client shifts from the person using the service to
the purchaser;
•
Defensive risk adverse practice and supervision;
•
Increased usage and importance placed on information
technology and recording.
•
Separation between managers, supervisors, and practitioners
and clients;
•
Separation of the management and professional (educative and
supportive) functions of supervision;
•
The delegation/devolution of management functions to
practitioners through the use of quality or self-managing teams;
•
Increased utilisation of peer, external and consultative forms
of supervision.
The international literature highlights the emphasis that accountability has had in social
work supervision (Tsui, 1997b:191-198; Munson, 1993; Morrison, 1993, Kadushin,
37
1992; Coulshed, 1990; Glastonbury et al., 1987; Bamford, 1982). This emphasis tends to
be constructed in terms of the changes within organisations rather than within societies or
across the globe and it emphasises the dominance of the managerial function of
supervision over the professional aspects. It is has only been in recent years that the
supervision literature has considered the policy context that acts upon social service
organisations and how that context influences the delivery of supervision and social
services (Tsui et al., 1997:181-205; Munson, 1998:1-41; O’Donoghue, 1999; 2000).
The reaction in the literature to the managerial emphasis in supervision has been
twofold. Firstly, there has been an increasing argument for the separation of managerial
aspects from the professional aspects of supervision (Erera et al., 1994: 39-55; Payne,
1994: 45-58; Gibelman et al., 1997: 1-15; Morrell, 2001: 36-41). This argument was also
supported by the participants in my study with thirteen of the fifteen research participants
stating that they wanted their supervisor to be someone other than their line-manager.
Nine of the thirteen also wanted their supervisor to be external to the agency in which
they were employed (O’Donoghue, 1999).
The second reaction has been to reassert the importance of the professional
aspects of social work supervision. This has occurred through the social work
profession’s re-emphasis on the process of social work supervision. One example of this
was the publication of a book titled Interactional Supervision (Shulman, 1993) by the
National Association of Social Workers in the United States of America. This reemphasis
is also evident in the volume of recently published literature (Kadushin, 1992; Munson,
1993; Shulman, 1993; Morrison, 1993; Brown et al., 1996; Hughes et al., 1997;
O’Donoghue, 1998). A strong theme present in this literature, is the argument that
supervision, through its interactional focus (which includes the interactions between the
practice setting, the client, the social worker, the supervisor, the agency and its context),
provides professional process accountability through the medium of reflective practice
(Munson, 1993; Shulman, 1993; Rich, 1993:137-178; Van Kessel et al., 1993:29-44; Tsui
et al., 1997:181-205). The reassertion has been further supported by the establishment of
The Clinical Supervisor Journal in 1983, and by the conceptualisation of the phenomena
of Clinical Social Work Supervision by Munson (1993). The strongest assertion of the
professional aspects of social work supervision was made by Brashears (1995), who
38
argued that a false dichotomy had been created between social work practice and
supervision, and that supervision is social work practice and needs to be reconceptualised
in this way.
Empowerment and Anti-Oppressive Approaches
Also during the same decades (1980s and 1990s) significant strides were being made in
regard to identifying, naming and trying to mitigate oppression and considerable efforts
were also made in the empowerment of people from marginalised groups (Payne, 1997).
Lee (1996) emphasises that the convergence of social, political and economic movements
such as indigenous people rights, the women’s movement, the black power movement
and the gay rights movement with liberation theories, from theology, political science,
psychology, economics contributed to the synthesis that became the social work
empowerment approach. Lee (1996) also attributes the integration of Paulo Freire’s
critical approach into social work theory as key to the development of the social work
empowerment approach.
The empowerment and anti-oppressive theme in social work practice emerged in
the supervision literature in the late 1980s, originally through feminist critique, followed
by particular cultural group’s critique of supervision. Both critiques highlighted that
traditional supervision was constructed from white-male-western hierarchical perspective
which did not address or consider the influence of power present in supervision from
structural, political and socio-cultural discourses (Kasier, 1996; Brown et al., 1996;
Chernesky, 1986: 128-148). These approaches have facilitated a new consideration of the
issues of power and authority in supervision, and have led to the key questions of:
•
“Who names the world of supervision?
•
Who is advantaged and disadvantaged, included and excluded by this
naming?
•
How can the politics of advantage and disadvantage and inclusion and
exclusion be addressed in an empowering way for those experiencing
disadvantage and exclusion?”
39
The Supervisory Jungle
The professional reassertion of the importance of supervision in the 1990s discussed
above also led to Rich (1993: 137) describing the field as a “supervisory jungle”. This
description was attributed to the supervision field because there was not a comprehensive
definition or theory that describes its purpose or methods and its body of knowledge is
littered with a proliferation of models and approaches. This situation has resulted in the
pursuit of the ‘Holy Grail’ of an “Integrated or Comprehensive model or approach to
supervision” (Tsui et al., 1997: 181-205; Rich, 1993: 137-178). The pursuit for a megatheory of supervision has not yielded any result by way of mega-theory. However, it has
broadened the understanding of the context within which supervision occurs from the
organisation to a wider socio-cultural one through Tsui et al. (1997:181-205) proposing
culture as the dominant context in which supervision occurs. It also contributed to the
development of culturally based approaches to supervision.
Postmodernism and Reflection.
At the turn of the 21st Century the knowledge and practice base for supervision parallels
that of direct social work practice. This relationship between these will be discussed
further in chapter 5. At this point it is worthwhile to highlight the emergence of two new
themes namely, the appearance of post-modern ideas and reflective practice in
supervision.
The post-modern ideas appear to have come into supervision via the practice
approaches of narrative therapy, solution-focussed practice and strengths-based practice.
Thus far it appears that the introduction of these ideas is at an early stage with the author
only being able to source two journal articles and two papers from conference
proceedings (Rita, 1998: 127-139; Cohen, 1999: 460-466; Amnon, 2000; Crocket, 2001:
79-85). It is likely that this will grow over the next decade particularly as the number of
publications in the direct practice increase.
The concept of reflective practice, on the other hand, which has developed from
the incorporation of Kolb’s Adult Learning Theory and Donald Schon’s work in regard to
how practitioners think in practice is increasingly becoming significant in the
professional development of social workers and supervisors. Reflective Practice has
40
developed a significant audience amongst social workers, supervisors and social work
educators (Kolb, 1984; Schon, 1991; Coulshed, 1993: 1-13; Gardiner, 1989; Gould et al.,
1996, Morrison, 1993; Van Kessel et al., 1993: 29-44). It is likely that the ideas from
reflective practice will continue to influence supervision for the foreseeable future.
Summary
Before moving on to explore an Aotearoa New Zealand supervision story. The main
points from the international story are summarised below:
•
That the histories of social work and social work supervision are contestable. The
author’s construction of a story and selection of events reflects their particular
background, perspective and understanding of the subject and have been shaped by
the wider social discourse within which an author is immersed.
•
The literature that tells the story of social work supervision generally tells an
American story which locates the origins of both social work and supervision with the
19th Century US Charity Movements.
•
There is no speculation in the international story on the contribution of the Christian
church, social and cultural practices, or other professions to the evolution of
supervision.
•
The supervision story like the social work story has evolved from a number of strands
in the “Human Story” and therefore can be storied out from our own social and
cultural contexts.
•
The early-written history of supervision indicates that supervision was administrative
focused and that the professional aspects of supervision development from the
formalisation of social work training.
•
That psychoanalytic theory dominated both social casework and supervision between
the 1930s and 1950s.
•
The rediscovery of the social science theories in the 1950s was due to increasing
dissatisfaction with psychoanalysis, the emergence of other psychological schools and
restored the social aspects of social work and supervision, thereby, creating a more
balance psychosocial approach to social work and supervision.
41
•
From 1956-1970s a debate ensure concerning interminable supervision and
autonomous practice. This debate gave rise to the concept of consultation in
supervision.
•
The 1960s and 1970s were decades in, which a theoretical pluralism developed in
both social work and supervision. It was also a period where an increased
preoccupation with accountability developed and burnout was identified. Supervision
towards the end of this period was focused on administrative accountability and
support of the worker.
•
The 1980s and 1990s were decades which promoted new managerialism and
economic rationalism. These two factors had a significant effect on social work and
supervision and resulted in the managerial aspects of supervision dominating the
professional aspects.
•
The reaction to the managerial emphasis in supervision has been two-fold in the
literature with one response being an increasing argument for separation of the
managerial and professional aspect. The other response has been the reassertion of the
professional aspects of supervision.
•
Also in the 1980s and 1990s empowerment and anti-oppressive approaches emerged
in social work and supervision and facilitated a new consideration of the issues of
power and authority in supervision.
•
At the turn of the 21st Century there is neither a comprehensive definition nor a megatheory of supervision despite the pursuit of and articulation of an Integrated and
Comprehensive model.
•
The incorporation of post-modern ideas and the concept of reflective practice are two
developing themes in supervision at this time.
An Aotearoa New Zealand Supervision Narrative
The Aotearoa New Zealand supervision story has predominately been constructed from a
Pakeha Western perspective. This perspective has been strongly influenced by the British
and North American dominated international discourse (Webber-Dreadon, 1999:7-11). A
monocultural form of supervision has resulted from that story where supervision has been
constructed in an individualist and private way with the individual supervision session
42
with an individual supervisor being normative. This form of supervision is primarily
informed by the Western world-view and Anglo-American cultural values, which do not
meet the needs of pratcitioners and clients from other cultures. It is argued that the social
work and supervision stories in Aotearoa New Zealand are better storied from the
Aotearoa New Zealand context rather than from the Anglo-American. In storying
supervision and social work out of Aotearoa New Zealand the author is asserting that
social work and supervision were present in Aotearoa New Zealand before they were
named. Therefore, Aotearoa New Zealand story of social work and supervision starts in
the Maori World.
A Maori World
The Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa. They describe themselves as Tangata
Whenua (The people of the land). Their life-principle (mauri) is linked to the land
through the custom of returning the placenta (whenua) to the land (te whenua). Maori
share a common ancestry derived from the Sky Father (Ranginui) and the Earth Mother
(Papa-tu-a-Nuku). For Maori their connection with the land is linked to their selfidentity, esteem, and well being (mana). The land also connects them with their ancestors
(tipuna), tribe (iwi) and kin groups (hapu, whanau). According to Henare (1988: 42) the
“many values, norms, social systems and social organisations” of Maori culture
developed over a period of between 5,000 to 7,000 years. The Maori world had processes
and systems for caring and hosting (manaaki), supporting (awhi), regulating, prohibiting
and protecting (tapu), reconciling, and restoring wrongs (muru) and healing (whakaora)
its people within its social structures. In other words it had processes for social work and
supervision.
Traditional Maori Society consisted of autonomous tribes (iwi) which contained
sub-tribes (hapu) and household or extended family groups (whanau). Membership of a
whanau, hapu and iwi group was derived from genealogical links (whakapapa). The
whanau, hapu and iwi structure provided belonging and each had its own supervisory
structures, processes, roles and responsibilities. Bradley et al. (1999:4) identifies the
following Maori roles as a supervisory:
43
“kaiawhina (helper), kaitautoko (supporter), kaiwhakahaere (organiser), kaiarahi
(guide), kaiwhakariterite (planner), mangai tautoko (advocate), takawaenga (liaison
or mediator), kaiwhakatutuki or kaiwhakatinana (implementer), whakaruruhau
(shelterer), kaitiaki (guardian), mana whakahaere or pou whakahaere (manager),
and tautohito or matanga or pukenga (expert).”
According to Bradley et al. (1999:3-6) the supervisee journey was one from akonga
(student), to pia (learner), to tauira (graduate), to pukenga (expert). Moreover, within the
traditional whanau there were and continue to be a range of supervisory relationships.
Two examples of this are the kaumatua and kuia’s supervision of the whanau and the
tuakana/teina (elder/younger) supervisory relationship within whanau. Thus far my
argument is that in the traditional Maori World there were roles relationships and
processes that were supervisory and that supervision story in Aotearoa New Zealand
originates from within the Maori World and is informed by the theories and baskets of
knowledge of that world (Ruwhiu, 1995: 21-24).
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
From the 1830s onwards increasing numbers of British migrants started to settle in
Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Tiriti o Waitangi was a British initiative to manage the
settlement of their subjects in Aotearoa. Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840, between
Rangitira of Iwi/Hapu and the Crown’s representative Lieutenant-Governor Hobson.
There were four English versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, which did not match Te
Tiriti o Waitangi. The Rev. Henry Williams translated the English Treaty of Waitangi
into the Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Rev. Richard Taylor wrote it out in Maori
(Taylor, 1976).
Te Tiriti o Waitangi consists of four articles. The first article gave the Crown the right to
set up a government and govern in Aotearoa New Zealand. The second article was an
agreement whereby the Crown would protect the Chiefs and Hapu and all the people in
the exercise of their Chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures in
exchange for the right to purchase land at an agreed price from the Chiefs for settlement.
Article three gives Maori people the rights and duties of British Citizenship. Article four
44
is a declaration of religious and cultural freedom. Essentially, Te Tiriti o Waitangi
recognises that Tauiwi (Non Maori) through the Crown had a legitimate role in the
further development of Aotearoa New Zealand and that Maori Iwi/Nations were Tangata
Whenua, the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand who would be equal
contributors with Tauiwi in that development (Ruwhiu, 2001, 54-71).
Using the concept of supervision as a metaphor one could assert that Te Tiriti o
Waitangi equated to a supervision contract between the Crown and Maori Iwi/Nations
and that the key elements of that contract were a partnership between the two parties.
Arguably the Crown’s role is a supervisory one which seeks to involve the other party in
the supervision process, decision-making and protects and supports the right of Maori
Iwi/Nations to act autonomously in all things pertaining to their own. As a supervision
contract Te Tiriti o Waitangi could also be viewed as recognising the rights of both
parties as equal citizens, partners and participants who have the right to their own
worldview religious and cultural practices. It was also a contract that the parties entered
into in good faith.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi could also form the basis for a model of supervision, in
which the both parties work in partnership, to protect Tangata Whenua’s rights to selfdetermination in regard to Tangata Whenua things. The model would also validate each
parties rights to participation through equal citizenship and promote non-discrimination.
Colonising Supervision
The Crown initially honoured Te Tiriti o Waitangi during its first decade. This is
supported by documented case of R-v-Symonds in 1847, in which the Chief Justice Sir
William Martin and Mr Justice Richmond declared the Treaty of Waitangi to be valid
(Williams, 1993: 78-82). A change occurred when the administration of Government
shifted form Great Britain to the Settler Government in 1852 under the New Zealand
Constitution Act. This act disenfranchised Maori through its individual property
qualification. Furthermore, Section 71, which created the provision for home rule in
specifically designated Maori districts, was never fulfilled. As a consequence tensions
between the two Treaty partners rose. These tensions were further exacerbated by the
increasing influx of immigrants demanding land and by settler incursions into Maori land.
45
These incursions, the lack of responsibility taken by the settler government for the actions
of settlers and the non-involvement of Maori in the Government led Maori to seek redress
via the Kingitanga movement (Walker, 1993: 117-125).
The Government was unresponsive and defiant towards Maori attempts to seek
redress and this unresponsive and defiant stance furthered the deterioration in relationship
between the Crown and Maori and ultimately brought about the New Zealand Wars.
These wars produced war crimes in the form of the violation of Maori peoples’ human
rights, land confiscation and theft, the suppression and denigration of Maori culture, and
the Treaty of Waitangi being declared a nullity in the infamous decision in 1877 by Chief
Justice Prendergast in Wi Parata –v- The Bishop of Wellington.
The Crown had effectively colonised in the period from 1850-1890 using the
blunt instruments of Westminster Law and War. The type of supervision they had
modelled was a colonising one, which promoted superiority, authority, dominance and
compliance.
If we turn to the social work and social work supervision story we find that the
Colonial Pakeha State also shaped the construction of social work and supervision and
used it as a means of colonisation and of reinforcing their ideological interests. In the late
19th Century Aotearoa New Zealand also had Charity based services which were assisted
by the State and provided assistance only to deserving cases. These were generally,
pakeha women and children, the disabled and the elderly.
The 1920s saw the State employ full-time workers in the Child Welfare and
Probation fields (Nash, 2001: 32-43; O’Donoghue, 1999). From the 1920s through to the
late 1940s what was to become the Welfare State was established. Arguably, the State
through the creation of the Welfare State has taken on the supervisory role of a beneficent
Pakeha parent. Also, during this period there was continued growth in the number of
employed social workers and this led to a call for professional education and training
which came in the form of the Victoria University of Wellington’s Diploma in Social
Sciences. This training was mono-culturally based and promoted the British and North
American casework method of social work and supervision.
According to Austin (1972: 54-61) the Victoria University programme through its
support to fieldwork supervisors provided an impetus to improve the professional aspects
46
of supervision. A further consequence of the Victoria University programme was that
more social workers were formally educated. This increase in formally trained social
workers brought about a momentum for professional recognition. This ultimately
produced the establishment of New Zealand Association of Social Workers (NZASW) in
1964.
NZASW promoted an educational focus in social work supervision and
contributed significantly through its support and reporting of the first social work
supervision course held at Tiromoana in 1965, and by publishing the monograph
Supervision in Social Work a New Zealand Perspective in 1972 (NZASW, 1966: 21;
NZASW, 1972). This literature base started by NZASW grew slowly a fact that was
bemoaned by Bracey (1978a: 9-12) in his article when he identified that there had only
been four articles published concerning supervision in 38 issues of New Zealand Social
Worker. Bracey’s (1978a) article appears to mark a change in emphasis towards an
accountability focus in supervision and introduces themes from the international literature
into the local setting. This was particularly reinforced by Bracey’s (1978b: 17-18) book
review of Kadushin’s (1976) first edition of Supervision in Social Work also featuring in
the same issue as his article.
The 1980s reveal a return to the professional and educational focus. This return
appears aided by the completion of the first two research studies on supervision
completed at Masters level (Bowden, 1980; Bracey, 1981). The first study by Bowden
(1980) which was undertaken in the Department of Social Welfare, found that whilst
supervisors experienced satisfaction in the performance of their task, they also had
difficulty balancing agency requirements with those of their supervisees. An outcome that
emerged from Bowden’s study was the development of the Certificate in Social Service
Supervision course at Massey University. The second study (Bracey, 1981) conducted in
the probation service, contributed to the development of supervision within that service
during the 1980s and early 1990s. This study builds on Bracey’s earlier article and has a
strong emphasis on supervision as a process by which practitioners are to be held
accountable. Another finding of this study was that it was difficult to abstract supervision
from the organisational context within which it was practised. These research studies
reflected the period in which they were written and were silent about matters related to
47
culture and gender in supervision.
The early 1980s were a period when considerable interest and energy was
invested in social work supervision. The most poignant example of this was Supervision
Resource Package (NZSWTC, 1985) published by the New Zealand Social Work
Training Council. The development of the package began in November 1981, included
two workshops held in August 1982 and July 1983, and received contributions from
forty-eight social workers.
The package itself was comprehensive and contained a
position paper, development planners, an extensive bibliography, and brief outlines of
supervision models from a number of practice settings. Included in the practice models
were a bicultural model and a feminist model. These inclusions appear to be the first
formal recognition of the influence of culture and gender in social work supervision in
Aotearoa New Zealand. Their inclusion reflected the changes that were occurring within
the profession and society during this period towards recognising and beginning to
address gender and cultural oppression (Shannon, 1991; Beddoe and Randal, 1994: 2136; Cheyne et al., 1997). One example of the changes that were occuring in society
during this period was Puao-Te-Ata-Tu (Daybreak): The Report of the Ministerial
Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare (1986:
23) was released the following year. This notable report identified personal, cultural and
institutional racism within the Department and made the point that the social work system
that was imposed on Maori was one of colonisation and subjugation of Maori and other
Polynesian cultures.
It was within this wider set of influences that change occurred in the profession
(NZASW) with the initiation of the two caucuses, Maori and Tauiwi, at the conference
held Turangawaewae Marae in 1986, shared governance between Maori and Tauiwi
social workers in 1989, and a Bicultural Code Practice in 1993 (Beddoe and Randal,
1994: 21-36). Despite, these professional and social changes cultural supervision was not
a matter of debate or a reality for Maori Social Workers (Mataira, 1985).
Towards the end of the 1980s at the dawn of the new managerial era, the issue of
low levels of professionalisation amongst social workers and its effect on the professional
aspects of supervision was raised. The particular concerns identified were an increasing
identification by social workers with their agencies, and an emphasis on administrative
48
supervision. The implications of these concerns were the erosion of social workers’
professional identity, professional development, and critical reflection on social work
practice (Taverner, 1989: 20-21; Blake-Palmer et al., 1989: 21-22).
The new managerial era arguably introduced what could be termed the 2nd wave
of colonisation. This time instead of the instruments of Law and War, the tools used were
neoliberal ideological theories, managerialism and accrual accounting in the form of
Rogernomics and Ruthenasia. The supervision literature in the mid 1990s focused on
reclaiming the professional aspects of supervision in a new managerial environment,
which did not seem to value, understand, recognise and support it (Young, 1993; Beddoe
and Davys, 1994: 16-21; Cockburn, 1994: 37; Bennie, 1995). Amongst this literature,
Volume VI, Numbers 5/6 of Social Work Review, and the annotated bibliography of local
and international supervision literature compiled by Bennie (1995), stand out.
Towards the end of 1990s the literature presented a more optimistic picture with a
new era in professional social work supervision emerging in Aotearoa New Zealand
(Beddoe, 1997). This new era was characterised by both agencies and the profession
developing policies on supervision, tertiary education providers offering training
programmes, and a renewed interest in the process of supervision, particularly in relation
to culture and gender. The renewed interest in culture was also supported through
statements concerning cultural consultation in the NZASW, CYFS and Community
Probation Services’ (CPS) supervision policies (NZASW, 1998, CYFS, 1997, CPS,
1997).
The present day situation reveals that there are still significant challenges in
moving towards ‘post-colonising supervision’ despite the recent publication of feminist
and Tangata Whenua models (Webber-Dreadon, 1999: 7-11; Bradley et al. 1999: 3-6;
Simmons, 2001: 177-186). Supervision in the 21st century operates in a ‘just do it’
practice environment of high demand and low support for social work supervision which
is dominated by purchasers who reconstruct supervision according to a business
management and accounting paradigm. Looking at the persons involved in supervision
we find a situation in which clients believed to be the raison d’etre for supervision have
minimal involvement and no voice in the supervision process. Social workers who are
supervisees experience a gap between the “talk” and the “walk” of supervision with
49
reports of variable experiences, limited choice, and being socialised into a mono-form of
supervision that is arguably unresponsive to them, their practice experiences and the “just
do it” practice environment. The current supervisors find themselves in the position of
managing multiple and sometimes conflicting accountablities, responsibilities and
relationships with limited access to resources that facilitate best supervisory practice.
Whereas the managers of social work services perceive supervision both as a production
cost that needs to be managed and risk management system for the agency’s protection
and are caught in the double-bind of wanting to control the cost of supervision without
responsibility for the practice of supervision (O’Donoghue, 2000).
The key challenge that arises in the present is to deconstruct the supervision
stories that we are involved in and to bring to the surface the hidden discourses and then
to co-author new supervision stories that are more responsive to the context and those
involved.
Summary
The main points of the Aotearoa New Zealand supervision narrative are summarised
below:
•
The origins of supervision and social work in Aotearoa New Zealand can be traced to
the Maori world.
•
Te Tirti o Waitangi can be a metaphor for a supervision contract and a supervision
model.
•
The supervision modelled by the Crown between 1850-1890 was a colonising one,
which promoted superiority, authority, dominance and compliance.
•
The face of this colonising supervision continued into the 20th Century and changed
to that of a beneficent Pakeha parent during the era of the welfare state.
•
The mono-culturally-male dominated supervision was further reinforced by the
established
by
the
establishment
of
formal
social
work
training
and
professionalisation in the 1950s –1970s.
•
The New Zealand Social Work Training Council, (1985) Supervision Resource
Package was the first formal recognition that a male-mono-cultural perspective
50
dominated supervision and represented the start of attempts to address gender and
cultural oppression in supervision.
•
The new managerial era reinforced colonising supervision through its neoliberal,
managerial and individual accountability agenda.
•
In the 21st Century significant challenges remain as we move from colonising to post
colonising supervision.
Reflection Questions
1. From what traditions would you story social work and supervision out of?
2. What aspects of the international story of social work supervision are present in your
supervision?
3. What role does Te Tiriti o Waitangi play in your supervision story?
4. What challenges arise for you from the Aotearoa New Zealand supervision narrative?
5. How is the Aotearoa New Zealand narrative lived out in your supervision?
51
CHAPTER 3
THE SOCIAL STORY AND ITS INFLUENCE
The concept of social construction will be introduced in this chapter as a means of
providing a framework for the identification and critique of the voices that author the
social story of supervision. Both global and local voices will be identified and their
influence upon social work supervision practice will be examined.
What is social constructionism?
Social constructionism is derived from the ideas of Berger et al. (1971), who asserted that
reality is knowledge which guides our behaviour, and that we all have different
perceptions of reality. They further asserted that we arrive at shared perceptions of reality
through the sharing and organisation of knowledge. These shared understandings of
reality, when held by a social group, form the basis of human objectivity. Essentially, the
social construction process is an interactive one in which individuals contribute through
institutionalisation and legitimisation to the creation of social meaning within the social
structure of societies, and societies (through the participation of individuals in their
structures) create conventions by which people behave (Payne, 1997). The foundational
concept that underpins social constructionism is that ‘we’ (Human Beings) create our
social world, which consists of norms, roles, responsibilities, expectations and
conventions, through our shared understandings.
An example of social construction in action was the millennium celebrations held
on 1 January 2000. The concept of the new millennium was one that was created by
human beings. We had a shared understanding that there was such a milestone, that this
milestone was significant, that it should be celebrated and we celebrated it from the first
sunrise to the last sunset. For planet Earth and all non-human species that dwell on her it
was another day on which the sun rose, the earth rotated, and the sun set.
So, social constructionism is a conceptual framework that helps us understand
how the social story is authored, told and edited, and a social constructionist approach is
one that questions the story by taking a critical stance concerning the authorship, telling
52
and editing. This critical stance operates from the basis that the story, like the human
beings that author it, is a product of the culture, which is shaped by the prevailing
particular social and economic arrangements, and the history in which they are immersed.
Furthermore, because the perceived reality is socially constructed within this set of
arrangements it generally will emphasise the interest of the dominant groups within that
society. In short, social constructionism provides us with a framework to ask questions
like:
•
Whose voices are represented?
•
Whose voices are absent?
•
Who is advantaged by this story?
•
How are they advantaged?
•
Who is disadvantaged by this story?
•
How are they disadvantaged?
•
What are the consequences of this story?
•
What are the alternatives?
The above questions can also be applied to the construction of both social work and
social work supervision since both phenomena are socially constructed. The metaphor of
‘voice’ introduced above provides another means by which we can ask these questions of
the ‘reality’ that is perceived or promoted. In the next section we will use the metaphor of
voice to examine the authoring, editing and telling of the social story of supervision.
The voices that construct the Social Story of Supervision
In chapter 1, it was argued that an activity was constructed by the context within which it
is embedded and by those that story it. In this section we will examine the social story of
supervision at a macro level by considering the influence of global and local voices.
Global Voices
The concept of globalisation emerged in the 20th Century as technological developments
such as the jet airliner, world-wide simultaneous television broadcasting, cable and
satellite television, the internet and the world wide web, reduced the barriers of distance.
53
As a result we can travel around the globe within a day, we can see and hear events
occurring thousands of miles away virtually as they are happening and we can
communicate and exchange information with people on the other side of the world in an
instant. In spatial terms the story of globalisation has been one of reducing the effect of
distance and facilitating the ability of people to have contact with each other.
Globalisation has also been described as a “Master of Appearances” in this
section we will attempt to identify and discuss the appearances of globalisation through
an examination of the economic, technological, political, socio-cultural and ecological
voices (Kahn et al., 2000: 95-108).
Economic Voice
The most dominant voice globally is the economic voice. This voice speaks of a global
marketplace in which there is free and unfettered trade, deregulation, low taxation and
less government. It is also promotes an ethos of production, and consumption as it
pursues its aim of material wealth creation. Primarily the global economic voice is
concerned with capitalist development and the privatisation of wealth on a global scale.
The catch cry of this voice is the trickle down effect, which states that by creating more
wealth everyone will be better off because, the wealth will trickle down from the rich
transnational corporations, nations etc…to the poorer nations. The way that the global
economic voice believes that this is best achieved is by low production costs such as
wages and taxation so that the profit margin can be increased. One consequence of this is
that a number of transnational companies base their production in countries where the
labour is cheap and the taxation rates are low (generally low taxation equates with the
low provision of social services). The effects of economic globalisation according to the
United Nations Division of Social Policy and Social Development (UNDSPSD, 2001)
are:
A greater disparity between rich and poor nations.
Low-income countries and low paid workers experiencing a reduction in their
standards of living.
54
The general under provision of basic services with a widespread erosion in the
coverage and delivery in a number of countries and an increased ability not to
meet an increasing demand.
The promotion of fiscal constraint and resistance to taxation; structural
adjustment programmes and liberalisation policies; including privatisation and
deregulation; the introduction of user fees for the provision of social services;
and hardened attitudes toward social welfare and unemployment compensation
in both developed and developing countries.
The influence of the global economic voice on social work and supervision is one of
managed cost and privatisation in which demand for services exceeds the resources
supplied. It speaks in unappreciative tones of both social work and supervision, and
sees both as sources of increasing production costs via taxation based funding
(Munson, 1998: 1-41). Social work and supervision are also whispered by the global
economic voice as necessary form of social policing to maintain social and global
cohesion so that the global economy can continue to function. In other words the
global economic voice would support social work and supervision as a pressure valve
that maintains the capitalist hegemony.
Technological voice
Technology has been part of the human story since our ancestors fashioned their first
tools. We have developed technology to assist us and make life easier for us. In our daily
lives we are surrounded by technology. The industrial revolution of the 17th –18th century
brought the technological voice to the fore through increasing mechanisation which
ultimately increased economic production and changed social and political life (Halsall,
1999). The most recent and significant technological revolution is the digital revolution,
of the 20th century which brought communications and information technology to the
forefront (Boone et al., 2000; LaMorte et al., 2001). This revolution like the industrial
revolution has supported the economic voice and changed both social and political life.
Digital technology has aided economic production and distribution by increasing, the
speed of production, access to markets and has created a culture of immediacy. It has also
reduced the labour costs in some areas. An effect of the digital revolution has been
55
further reinforcement of the gap between those that have and those that have not through
the so-called digital divide.
In the social realm it has provided unprecedented access to entertainment,
information, knowledge and representation. It has in short revolutionised human life
through its speed and access to information and ability to communicate with other people.
However, unlike the industrial revolution which occurred in an age where there were
strong moral, ethical and social prohibitions. The digital revolution has occurred in a
permissive liberal society where the technological voice’s message is viewed as amoral
and its message of speed, instantaneous access to information and people has the effect of
globalising social problems such as pornography, gambling, fraud, and terror (APB
News.com, 2001). Its seductive tones have also led to the phenomena of internet
addiction, cybersex, cyber-exhibitionism, voyeurism and terrorism which all have
significant social consequences and have resulted in social workers and the supervisors
dealing with the effects of these global problems.
Digital technology has also facilitated the development of a surveillance society
in which all of our activities both private and public are traceable and monitored. The
surveillance ability of the digital technology appears to have been embraced in the
workplace according to a recent survey conducted in the United States of America which
found that one-third of the online workforce were subject to continuous internet or email
surveillance (Schulman, 2001).
The influence of the technological story on social work and supervision has been
considerable. Over the last decade social workers and supervisors have been introduced
to an unprecedented rate of technological change which has involved the fax machine, the
mobile phone, pagers, the personal computer, the electronic file, the caseload database,
email, voice mail, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, the internet and world wide web.
Despite the range of changes the dominant theme that has most directly effected social
workers and supervisors has been the introduction of the personal computer, computer
servers and database software. The effect of this on social work and supervision has been
an increased emphasis on electronic accounting and recording of the work that is done
with clients, which has resulted in a greater amount of time spent engaged in data entry
rather than direct client or practitioner contact. It has also resulted in increased
56
surveillance and monitoring of client records and the viewing of these records as the most
valid form of evidence social work or supervision practice. Furthermore social workers
and supervisors performance has been assessed on what was recorded rather than what
was done in direct practice. Ultimately the technological voice has resulted in social
workers and supervisors being at the mercy of and serving computer technology rather
than the computer technology serving the social worker, supervisor and clients
(O’Donoghue, 2000; BASW, 2001).
Political Voice
Politically, the voices of globalisation have become synonymous with the rhetoric of,
“The New World order” and “Global policing and security” (Sampson, 2000). The
United Nations, which promised so much, continues to operate with limited effectiveness
and veracity due to super-power dominance. Politically, the voices that dominate are
from the rich and military powerful countries namely the United States of America, Great
Britain, France, Russia, Germany, China and Japan or particular alliances formed by a
group of countries (e.g. NATO, EU and G8). This has been particularly apparent in the
rhetoric and actions taken in both the Gulf War and the Balkans War. The politics that
results is dominated by these countries’ interests and with the exception of China, it also
involves the promotion of the representative politics of the western liberal democracy.
The terrible tragedy of mass murder and the destruction of the World Trade
Centre Towers on 11 September 2001 galvanised a political impetus amongst the rich and
powerful countries to eradicate oppressive inhuman regimes and terrorism. It has also
propagated a rhetoric amongst these same countries to address the issues of social justice
and human rights on a global scale (Guardian Unlimited, 2001). This rhetoric has resulted
in both bombs and food being dropped on Afghanistan.
Over the period of the last decade the global political landscape has changed with
the demise of communism and socialism, the rise and waning of the new right or
neoliberalism and the emergence of the “third way” in politics. The politics of the “Third
Way” have been described as a middle path between capitalism and socialism, the free
market and state regulation, and old left and new right ideologies (Halpern et al., 2001).
57
The politics of the “Third Way” appear to provide a centrist synthesis to the old dualistic
politics of the left and the right.
Arguably, these new politics are leading to a new global political consensus that is
formed through private meetings and information sharing between leaders and
governments and then publicised through the news media rather than public discussion
and debate in a public forum. In short, the global political theatre is predominately one of
private meetings and public posturing dominated by rich and powerful countries that
form alliances to support their political interests. It is also theatre where access is based
on invitation and dissenting voices remain outside or are hidden (Barsamian, 2000).
The social work profession with its values of social justice, human rights and the
empowerment and liberation of people has taken a political stance. The International
Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) has special consultative status with the United
Nations Economic and Social Council as well as being accredited to the International
Labour Organisation, UNCIEF, and Council of Europe and European Union (IFSW,
2001). IFSW works to make the social work political voice heard amongst the many
political voices of the political story. The key challenge for social work and supervision
posed by the political voice is to be politically critical, responsive, and active in a
professionally organised approach such as that demonstrated by IFSW. In other words
social work and supervision need to find their voice within the political story and
advocate in an effective and organised way for the issues of social justice and human
rights that effect clients.
Socio-cultural Voice
The economic, political and technological voices of globalisation have echoed in unison
and to a significant extent have subordinated the socio-cultural voice. The socio-cultural
voice of globalisation has been described as Americanisation, Consumerism and
MacDonaldisation (McLennan et al., 2000). These descriptions of the socio-cultural
voice emphasise the cultural imperialism of the West (i.e. USA, Great Britain and Europe
etc…) and the effect the economic voice has had upon societies and cultures right across
the globe. The cultural imperialism of the West was initially exported around the globe
through colonisation. The colonial period was a period of conquest, consumption, and
58
dominance in which the diversity of range, timbre, and harmony within the socio-cultural
voice was narrowed by policies of assimilation and integration of indigenous and
minority social and cultural groups to a monotone tune to be sung in unison. The voice
was trained to be one that would sing songs of urbanisation, individualism, materialism,
privatisation and progressive permissive liberalism. These songs drowned out the songs
of kin-based tribal and communal structures, collective responsibility, common
ownership, spirituality, stewardship or guardianship of the natural world, and traditional
norms and practices. Arguably, the soul of the socio-cultural voice was traumatised.
In the period since the 1960s, gradually there have been increasing whispers of a
new tune within the socio-cultural voice. This new tune is very much the post-colonial,
post-modern tune of social and cultural relativism, and pluralism. This tune mixes with
the dominant western democratic tradition and the United Nations’ call for universal
human rights and social justice. Within this new and emerging tune of the post-modern,
post-colonialism there is the struggle of indigenous and marginalised peoples’ voices
which seek justice and the pain of their post colonial traumatic stress (Turia, 2000).
The socio-cultural voice’s promotion of democracy has spread widely throughout
nation states over the last century with some exceptions. The exceptions however are
notable and significant (e.g. China which contains one fifth of the world’s population
approximately 1 billion people and Pakistan which as well as a significant population is
also a nuclear power). It is not surprising with these exceptions that we are still a
considerable distance away from a global democratic system. Likewise, the socio-cultural
voice’s promotion of human rights continues to be subjugated despite the United Nations
Universal Declaration being over 50 years old (Chomsky, 1998). The range of abuses
present in the world today includes genocide, torture, oppression and violence towards
women and children, racism, poverty, and the denial of the basic necessities of life etc….
It is also important to note that human rights abuses are widely perpetrated across the
whole globe with so-called reputable western countries such as the United States of
America and Australia amongst the list of perpetrators (Global Issues.org, 2001).
Over the past twenty years, the socio-cultural voice has started to articulate the
effects of colonisation and cultural imperialism upon indigenous and minority cultural
groups. It has also raised the issues of mono-culturalism, bi-culturalism and
59
multiculturalism in a pluralist world. In doing so the socio-cultural voice has supported
indigenous and minority groups voicing of their issues with some progress being made
towards redressing past and present injustice and institutional racism. Despite, the
progress made over the past twenty years and indigenous peoples’ struggle for the right to
self-determination, self-governance and economic, technological and political parity,
there remains the dominance of western voices within the global economic, technological
and political voices.
The socio-cultural global voice and its complexities, contradictions and paradoxes
are all present in social work and social work supervision. On the one hand social work
and supervision have been instruments of colonisation and oppression whereas, on the
other hand social work and supervision have through the development, promotion and
use of empowerment and liberation theories been instrumental in supporting subjugated
discourses in the post-colonial and post-modern eras. The challenge for both social work
and supervision is to recover the soul of the socio-cultural voice through recognising and
responding to its subjugated tones through critical and anti-oppressive social work and
supervision approaches.
Ecological Voice
The concepts of global warming and climate change are common place in our
vocabulary. Our awareness of humanity’s influence upon the ecological environment has
been raised by the increasing size of the ozone hole, the Kyoto protocol in regard
greenhouse gas emissions, moratoriums on nuclear weapons testing and the declarations
of nuclear free zones, concerns about genetic engineering, and the transmission of
biohazards. In a number of western countries the “Green movement” is developing an
increasing political voice of global ecological conservation in the face of global economic
production and consumption. The ecological voice is also present our households and
workplaces through practises such as recycling plastics and paper and the careful usage
and disposal of resources. The ecological voice of care and concern about humanity’s
impact on the planet recognises that we all have a responsibility for the well-being of the
natural environment and that our well-being as a species is connected to well-being of the
sustaining global eco-system. Despite, its plausibility the ecological voice struggles to get
60
a hearing and validation amongst the constant noise of the dominant triad of the
economic, technological and political voices.
Social work and supervision have claimed an ecological perspective through its
reference and utilisation of the eco-systems approach and the person and their
environment paradigm (Mattaini et al., 1998; O’Donoghue, 1999). However, despite this
ecological awareness social work and supervision have paid minimal attention to the
natural ecology of planet Earth. Rather, social work has reconstructed the ecological story
within a dominant psychosocial paradigm rather than a bio-psychosocial one, which gives
credence and recognition to the natural environment. The ecological story challenges
both social work and supervision to be ecologically aware and sensitive to ecological
issues in their practice and secondly to be politically involved in ecological issues
(Besthorn, 2001).
Local Voices
The global economic, technological, socio-cultural and economic voices interact and
influence the local voices within societies. In this section the local voices of social policy,
service providers and the social work profession within Aotearoa New Zealand are
examined.
Social Policy
The voice of social policy in Aotearoa New Zealand dominates the terrain of the social
services it acts upon and influences the voice of service providers and the social work
work profession. Between 1984 and 1999, the economic tones of neo-liberal ideology
dominated social policy in Aotearoa New Zealand. The election of the Labour-Alliance
coalition in 1999, signalled a change in the social policy direction of Aotearoa New
Zealand from neo-liberalism, towards a market-led social democratic approach (Cheyne
et al., 1997). It also seems to have introduced into Aotearoa New Zealand the politics of
the ‘Third Way’ with the Labour Prime-Minister, Helen Clark utilising a number of
methods used by Great Britain’s Tony Blair in both her 1999 campaign and her current
administration. The recent election of Bill English as leader of the opposition National
Party further cements the shift to the politics of the ‘Third Way’ within Aotearoa New
61
Zealand. Mr English, a political pragmatist, together with new party president Michelle
Boag have set about rebranding National through moving on the extremists of the 1990s.
The implications of this change of direction for the social services have meant
that the new government has had more positive intentions than its predecessor towards
funding the provision of social services and reducing the increasing social deficit
(Ansley, 2000; Easton, 2000). However, despite the new government’s benevolent
intentions, the social policy voice remains one where for seventeen years economics,
fiscal restraint, business and the market have come before the needs of people and despite
the Minister of Social Services and Employment’s rhetoric of social development matters
of economic development continue to dominate.
The results of what has been termed the “Commercialisation of New Zealand”
have been increased poverty with a wider gap between rich and poor, reduced welfare
provision for an increasing number of people, increased rates of violent crime and youth
suicide, an increased gap between non-Maori and Maori well-being and the abdication of
social responsibility by the government to meet the basic needs of the desperate through
strict adherence to the ideology of individual and family responsibility (Cheyne et al.,
1997; Easton, 1997). In short, the social policy voice remains one where the demands
namely the volume and complexity of social problems, together with public expectations,
exceed the resources available and the ability of social services to deliver services
(O’Donoghue, 1999). The effect of this upon social work supervision is paradoxical. The
increased demand, complexity of client issues, expectations of and from social workers
and social work, increases the need for social work supervision. Yet, the constrained
policy environment with its limited resource provision and high front-line demand
reduces the availability of supervision because both practitioners and supervisors have
less time available or psychological space to make the most of professionally orientated
supervision (O’Donoghue, 1999).
Service Providers
The operating environment in which social service agencies practice is one that is
dominated by purchaser and managerial voices rather than those of social workers and
clients (Gowdy et al., 1993, O’Donoghue, 1999). Their voice establishes a dominant
62
culture of production in which the vocabulary is arguably directed towards things like
key performance indicators, risk management, budgets and contracts. It is also uses the
language of business management to influence and reconstruct both social work and
supervision (O’Donoghue, 1998; 1999). This reconstruction is most obvious in the
accounting model of recording inputs and outputs that is replicated at every level of
service and which arguably places greater emphasis on recording on the computer system
than attending to the needs of clients (O’Donoghue, 1999). In government-funded
agencies, the performance of a service and its workers tends to be based on the computer
records, rather than what social workers and supervisors actually do with clients and the
achievement of client outcomes. Within the voice of social work service provision the
loudest song is that of the Department of Child, Youth and Family who are, “The single
largest employer of social workers… [with] more than 1,300 social worker and socialwork related employees” (Maharey, 2001:5).
The service provider’s voice is also a voice of distinctions and dialects. The
distinctions separate statutory services (Child, Youth and Family and Community
Probation Service), and health services from third sector community providers. Dialects
also separate managers from social workers and clients. These separations were
reinforced over the last decade through the influence of the purchaser/provider split,
managerialism and the now repealed Employment Contracts Act 1991.
Today, most social service managers operate under individual employment
contracts whilst the social workers are on collective contracts. Social service managers’
performance assessment tends to have little to do with client outcomes or practice and
seems centred upon budget variance, volume and output targets, and risk management
which is understood as “code for minimising political fall out to Ministers” (Kelsey,
1993:72; Boston et al., 1996).
The effects of the separation of social service managers from social workers and
clients have been considerable and have resulted in an increasing number of generic
managers entering social services, whilst those with a social work background who
remain, either struggle with or succumb to the force of the managerial paradigm. In short,
it has changed the culture of social service agencies from a client practice culture to a
service focused production culture (O’Donoghue, 1999).
63
The service provider’s voice influences supervision significantly because it is the
voice from which supervision draws its most direct authorship, usually via an agency
supervision policy. It is also the forum in which the tensions related to needs, resources,
ideology and values are acted out (O’Donoghue, 1998). In recent years statutory and
health social services have developed supervision policies. The development of policies
is a positive initiative, which needs to be supported by the development of a best practice
and supervision culture (Hawkins et al., 2000; Beddoe et al., 1994). Without a culture of
best practice and professionally oriented supervision, social work supervision becomes
subject to ideological, agency, and managerial capture (Drew, 1987; Taverner, 1989;
O’Donoghue, 1999). Clearly, the challenge presented by the service providers voice is to
maintain the professional practice focus of supervision and resist reductionist
reconstruction of supervision by agencies whose interest in supervision is managerial
rather than professional (Drew, 1987; O’Donoghue, 1999).
Before moving on to the next section, the recent trend of agencies’ purchasing of
external supervision and supervision training merits a brief comment. The purchase of
both supervision and supervision training has both its pros and cons. The obvious pros
are that the agency is willing to invest in supervision. The not so obvious cons are that if
supervision and supervision training are purchased, those doing the purchasing namely,
agency management, have a significant influence concerning what is purchased. In other
words, the purchaser can determine the length, content, quality and the type of
supervision and supervision training provided. One possible result is that both the
supervision and the supervision training purchased may emphasise technique and skills
and the agency’s ideology rather than professional knowledge and critical
reflection/action in relation to the processes, persons and environments that influence and
construct supervision and social work practice (O’Donoghue, 1999).
The Social Work Profession
The voice of the social work profession in Aotearoa New Zealand is not as forceful as
that of the social service providers. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social
Workers (ANZASW), with approximately 1600 members equates to approximately 20
percent of the Social Worker population with social workers from the health sector
64
making up the largest group within ANZASW (Randal, 2000). Ironically the strength of
the professional voice of social work depends on support from the dominant social work
agencies. This is exemplified by on the one hand by agencies (e.g., District Health
Boards) who have stringent entry requirements concerning formal social work
qualifications and membership of the professional body together with some financial
support of membership. Whilst, on the other hand there are other agencies, (e.g.
Department of Child, Youth and Family and the Community Probation Service) whose
entry requirements are less stringent concerning formal social work qualifications and do
not require membership of the professional body. The agencies that stridently endorse
formal qualifications and professional membership generally establish a professional
culture with a strong professional voice, whereas those that do not have a strong agency
culture with low professionalisation.
The recent review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services
(DCYFS) completed by former Chief Youth Court Judge Mick Brown, which found that
only 44% of social workers in the Department held formal social work qualifications
seems to support this argument (Brown, 2001; DCYFS, 2001). Amongst this challenging
situation the professional voice of social work seems to struggle to be heard over the
rhetoric of political and industry dominance (Taverner, 1989).
In Aotearoa New Zealand the profession’s voice consists of the duo-tones of
ANZASW and the New Zealand Association of Social Work Educators (NZASWE).
Both groups have provided a constant tune emphasising the importance in both social
work and supervision of bicultural critical reflexive practice, which is intentional and
informed by an explicit knowledge base. In recent years, both the ANZASW and the
NZASWE have placed considerable emphasis on social work supervision. This emphasis
is evident in the development of training courses in social work supervision by the Social
Work Schools and the Association’s policy on supervision and the publication of
standards for supervision courses (NZASW, 1998a; 1998b). These initiatives built upon
the foundations of the 1960s and 1970s (see Chapter 2). The Association’s journal Social
Work Review, has published ten supervision articles published since 1994, and has added
to the profession’s knowledge of the field of supervision. Two of these articles published
in Te Komako III, are of particular significance because they are indigenous approaches
65
to supervision which address kaupapa maori supervision and culturally safe cross-cultural
supervision (Bradley et al., 1999; Webber-Dreadon, 1999). Overall, the Association’s and
the Schools’ activities in the realm of supervision have promoted the socialisation of its
members into an indigenous professional identity in preference to an agency or western
new managerial construction (Beddoe and Randal, 1994).
The prospect of the social workers registration bill seemed to provide the
opportunity for the professional voice to reassert its role as the guardians of professional
knowledge, practice and supervision (O’Donoghue, 1999). As I write the Bill is awaiting
its second reading. In its present form the Bill places considerable power in both the
hands of the Minister of Social Services, through his/her appointment of the Registration
Board, and the Registration Board itself, which gets to decide the following:
•
A recognised New Zealand Social Work Qualification;
•
Competent social work
•
Competency Assessments; and
•
A Code of Professional Conduct.
It is proposed that the Board consist of 10 members, six of whom will be registered social
workers. Its membership is to be representative of the following:
i.
the social profession (including social workers employed by Government and
non government organisations); and
ii. advocates for consumers of services provides by social workers; and
iii. social work educators;
iv. Maori; and
v. other ethnic groups.
The proposed board representation gives a voice to the social work educators but not an
explicit one to the professional body (ANZASW) and it constructs membership of the
social work profession on the basis of employment. Arguably, the Bill reflects dominance
of state agencies (viz. DCYFS and MOSP) in its development. It also reflects their
construction of social work (O’Donoghue, 2001a). It speaks their bureaucratic language
rather than that of social work. The Bill in its current form relies on the appointment of a
creditable registration board concerning about professional standards. If the registration
66
board does not have a professional standards focus both the Board and the Bill have the
potential to harm the professional voice of social work in Aotearoa New Zealand because
of the omission of the following words, which have been the cornerstone of the social
work profession:
•
Te Tiriti O Waitangi
•
Ethics
•
Supervision and Continuing Professional Education.
The development and use of social work knowledge for the purpose of best practice with
clients is a further strand within the profession’s voice which is particularly promoted by
social work education. Currently, ‘Strength-based’ and ‘Solution Focused Practice’ are
promoted as ‘the practice approaches’. The Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services, ‘New Directions’ initiative has particularly reinforced this new ideology of
practice (DCYFS, 2001). Whilst, there is much that is commendable concerning both
‘Strength-based’ and ‘Solution Focused Practice’ these approaches were developed in
specific research settings and require adaptation to Aotearoa New Zealand together with a
well developed knowledge and skill base for competent and effective use. It probably
goes without say that there is more to ‘Strength-based practice and supervision’ than the
identification of strengths likewise there is more to ‘Solution Focused practice and
supervision’ than the identification of solutions (Rapp, 1998; Parton et al., 2000).
However, the social work profession has experienced over the past twenty years that its
case management approach ‘Task Centred Practice’ was reduced and mutated by
managers, agencies and agency practitioners to the point where it was constructed as
giving clients tasks and goals to the detriment of the central tenets of partnership, selfdetermination, participatory problem solving and the skills of engaging and involving
clients in the work.
The profession’s voice in regard to social work and supervision continues to be
one that struggles to gain a hearing amidst the theatre of social service provision in
Aotearoa New Zealand. It remains dependent upon the playwright politicians and
bureaucrats patronage. In other words the profession still finding its place and its voice.
Its duo-tones of the Association and the Schools of Social Work have yet to strongly
67
assert and claim their mantle and assert their responsibility as the guardians of social
work and supervision’s knowledge, skill and practice base in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Summary
In this chapter the social story in which supervision is embedded has been discussed at
macro level and the following points have been made:
•
Social construction provides an analytical framework, which explains how human
beings create and story our social ‘reality’.
•
A social constructionist approach recognises that the social story’s authoring, telling,
and editing is influenced by the culture, history, social and economic arrangements of
dominant groups and it critically questions the story, its authoring, telling and editing.
•
The social work and supervision stories are authored, told, and edited by global and
local voices.
•
The global voice consists of economic, technological, political, socio-cultural and
ecological voices.
•
The economic, technological and political voices dominate the global voice and
subordinate and subjugate the socio-cultural and ecological voices through capitalism
and cultural imperialism.
•
The effects of this on supervision are that supervision tends to be storied as a
production cost to be managed and as a residual and privatised means of reinforcing
control, surveillance and social policing.
•
The challenge for supervision is to be aware of and critically responsive to the
authorship, telling, editing and censoring amongst and within the global voices and to
be cautious of and critically responsive to the replication of oppression and
subjugation of voices within its own story.
•
The global voices interact with and influence the local voices of social policy, service
providers and the social work profession in Aotearoa New Zealand.
•
The economic tones dominate social policy, and are remanifested in service provision
through a production culture and the accounting model.
68
•
The effect of this on supervision are a greater demand for supervision with less
resources available and the storying of supervision in terms of the interests of
purchasers and managers rather than professionals and clients.
•
The social work profession’s voice consisting of the duo-tones of ANZASW and
NZASWE has yet to claim its place to stand and relies on the patronage of politicians
and bureaucrats.
•
The impact of this has been that the profession has been unable to fully assert its
responsibility as the guardians of social work and supervision’s knowledge, skill and
practice base within Aotearoa New Zealand.
Reflection Questions
1. What is your understanding of social constructionism?
2. What influence do you think globalisation has on social work and supervision?
3. Locally, what influence do you think social policy, service providers and the
profession have on social work and supervision?
69
CHAPTER 4
PERSONAL STORIES AND THEIR INFLUENCE
The concept of personal stories as they relate to supervision will be explored in this
chapter. This will be done through the introduction of the concept of personal constructs,
by identifying the voices of the persons involved in the supervision story and discussing
the influence that each has in the construction of social work supervision. The key voices
identified are clients, social workers, supervisors, managers, educators and other social
service and health professionals.
Personal Stories?
In the previous chapter the social story of supervision was examined through reference to
the concept of social construction. In this chapter, the concept of personal constructs will
be used to inform the discussion concerning personal stories and the influence they have
on supervision.
Personal Construct Theory
Personal construct theory was developed by Kelly (1955) its base premise is that people
create their own versions of reality and that there are no ultimate objective ‘facts’ in life,
apart from individuals ongoing interpretation of their experiences (Solas, 1994: 27-35).
For Kelly (1955) personal constructs are a means by which a person makes sense of,
shapes and controls their world. They are the pattern or template through which each
person views the world and comes to understand her/himself and their world. They are
not static systems because they change and develop through the person’s experiences and
interactions with the others, the community and the world. A person’s system of personal
constructs in essence provides them with the set of lenses through which they frame,
view, interpret, define, perceive and understand the world and their experiences. In other
words, personal constructs influence and shape the way that a person story’s their life and
their living out of that story.
According to personal construct theory, people involved in any activity will
frame, view, interpret, define, perceive, understand and experience that activity uniquely.
70
In essence personal construct theory explains how the same event and activity can result
in different perceptions, stories and behaviour from different people (Solas, 1994: 27-35).
Using personal construct theory we can examine and consider the influence personal
supervision stories have on supervision in the particular context in which supervision is
performed. Furthermore, using the voice metaphor from chapter 3, we can also consider
the influence that particular voices have in storying supervision.
The voices
In this section the key voices of the players involved in the performance of supervision
will be characterised in terms of their contribution, influence and presence in the
production. The cast includes clients, social work practitioners, supervisors, managers,
educators and other social service and health professionals. Before moving into the
discussion of the characterisation of the cast, it is important to state that each
performance and production of supervision is both context and cast specific and that the
characterisation that follows is not aimed at typecasting or stereotyping any role. Rather,
it is intended as beginning a conversation that examines how personal stories of
supervision influence the practice of supervision.
Clients
The client voice in supervision is a diverse voice, which generally consists of many
strands and brings with it the echoes of the client’s history, family, cultural and social
systems. It is a voice that is ever present in the supervision production and a constant
theme within the script. It is however, one that is rarely visible or heard in its indigenous
form because it is generally interpreted by practitioners through their interpersonal
process recall. In other words the client voice is central to the story and dialogue that
occurs in the performance of supervision, however, it is rarely heard or seen directly from
its source. Essentially, the client voice is a narrated and edited voice that is re-interpreted
and re-storied from the practitioner’s perspective (Saleebey, 2001). This narration and
editing begs the following questions:
•
•
How authentic is the client’s voice in supervision?
Would the client consider the dialogue about them to be reflective of
them and their situation?
71
•
How would the dialogue be different if the client’s indigenous voice
was present?
The above questions also raise the matter of the client’s knowledge of supervision and
their ability to have access to the supervision process. In social work there is little
evidence to suggest that clients are informed or aware that they may be the subject of
supervision conversations. There is also little evidence to suggest that clients are
informed or aware what supervision is, the role of the supervisor, and who the supervisor
is etc… (Cooper, 2001; O’Donoghue, 2000).
This exclusion of the client’s indigenous voice from supervision means that the
client’s voice is a translated voice that is presented through the filters of the practitioner’s
worldview. It is a voice with little influence and redress concerning how its story is
narrated, told, edited, protected and perhaps ultimately directed through supervision. A
further point that is interesting to note is that when practitioners are in training they are
more likely to have the indigenous client voice present in their supervision through live
or taped observation than when they are fully fledged practitioners (Maidment, 2000;
Tsui, 2001). In Aotearoa New Zealand efforts to facilitate the presence of the client’s
indigenous voice in supervision via audio and or video-taped observation or live
supervision of practice are met with resistance and claims of “this is not supervision as
we know it” (Blake-Palmer, et al., 1989: 21-22). There is a certain irony in this,
particularly when one considers that we as social workers are often strong advocates for
transparency. However, when it comes to our direct practice, we conduct it behind closed
doors and report upon it indirectly in supervision sessions also conducted behind closed
doors (O’Donoghue, 2000).
Practitioners
The voice of the social work practitioner is also diverse. This voice has been formed by
the practitioner’s personality and within the stories of their personal experiences, family,
culture, gender, sexual orientation, religion, spirituality, socio-economic status, age, and
disability as well as their professional experiences gained from education and training,
employment and practice, and supervision. The voice of the practitioner resonates with
72
their values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural perspectives, ideology and theory of
social work and practice skills. It has a leading role in the supervision production. This
voice is arguably central to the performance of supervision and ought to have the most
lines in supervision conversation. The language it speaks is that of narration, disclosure,
discussion, debate and dialogue. The delivery and content of the practitioner’s voice is
influenced by their understanding of their role and of supervision. It is also influenced by
all the factors that form their voice, which were listed above and by their perception of
the ability of the other characters, the performance itself, the critics and the audience to
provide a supportive environment. In other words the practitioner’s freedom to express
their voice is influenced by their personal stories concerning their personal and
professional self, others, their role, practice, supervision and their professional,
organisational, practice and social environments. The following example of Ellen, a
social worker who speaks highly of her previous supervisor and then reported her
dissatisfaction with her current supervisor, illustrates how the practitioner’s freedom can
be influenced, supported and constrained by the above factors (O’Donoghue, 1999: 94).
Ellen states:
She certainly offered support. There was good support for safe practice and the
professional side of things…we did work on a few cases…and I think I learnt some
things.
[He] doesn’t have the skills for professional supervision so I tend to take charge
and play games…Nice person, bad supervisor…I think because he’s been in
management for so long, he’s terribly behind. I don’t think I’ve ever had any
meaningful input about where he is on the whole scale of skills and knowledge.
In these two extracts we can see the factors that Ellen indicates are supportive for her to
express her voice in supervision, namely, a practice and professional orientation and the
ability to help her learn. On the other hand the factors that constrain her voice in
supervision are a managerial orientation, a belief that her supervisor cannot help her learn
nor had anything significant to contribute to her development. The fact that Ellen
indicates that she had greater freedom to express herself with the female supervisor than
73
the male supervisor is something that raises the question of the influence of gender as a
liberating or oppressing factor in her supervision story. One further factor in Ellen’s
supervision environment that was not mentioned was that as a social worker working in a
statutory environment she had little choice about her supervisor and that because she had
been moved into another team, she also changed supervisor. This lack of choice or say
concerning supervisor is a further factor that may constrain the practitioner’s voice
particularly if the practitioner does not feel comfortable with the person they have been
given as a supervisor (O’Donoghue, 1999).
A further consideration in regard to the effectiveness of the practitioner voice is
the degree to which it has been trained or coached to perform in the supervision setting.
The point here is that most practitioners receive no formal training, coaching or education
in supervision so in a very real sense they learn supervision by ear and experience rather
than through any formal learning or study. They therefore are unaware of the forms and
styles of supervision that they have not heard or experienced and have a limited repertoire
from which to use their voice.
The practitioner’s voice both exercises power and is affected by power exercised
by others. It exercises power in what it chooses to say or not say and how, when and
where it speaks. It is acted upon by power through the constraints imposed upon its
freedom of expression within the performance and production of supervision.
The practitioner’s voice can be empowered and empowering or de-powered and
de-powering. It is empowered by the practitioner’s own personal and professional
competence, confidence, strengths and resilience and the support provided by their
personal, professional and social environments. It is an empowering voice when its
primary theme is to consider how does its storying affects clients’ indigenous stories and
the best possible outcomes in the short/medium and long term. Likewise, the
practitioner’s voice is de-powered by the practitioner’s own personal and professional
vulnerability and the degree that their personal, professional and social environments are
oppressive. It is de-powering when its focus is on its own story and it has a colonising
effect upon clients indigenous stories and the best possible outcomes in the short/medium
and long term are not considered. In many cases the supervisor’s role is key to the degree
74
of empowerment and oppression experienced by the practitioner and it is to that voice
that we now will turn.
Supervisors
Like the practitioner’s voice the social work supervisors’ voice is diverse and has been
formed by the same factors. It also resonates with the supervisor’s values and ethics,
beliefs, expectations, cultural perspectives, ideology and theory of social work,
supervision and practice skills. Likewise, it has a leading role in the performance of
supervision as a supporting voice for the practitioner and client.
The supervisor’s voice is a responsive voice and should not dominate the
narrative of supervision. It is a voice that facilitates the creation of a forum that
encourages the practitioner’s narration, disclosure, discussion, debate, and dialogue on
the supervision stage. It speaks a language of attendance, observation, reflective listening,
enquiry, support, challenge, ethical and professional safety, and education and
development. Its emphasis is on process rather than content (Solas, 1994: 27-35). The
supervisor’s understanding of their role and of supervision also influences this voice.
Furthermore, all the factors that form the voice, and the supervisor’s perceptions of the
other characters, the performance itself, the critics and the audience, affect the
supervisor’s ability to provide a supportive environment. In other words, the personal and
environmental influences effect the supervisor’s freedom to create and facilitate a
constructive and productive supervision forum. Furthermore, the supervisor’s
responsiveness in supervision is influenced by their personal stories concerning their
personal and professional self, others, their role, practice, supervision and their
professional, organisational, and social environments.
The supervisor’s voice, when articulated in supervision, is always interpretist
because it interprets the stories placed before it by supervisees and clients from within its
own frame of reference. The challenge that supervisors face is the same challenge that
practitioners’ face with clients, namely, to not read themselves into the other’s story but
rather to draw out the other’s story. It is only after the language of attendance,
observation, reflective listening, enquiry, and support that the supervisors’ voice can
effectively speak the words of challenge, ethical and professional safety, and education
75
and development without colonising the practitioners and clients indigenous voice. It is
only when their story is drawn out and understood in its indigenous form, through being
narrated and disclosed that the process of discussion, debate, and dialogue can occur. It is
through these latter processes in which the language of the supervisor becomes one of
challenge, ethical and professional safety, and education and development in which a coauthored revised supervision story emerges.
The ability of the supervisors’ voice to effectively co-author with the practitioners
and clients a revisionist story is influenced by two further factors, namely the
supervisor’s degree of socialisation into supervision and their exercising of power within
the supervisory system. The socialisation of the supervisor’s voice into supervision
relates primarily to the degree to which it has been educated, trained or coached to
perform its role in the supervision setting. Generally, supervisors’ come into the
supervisory role through either one or a combination of the following (Brown et al.,
1996):
•
•
Fieldwork education and supervision of students.
•
Agency promotion into a supervisory role.
•
expertise in practice.
Request by a colleague on the basis of recognition of their experience and
Through education and training courses in supervision.
According to Kadushin (1992) supervisors who have not had formal education in the
supervisory role tend to replicate their practice approach as their model of supervision, or
base their supervision on the role modelling experiences they had as a supervisee. On the
other hand supervisor’s who are promoted into the supervisory role are generally
socialised into supervision by the dominant agency construction unless they have a welldeveloped professional construction of supervision (O’Donoghue, 1999). For those who
come into supervision via education and training, their voice and storying of supervision
will be based on the socialisation they received through their supervision education and
training. In other words if the supervisor is trained in a particular model or approach (e.g.
TAPES, Morrison, Adult Learning or Hawkins and Shohet) they are likely to story and
practice supervision according to their understanding of that particular approach. This
76
means that the supervisor has a known repertoire, which they can describe to others and
use intentionally in their performance of supervision. The challenge that these supervisors
face concerns the translation and performance of their repertoire and its synergy with the
setting and characters in their supervision production. In other words the supervisor’s
voice is reproducing elements from the script and lines from another performance which
may or may not connect with individual scenes and overall genre of the supervision
production. This differs from the challenge faced by supervisors who have not been
socialised into supervision by way of formal coaching or education in supervision and
have learnt supervision by ear and experience rather than through any formal learning or
study. These supervisors may not be able to articulate what informs their supervision
practice and may act less intentionally. They are also unaware of the forms and styles of
supervision beyond their experience and have the limited repertoire of their own
experiences and agency guidelines.
Like the practitioner’s voice the supervisor’s voice both exercises power and is
affected by power exercised by others. It exercises power through the processes it uses,
the type of forum it creates, in what it chooses to say, not say, and in how, when and
where it speaks. It is acted upon by power through the constraints imposed upon it in
terms of limits, boundaries, and the perceptions, expectations and actions of other
characters. As stated above the supervisor’s voice has a key role in the practitioner’s
experience of supervision as an empowering process and event or an oppressive process
and event.
In the supervision literature the supervisor’s power is derived from: a) the
supervisor’s designated authority bestowed by virtue of their role and agency status; b)
the supervisor’s personal and professional attributes; and c) the structurally determined
identities and roles based on key characteristics like ethnicity, gender, socio-economic
status, age, sexual orientation and (dis)ability (Kadushin, 1992: 84-115; Brown et al.,
1996: 32-49; Kaiser, 1996: 25-60). The degree to which the supervisor’s voice is
empowered relates to the supervisor’s own personal and professional competence,
confidence, strengths, resilience, role comfort and the extent of support provided by their
personal, professional and social environments. Conversely, the degree to which the
supervisor’s voice can be de-powered relates to their own personal and professional
77
vulnerability, the level of role conflict experienced and the extent to which their personal,
professional and social environments are oppressive.
Arguably the supervisor’s voice is empowering when it facilitates the creation of
a forum that is invitational to practitioners’ and clients’ indigenous voices and respects
and validates those voices by entering into consensual professional conversation and
observation that is informed, ethical, educational, developmental, productive and
revisionist. The creation of such a forum relies on demonstrations of respect, acceptance,
partnership, openness, transparency, warmth, encouragement, availability, confidence
and competence by the supervisor. On the other hand the supervisor’s voice is depowering when it creates a forum that is uninviting to practitioners’ and clients’
indigenous voices and engages these voices in a coerced conversation and observation
that is uninformed, or unethical, or judgmental, or demeaning or destructive, or
absolutist. This type of forum is created when the supervisor’s voice objectifies one or
more of the other characters involved in the performance of supervision and views itself
as omnipotent.
Thus far we have considered the onstage voices of the client, practitioner and
supervisor, the next three voices discussed are best described as offstage or backstage
voices that contribute to the supervision production.
Managers
The manager’s voice is also a diverse voice, which has been formed by its interaction and
meaning making experiences within its personal, professional and social world. It too
resonates with the manager’s values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural
perspectives, ideology and theories of social work, supervision, management, and
practice skills. Generally how the manager’s voice speaks of supervision will be related
to the individual manager’s experience of it and their personal position concerning its
value and use. It is here that the difference between managers who have a professional
social work background and those who are “generic” managers comes to the fore with the
latter predominately being socialised into a managerial rather than a professional
understanding of supervision.
78
Arguably, the manager’s role is backstage one, which plans, organises and ensures that
the supervision production operates according to the production company’s plans,
guidelines and objectives. The primary objective of the supervision production in this
voice’s language is to support the revenue making activities of the company and to
provide a quality assurance and risk management mechanism that protects the company.
This voice also calls the lead characters (practitioners and supervisors) to account for
their performances. In short, the manager’s voice aims to enhance the company’s
prosperity whilst also protecting it from potential threats and loses.
The manager’s voice considers supervision to be a production cost against its
revenue making activities and permits this cost because of the added value that it
provides. This voice talks a fine line between managing the cost of the supervision and
the managing risk to the company. This risk takes a number of forms but primarily it
centres on the fallout that occurs when that go wrong in the delivery of practice and
practitioner related problems that effect production such as burnout and revolt. In this
regard the manager’s voice uses supervision as a mechanism for organisational control as
well as staff support. The organisational control element of the manager’s voice in
supervision is based upon their role as the purchaser’s agent. This purchasing function
may manifest itself in a number of different ways (e.g. through the provision of
supervision via line managers or peers within the agency or via provision by external
consultants contracted by the agency). The debates concerning the merits and preferences
for managerial, internal peer or external provision of supervision in agencies are
generally determined by the manager’s purchasing voice. Nevertheless, because all
supervisors draw their mandate, financial and status rewards from management they have
an understandable allegiance to the power and politics of the managerial voice’s call. It is
the manager’s voice with its hire, fire, reward and discipline that calls both supervisors
and practitioners to account for their performance. As stated previously the managerial
voice will speak of supervision as tangible means by which they support staff. This is
done through emphasising the professional development and personal support aspects of
supervision.
79
The manager’s voice like the previous voices both exercises power and is affected
by power exercised by others. The manager’s voice exercises considerable power in
regard to supervision by virtue that it has the final word in regard to:
•
•
the purchasing of supervision;
•
the resources allocated for supervision;
•
the approval of and employment of supervisors;
•
the organisational supervision model and policy; and
reward, developmental opportunities and discipline.
The manager’s voice is influenced by the power exercised by those that govern the
organisation (e.g. Ministers, Boards and Councils, etc…) and from its purchasers. It is
also affected by the constraints imposed by resourcing, contracts and agreements as well
as by power exercised by industrial and professional organisations. As with the other
voices the manager’s voice can be empowered and empowering and it can be de-powered
and de-powering. The manager’s voice is empowered when it has the freedom to express
itself and make decisions without tight prescriptive direction from its governance body
and/or purchaser. The manager’s voice can be empowering when it is responsive to
practitioners’, supervisors’ and clients’ aspirations and expectations concerning
supervision and service delivery. Conversely, the manager’s voice is de-powered when it
has very little freedom or choice and action because of the constraints imposed upon it by
the governance body and/or purchaser. Likewise, the manager’s voice is de-powering
when it is unresponsive, disinterested and non-communicative concerning practitioners’,
supervisors’ and clients’ aspiration and expectations of supervision and service delivery
support.
Educators
In this section, the voice of educators’ and their influence upon social work supervision
will be discussed. The educator’s voice is one of legacy, critique and prompting. Its
presence in the production of supervision is found in the scripting and backstage whispers
and prompting. The educator’s voice contributes significantly to practitioners and
supervisors socialisation into supervision. The first contribution it makes is through
80
introducing future practitioners (social work students) to the concept of supervision and
being a supervisee through practicum placements. Conversely, the educator’s voice will
also reintroduce practitioners who accept students on placement to the concept of
supervision (from the perspective of being a supervisor).
Tsui (2001) makes the point that fieldwork practicum supervision is perceived as
benchmark against which all other forms of supervision are measured. This perception of
practicum supervision reveals the long lasting influence the educator’s voice has on what
is good supervision. The second contribution the educator’s voice makes is through the
publication of research, theories and models, and commentaries concerning supervision
practice. The influence of the “Big Three”, namely, Kadushin (1992), Munson (1993) and
Shulman (1993) (all social work educators) upon the supervision stories of practitioners
and supervisors the across the globe cannot be underestimated (Tsui, 2001). (See chapter
2, for further discussion concerning the American supervision story).
The third contribution made by the educator’s voice is through formal education
and training courses in supervision. The educator’s voice in these situations will story the
education and training according to its ideology of supervision and will attempt to
socialise the course participants into its construction of supervision. In each of its three
contributions the educator’s voice like the other voices is a political voice that is shaped
by the particular educator’s supervision story, which in turn has been shaped by the
educator’s personal and professional stories. Furthermore the educator’s voice also
resonates with the educator’s values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural
perspectives, ideology and theory of social work, supervision, and education. This
resonance is most apparent in their definitions of supervision, curriculum, teaching
process and assessments.
Like the other voices the educator’s voice also exercises power and is acted upon
by power. The educator’s voice exercises power through the political activity of teaching,
i.e. pedagogy and androgogy, and through assessing students’ achievement and
competence. It is acted upon by power through the limits placed upon its freedom to
express its voice and through the support it receives from its school, profession, and its
audience. The educator’s voice can like the other voices be empowered and empowering
as well as de-powered and de-powering. The educator’s voice is empowered when it has
81
the academic freedom to express its voice and name the world as it sees and finds it. It is
empowering when it assists its students to find their voice and assists them to open up
their blinds and see their world with new eyes. The educator’s voice is de-powered when
it does not have academic freedom and is directed to into absolutist positions about the
world and supervision. It is de-powering when it promotes its view as the only view and
colonises students with its worldview.
Other Social Service and Health Professionals
In the past decade in social and heath services the vocabulary concerning collaborative
practice both within agencies and across agencies has grown. Words such as
interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, interagency, and multi-sectoral
have a currency in the rhetoric of practice. One result of this has been the emergence of
cross-disciplinary supervision and team supervision. For social work practitioners’ crossdisciplinary supervision has involved them in either being supervised by psychologists,
psychiatrists, psychotherapists, nurses, and counsellors, or supervising nurses,
counsellors, community workers and support workers. On the other hand team
supervision involves the supervision of the multi/inter/trans/disciplinary team by a
supervisor who may come from within the team and is the team leader or who may
contracted as consultant to the team.
In agencies where cross-disciplinary and multi/inter/transdisciplinary team
supervision occur other professionals’ voices influence the definition of supervision, the
model, mode and form of supervision and the team’s supervision policy. These other
voices be they from psychiatry, psychology, nursing, psychotherapy and counselling each
have their own tradition of supervision (arguably supervision was a gift to these
professions from social work) and they also operate with various degrees of
legitimisation and status in society (Hancock, 1998). In this regard, the professions with
the high legitimisation and status are the health professions namely, psychiatry,
psychology and nursing. The other two professions whilst not of the same status as
psychiatry, psychology and nursing appear to be regarded with a higher status than social
work. This is evidenced by the number of social workers with highly developed clinical
skills who leave the social work profession and identify themselves as counsellors and/or
82
psychotherapists. However, what is common to the voices of all of these professions is
that they speak an individualised therapeutic ideology, which aligns with the dominant
global and social voices (see chapter 3). Furthermore, psychiatry, psychology and nursing
are embedded in the modernist positivist paradigm and the medical model, which asserts
that there are preferred methods that can be universally applied because they are based
upon the evidence of empirical scientific research (see chapter 1). The implications of
this are that these voices may attempt to subjugate and colonise the social work practice
and supervision voice, both within the context of supervision relationships be they
individual or team and within the wider organisational context. The voices of the
psychotherapy and counselling professions whilst less dominant still speak an
individualised therapeutic message. However, this message is less likely to be as heavily
influenced by the modernist positivist paradigm and the medical model. The
psychotherapy and counselling voices usually harmonise with the social work voice in
the areas of client self-determination, and the importance of process and intrapersonal,
personal and interpersonal dynamics. But, they diverge when comes to context with
social work assessing and intervening at the systemic and structural levels as well as the
intra/personal and interpersonal levels. Furthermore, social work also speaks an
individual and social reformist and a socialist collectivist message as well as the
individualised/therapeutic one (Payne, 1997). The implications of this in terms of practice
and supervision are that these voices may seduce the social work and supervision voice
through its harmony to reduce practice and supervision to an intrapersonal, personal, and
interpersonal process, which neglects systemic and structural influences. As previously
stated this seduction may occur both with the context of supervision relationships be they
individual or team and within the wider organisational context.
The discussion so far has been critical of cross-disciplinary supervision from a
defensive position that highlights risk and difference. Cross-disciplinary supervision is
not just something social workers need to be wary of as a threat, it is also an opportunity.
As an opportunity, cross-disciplinary supervision and the voices of other professions
provide social work practice and supervision with the chance to develop specialist
knowledge and skills that will enhance their generalist social work practice with the
83
client group. For the supervision to do this it need to take place in a respectful, supportive
and empowering manner.
Before summarising this chapter, a brief discussion concerning interagency and
multi-sectorial supervision is warranted. These forms of supervision are still emerging
out of the web of concepts such as “seamless, wrap around and co-ordinated and
collaborative case management”. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Strengthening Families
process is one example of interagency and multi-sectorial supervised practice which uses
a co-ordinated interagency case conferencing and case management process that is
supervised by a local co-ordinating group consisting of members from a range of local
service provider (Strengthening Families, 2000). Anecdotally, it appears that this project
is not well resourced and that the supervision and follow up has been haphazard (Walker,
2001: 7-12; McKenzie et al., 2001: 13-19). McKenzie et al. (2001: 13-19) emphasis the
importance of ensuring that the family has a voice in this forum and highlights the
importance of a neutral facilitator who is not aligned to any of the agencies involved.
This point whilst important and significant does not go far enough to address the power
and supervision issues that arise in this environment. Perhaps, developments like
reflecting teams with their dialogical approach to supervision developed by the Narrative
therapy school may emerge as a supervisory processes that ensures that parties have a
voice in these interagency forums (Dallos et al., 2000).
This discussion of the three backstage or offstage voices emphasises the role these
voices play in setting the stage and scenes for the supervision production. In essence
these voices set and influence the background, atmosphere, scripting and direction of the
supervision performance.
Summary
In this chapter the personal stories and their influence upon supervision have been
explored at a micro level and the following points have been made:
•
Personal construct theory provides an analytical framework, which explains how
individuals frame, view, interpret, define, perceive and understand the world and their
experiences.
84
•
Personal construct theory also explains how the same event and activity can result in
•
different perceptions, stories and behaviour from different people.
•
that personal stories and particular voices have in the performance of supervision.
Using personal construct theory and the voice metaphor we considered the influence
The cast of voices discussed included the onstage voices of clients, practitioners,
supervisors, and the offstage or backstage voices of managers, educators and other
•
social service and health professionals.
The client voice whilst ever present in the supervision production is rarely seen or
heard in its indigenous form. It is generally a narrated and edited voice that is reinterpreted and re-storied from the practitioner’s perspective with the client having
little influence and redress concerning how its story is narrated, edited, protected and
•
directed through supervision.
The practitioner’s voice resonates with their values, ethics, beliefs, expectations,
cultural perspectives, ideology and theory of social work. It has a leading role in the
supervision production and speaks a language of narration, disclosure, discussion,
•
debate and dialogue.
Likewise the supervisor’s voice resonates with the same factors as the practitioner’s
voice and it too has a leading role in the supervision production. The supervisors
voice is a responsive voice, which focuses on process, rather than content and speaks
a language of attendance, observation, reflective listening, enquiry, support,
•
challenge, ethical and professional safety, and education and development.
The three onstage voices exercise power and are affected by power exercised by
others. They exercise power in what they choose to say, or not say, and how, when
and where it speaks. They are acted upon by power through the constraints imposed
•
on them that limit their freedom to express their indigenous voice.
The manager’s voice aims to enhance the company’s prosperity and to protect it from
potential threats and loses. It talks a fine line between managing cost and managing
risk. It sees supervision as adding value to the service provision and as a means of
•
maintaining organisational control.
The educator’s voice contributes to socialising practitioners and supervisors into
supervision through: 1) practicum placement supervision; 2) publication of research,
85
theories, and commentaries on supervision practice; and 3) formal education and
•
training courses.
The voices of other social service and health professions influence social work
supervision through the phenomena of cross-disciplinary and team supervision. These
forms of supervision both provide threats and opportunities to social work
•
practitioners and supervisors.
Like the three onstage voices, the three offstage or backstage voices also exercise
power and are effected by power exercised. These three voices set and influence the
background, atmosphere, scripting and direction of the supervision performance and
production.
Reflection Questions
1. What is your understanding of personal construct theory?
2. What influence do you think personal stories have on social work and supervision?
3. How would you characterise the clients, practitioners, supervisors, managers,
educators and other social service and health professionals in your supervision story?
86
CHAPTER 5
TOWARDS A CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL WORK
SUPERVISION
This chapter will propose a contextual framework for social work supervision. This will
be achieved through describing the theoretical underpinnings of the framework which are
based in the persons and their environments paradigm of social work, and the
construction of supervision as field of practice within social work. These arguments will
be further promoted through a discussion of social work practice theory and supervision
theory. The chapter will conclude with a discussion concerning how the contextual
framework can be used as a tool for restorying supervision.
The Persons and their Environments Paradigm of Social Work
Throughout its history social work has maintained a focus on both private problems and
public issues. This focus has been evident since the early stages of the profession’s
development with caseworkers looking at both the person and their situation (Mattaini et
al., 1998; Saleebey, 2001). This dual focus meant that social workers kept the foreground
and the background in view and considered the headlines, by-lines, text, sub-text and
context of client issues. The dual focus has been further emphasised by the wide
acceptance of systems and ecological perspectives in social work.
Meyer, (1993) argues that whilst other professions are often interested in some of the
same problems as social work their main professional purpose and focus is different. The
key difference as discussed in the previous chapter is that the other professions (i.e.
Medicine including Psychiatry, Psychology, Nursing, Psychotherapy and Counselling)
operate from an individualised therapeutic perspective, which does not consider the
influence of context or the environment. Social work on the other hand with its focus
upon persons and their environments balances this ideology with an individual and social
reformist ideology and a socialist collectivist one (Payne, 1997). In short, what
differentiates social work from other professions and disciplines is its holistic approach,
which considers the intrapersonal, personal, interpersonal, systemic and structural
87
influences. It is therefore argued that social work’s focus upon both persons and
environments forms the paradigm through which social work and social workers view the
world and construct the social work language, principles, beliefs, assumptions and
methods (Saleebey, 2001). This paradigm provides the frame of reference within which
social workers operate and consider the multiple interactions that occur within peoples’
bio-psychosocial realities (Turner, 1996). It was recently reinforced by the International
Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) definition of social work, (IFSW, 2000) which
stated that:
The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human
relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being.
Utilising theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at
the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human
rights and social justice are fundamental to social work.
The commentary, which explains the definition, highlights this point further when it
states that; “Social work in its various forms addresses the multiple, complex transactions
between people and their environments.” The International Association of Schools of
Social Work (IASSW) have subsequently endorsed this definition and its commentary. In
a very real sense the persons and their environments paradigm is the thematic framework
within which the social work story is authored and what makes it a social work story
rather than any other type of story.
Supervision as a Field of Social Work Practice
The story of social work supervision is arguably as old as social work practice itself
(Munson, 1993). Yet despite this joint history, supervision has generally been considered
to be something that is separate from practice, which requires a different knowledge base,
skill set, and personal attributes (Munson, 1993; Kadushin, 1992; Shulman, 1993).
Brashears (1995: 692-699) argues that a false dichotomy has been created between social
work practice and supervision, and that this is due to the emphasis being place upon the
managerial aspects of supervision rather than the professional aspects. In essence
Brashears’ (1995: 692- 699) point is that supervision was and has been storied from a
88
managerial or administrative perspective that emphasised the differences between
supervision and practice to the extent that supervision was divorced from social work
practice. Brashears (1995: 692-699) further argues that the alternative story of
supervision as social work practice has been subjugated and that the social work
supervision story needs to reconceptualised to recognise this practice tradition.
The alternative story is that social work supervision throughout its history has
used social work practice knowledge, methods and skills to assist practitioners to reflect,
process, understand and act in their work with clients (O’Donoghue, 1999). The concepts
of parallel process and isomorphism, which have a significant history and credibility in
the supervision story, support this professional tradition in social work supervision.
Kadushin (1992: 217) describes these concepts, succinctly when he states:
That what the client does with supervisee, the supervisee will, in turn, do with the
supervisor. The client comes to supervision through this process. Parallel process
events are replications across system boundaries. The problem is transferred for the
worker-client setting to the supervisor-supervisee setting.
The place of these concepts in supervision was supported in my study, which found that
14 of the 15 respondents thought that the processes involved in supervision paralleled
those in practice (O’Donoghue, 1999: 68). The following responses from David and
Mary-Jane illustrate this:
There’s some preparation before hand from both parties. So that issues or any
recent potential conflict are identified already. There’s a contracting period, where
issues of time and issues to be dealt with are discussed.
There is a clear
understanding of what steps will follow from the supervision afterwards and what
obligations there are on the two parties. The bulk of the time is devoted to the
content of the supervision session.
Well, establishing a relationship I guess is the first part…The contract, I think you
need to have a contract if you’re doing supervision. Like setting ground rules. And
89
I guess we do that with our clients as well. We tell them what we expect, and tell
them what they can expect from us. And we even have written down case plans.
What we’re going to do, to achieve, just so we stay focussed. We’d do that in
supervision too I would assume. Note taking. You know, so you’d write maybe
tasks or goals. That would be the same. All that emotive and encouraging stuff.
That would all be the same I guess.
The findings in my study concerning to the skills that were important in supervision
which were identified by 14 of the 15 respondents as social work skills, arguably, further
supports the storying of supervision from within social work (O’Donoghue, 1999: 76-78).
The following responses from Joseph, Susan and Ernest illustrate this point:
Basically … similar skills to what we’d expect in a social worker…. The good old
things like empathy and being nice to clients, unconditional regard, respect and
whatever those things are about saying “You’re a person, and I accept the person as
a person. Accept him or her as in charge of … their own destiny.” I do expect that
of a supervisor toward me.
The professional, it’s their session, the supervisee comes to the session, they come
prepared with whatever they’re bringing, and you help them elicit their own
solutions … if it’s an issue or if it’s a piece of good practice you can examine it and
actually give them the credit for doing that.
A good supervisor is sort of tussling with the organisation ... Not just a lackey to a
higher level…they will put pressure on when they see things that aren’t maybe
ethical or practical, they will kind of have an energy to change those things…that
sort of advocacy.
These examples emphasise that social work supervision in essence is social work practice
and that it needs to be restoried from within the social work paradigm rather than from
the managerial or organisational psychology paradigm (Brashears, 1995: 692-699).
90
Ernest’s comments above indicate that social work supervision is essentially social work
practice occurring in the organisational and professional arenas. In other words
supervision in social work is a field of social work practice. Kamerman (1998: 291)
describes a field of practice as referring to “distinctive settings, population groups, or
social problems areas in which social workers adapt their practice”. Arguably,
supervision can be storied as a field of practice, because it occurs in the distinctive setting
namely, organisational and professional practice, it has a specific population group (i.e.
social work practitioners), and the social problem area is the direct delivery of social
work services. Moreover, social work supervisors adapt their practice to working directly
with colleagues and their clients to achieve the best possible practice.
To date in this chapter, it has been argued that social work is storied within a
persons and their environments framework and that social work supervision is a field
of practice within that story. It has been also argued that as a field of practice
supervision has a distinctive setting, population group and social problem area and that
social work supervisors adapt their practice to meet this setting, population group and
social problem area. In the next two sections we will consider theory as it relates to
social work and supervision.
Theory and Social Work
In this section we will firstly discuss the question of what is theory, then consider the
social construction of social work theory, the extensiveness of social work theory and
how theory is used in practice.
What is Theory?
There is a lot of debate in the social work literature about what is theory. In general, there
are two perspectives in the debate namely the modernist or positivist and the postmodernist (Payne, 1997).
The modernist view is linked to the application of the scientific method. It argues that
theory is a general proposition concerning the real world whose essential truth can be
supported by evidence obtained through the scientific method. In social work this
approach is characterised by demonstrating that an approach may be effective in
91
particular cases, then demonstrating that it works in a series of cases, and then
demonstrating how it works (Payne, 1997). According to Turner (1996), the terms
concepts, facts, hypotheses and principles are essential to the definition of theory.
Concepts are described as ideas that are encapsulated in words that describe an
experience. Facts on the other hand, are concepts that can be empirically verified through
testable observations. A hypothesis is a statement that describes the relationship between
facts based upon observation, or deduction, induction, speculation, inspiration, or
experience that is then the subject of testing (Turner, 1996). Principles emerge from the
testing and become the basis on which theory-based action is taken. In short, the
scientific method involves the development of an idea and interest that is conceptualised
and clarified into a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested through an objective process
of observation and is either proved or disproved. If it is proved its findings can then be
generalised to a wider population group (Babbie, 1995).
This approach to theory considers theory to be an objective, general, and a valid
truth that has been proved by testing to a level of confidence (usually based on statistics).
It is also very precise about its use of terms and distinguishes between theory, models and
perspectives (Payne, 1997).
The post-modern view is more inclusive in its definition of theory. Its view of
theory is not limited to explanatory theory and includes models and perspectives as
theory. In other words theory in the post-modern sense is understood as one or more of
the following:
a) provable explanations as to why something happens (explanatory theory);
b) organised descriptions of an activity in a structured form (models); and
c) ways of conceptualising the world or a particular subject (perspectives).
This perspective sees theory as a social construction or narrative that is related to
circumstance and context (Saleebey, 2001). This means that theory is understood to be
embedded within a historical, social, and cultural context which emphasises particular
ideologies, values, beliefs, cultural conventions and worldviews. In recognising this and
taking an inclusive perspective the post-modern view of theory accepts theoretical
pluralism and does not place one theory or a particular group of theories over another. In
92
other words, all knowledge counts. This means that local and culturally specific theories
are as valid and significant as empirically tested western theories. This valuing of a wide
theoretical knowledge base is reinforced in the following statement from commentary on
the IFSW, (2000) definition of social work:
Social work bases its methodology on a systematic body of evidence-based
knowledge derived from research and practice evaluation, including local and
indigenous knowledge specific to its context. It recognises the complexity of
interactions between human beings and their environment, and the capacity of
people both to be affected by and to alter the multiple influences upon them
including bio-psychosocial factors. The social work profession draws on theories of
human development and behaviour and social systems to analyse complex
situations and to facilitate individual, organisational, social and cultural changes.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, the recognition and valuing of local and indigenous
knowledge is evident in the promotion and support of Tangata Whenua theories in the
ANZASW Bicultural Code of Practice (1993) and the publication of Te Komako issues
of Social Work Review, authored by Tangata Whenua social workers. Likewise, the local
knowledge and theories of people from Pacific Island nations is affirmed in the recent
publication of the Tu Mau issue of Social Work Review, authored by social workers from
Pacific Island nations.
To make a long story short, the post-modern definition recognises that definitions
of theory are of our own making and that in defining theory we are making statements
concerning whose knowledge and theory counts. These statements are generally
embedded and representative of a particular historical, cultural and social discourse,
which operates from a particular value and assumption base that often gives preference to
the dominant story. The post-modern definition of theory asserts that all theory stories are
equally valid in their own context and promotes theoretical pluralism.
So, if theory is of our own making and we decide and make theory. Who are we? And
how do we make theory? Briefly, in response to these questions, ‘we’ are those involved
in social work and ‘we’ make theory through the process of social construction, which
will be outlined in the next section.
93
Social Construction of Social Work Practice Theory
In this section it is asserted that social work practice theory is socially constructed and
that theories of social work practice are products of the social and cultural contexts in
which they are developed (Payne, 1997; Rein et al., 1981: 1-41). It is further argued that
theories of social work practice also affect the context from which they have arisen
(Payne, 1997; Rein et al., 1981: 1-41).
The social construction of social work practice theory is based upon the three
elements that construct social work; namely, the social worker, client, and context. In
essence, social work is constructed by the forces that control and create social work as a
profession, the forces that create clients and the social context in which social work is
practised (Payne, 1997). In all cases, social work includes distinct patterns of behaviour,
a certain range of expectations and specific cultural norms derived from the social
context. Social work practice theory develops from within social work from interaction
with social work practice. Rein et al. (1981:37) strongly support this view when they state
that:
The knowledge that social work seeks cannot be made in universities by
individuals who presumptively seek timeless, contextless truths about
human nature, societies, institutions, and policy. The knowledge must be
developed in living situations that are confronted by the contemporary
episodes in the field…it is necessary to enlarge the notion of context to
include not only the client’s situation but the agency itself and more
broadly the institutional setting of practice. This involves the intersecting
network of offices, agencies, professionals, government structures and
political pressure groups that all act together on the agency.
Rein et al. (1981: 1-41) also support the argument that social work practice theories are
open systems that develop, change, grow and adapt from interaction with both the
practice setting and the social context in which practice takes place (Turner, 1996).
Moreover, social work practice theory like social work is considered to be reflexive
because it develops in response to demands made by clients upon social workers and the
social work profession. It is constantly changing in response to practice constructions by
94
its participants and responds to the current social situation, its interests and concerns as
well as the histories of theoretical traditions, profession and service context. By its very
nature social work practice theory is not universal, rather it is an agreed perspective that
is accepted within a social group as a reasonable representation of the terrain that it
covers (Payne, 1997; Turner, 1996).
The Extensiveness of Social Work Practice Theory
Social work practice theory is an extensive subject. It consists of two major elements namely, formal theory and practice theory – with the latter sometimes referred to as
practice wisdom (Rein et al., 1981: 1-41; Munson, 1993). Formal theory is organised and
explanatory and is generally found in texts (Munson, 1993). Practice theory, on the other
hand, is individualised and begins with descriptions of practice experiences and what is
done in the practice setting. From this position connections are then made to formal
theoretical concepts (Munson, 1993). The relationship between formal theory and
practice theory in this social work setting is best understood through reference to
concepts of “espoused theory” and “theory in use” (Argyris et al., 1974). Formal social
work practice theories equate with “espoused theory” whilst practice theories or practice
wisdom equate with the concept of “theory in use”.
The social work theory literature outlines the formal espoused theory of the
profession. This literature reveals an extensive formal theory base with Turner (1996)
identifying 27 major systems of social work practice theory, whilst Munson (1993:21)
argues that there are “now over 130 different theories of practice” competing for use.
Formal social work practice theories have been classified into three primary
human activity focus areas, namely: those that focus on the person and their attributes;
the person’s use of attributes; and person and society (Turner, 1996). The focus area of
the person and their attributes includes theories that view the person as a biological being
(e.g., Neurolinguistic Programming theory), as a psychological being (e.g., Functional
Psychoanalytic theory), as a learner (e.g., Behavioural theory), and as a thinker (e.g.
Cognitive theory). The area of the person’s use of their attributes views the person as a
contemplator (e.g., Meditation theory), as an experiential being (e.g. Gestalt theory), as a
communicator (e.g., Communication theory) and as a doer (e.g., Task Centred theory).
95
Finally, the person and society focus area conceives of the person as an individual (e.g.,
Ego Psychology), as a communal being (e.g., Transactional Analysis), as a societal being
(e.g., Role) and in relation to the universe (e.g., Systems) (Turner, 1996). The range of
areas outlined reveals that social work practice theory is inclusive of aspects of
biological, psychological and sociological reality, and it explains why in some social
work circles reference is made to the bio-psychosocial approach (Turner, 1996; Saleebey,
2001).
Use of Theory in Practice
In the previous discussions concerning the social construction of social work theory and
the extensiveness of social work theory the concepts of reflexivity, formal espoused
theory, and practice theory or theory in use were introduced. In this section, these
concepts will be further discussed in terms of their role and place in the process of
reflection on action and reflection in action.
Previously, in the discussion concerning the social construction of social work
theory it was argued that social work theory is reflexive because it develops in response
to demands made by clients upon social workers and the social work profession. It is
constantly changing in response to practice constructions by its participants and responds
to the current social situation, its interests and concerns, as well as the histories of
theoretical traditions, profession and service context. Likewise, the use of social work
theory in practice is also reflexive and occurs through a dynamic process of reflection
before, during and after action. The practitioner’s personal, professional and theory story,
inform this reflection process. With the latter having been internalised and formed
through professional education and training. The theory story is the practitioner’s
construction of the formal espoused theories that exist in textbook explanations. When
the practitioner is engaged in practice they will use ideas, concepts and principles from
their theory story to help them organise, explain, predict and act upon client presented
issues. It is this use of ideas, concepts, and principles from formal theory accessed
through the process of reflection before, during and after action in work with clients that
leads to new action. This then, is what is termed a practice theory or a theory in use
(Argyris et al., 1974; Schon, 1991; Munson, 1993).
96
This reflective/reflexive approach operates on the premise that theory is normally
implicit in peoples’ actions and that the “theory in use” has a relationship with the theory
that is reported (Argyris et al., 1974; Fook, 1996). The effectiveness of this relationship is
established through a process of articulating the implicit “theory in use”. The approach
develops theory inductively upon the basis of specific experiences; in other words, the
practitioners’ reflection upon the experience leads to explicit connections with theoretical
idea, concepts, and principles (Fook, 1996; Munson, 1993). This reflection process starts
with the particular experience, then seeks to understand or make sense of this through
reference to theoretical ideas, concepts, and principles (Fook, 1996; Babbie, 1995).
Schon (1991: 295) encapsulates the essence of reflexive/reflective practice when he states
that it “takes the form of a reflective conversation with the situation.” Likewise, social
work practice, particularly social work supervision practice, is a reflective conversation
between the parties (Schon, 1991). This reflective conversation according to Pilalis
(1986: 79-96) is based upon two continua: the first involves the movement from reflex
action to purposeful action, whilst the second involves the movement from non-reflective
thought to reflective thought. Figure 5.1 below illustrates the process of reflexive and
reflective practice.
Figure 5.1 Process of Reflexive/Reflective Practice
Experience
Nonreflective
thought
Reflex
action
Theoretical
ideas,
concepts,
and/or
principles
New
Experience
Purposeful
Action
Reflection before,
during and after
action
Reflective
Thought
97
Before moving on to discuss theory and supervision it is worthwhile to restate that it is
asserted that practitioners have a theory that they ‘talk’ and a theory that they ‘walk’. The
theory they ‘talk’ is their internalised theory story formed by the theories they learnt
through education and training. The theory that they ‘walk’ is their use of ideas, concepts
and principles from their theory story to organise, explain, predict and act upon client
presented issues. These ideas, concepts, and principles inform the practitioner and assist
them to make the journey from reflex action and non reflective thought to reflective
thought and purposeful action, which in turn leads to a new practitioner and client
experience. It is through this process that one can say that practitioners are both formed
by theory and informed by theory. They are formed by the theory they internalise and
integrate as their theory story. They are informed by theory when they make connections
with theoretical ideas, concepts and principles to help them organise, explain, predict and
act upon client presented issues.
Theory and Social Work Supervision
Approaches and Models of Social Work Supervision
The majority of literature published on social work supervision is devoted to approaches
or models of supervision (Tsui, 1997a: 39-54; 1997b: 191-198). Munson (1993: 21)
asserts that there has been a proliferation of approaches and models of supervision in
recent times, which is due to a practice theory explosion whereby over 130 different
theories of social work practice are competing for use. One result of this theory explosion
and the proliferation of supervision models and approaches, has been a call for a
moratorium on new supervision models (Rich, 1993: 137-178). Rich, (1993: 137), has
even described the supervision theory situation as a “supervisory jungle” rather than a
lucid body of knowledge.
Within this literature a number of classifications have been made of the various
types of approaches and models (Tsui et al., 1997: 181-205; Rich, 1993: 137-178). Two
of these classification systems appear to capture the themes found in the literature. The
first system is that of Tsui et al. (1997: 187) which argues that supervision models or
approaches focus on one or a combination of the following five elements: (a) practice
theory; (b) the structures and functions of supervision; (c) the structure of the agency; (d)
98
the interactional process between the supervisor and supervisee; and (e) feminist
partnership approaches. The second system, that of Payne (1994), is more simplistic and
conceptualises supervision approaches on a continuum, with managerial approaches at
one end and professional approaches at the other. Payne (1994: 44) argued that in social
work supervision, either the managerial or the professional aspect is dominant. Payne
(1994: 44) also asserts that authors generally distinguish between the two aspects, but
differ in their emphasis and in the importance of each aspect.
Generally, the development of theories of social work supervision has mirrored
that of social work practice theories with both emerging from psychodynamic roots and
both in recent times both have followed a task-centred practice approach due to the
dominance of case-management (Munson, 1993; Payne, 1994). Where social work theory
and supervision theory have differed has been in their conceptualisation of their
environment. In social work practice, the ecosystems perspective linking persons and
their environments has had significant force and emphasis since the 1970s with the
client’s social environment and the affect of the institutions and systems that clients were
involved with being a key concept in practice. In supervision theory, the
conceptualisation of the environment has been restricted until recent years to that of the
organisation (Tsui, 1997: 181-205). There has been little consideration of the wider
context in which the agency, profession, and practice have been embedded until
Kadushin, (1992: 26-28) outlined a brief ecology of supervision and Tsui et al. (1997:
181-205) proposed culture rather than the organisation as the major context for
supervision. In proposing culture as the major context for supervision, Tsui et al. (1997:
181-205) started a paradigm shift from a dominant psycho-bureaucratic paradigm of
social work supervision towards one that is more aligned to the bio-psychosocial focus of
social work, namely that of persons and their environments.
Towards a Contextual Framework
To date in this chapter the foundations have been laid for the introduction of a contextual
framework for social work supervision. The foundations upon which this framework rests
are as follows:
•
The persons and their environments paradigm of social work practice.
99
•
•
Supervision as a field of social work practice.
•
argues that theory is socially constructed and reflexive.
•
A post-modern approach to theory, which accepts theoretical pluralism and
The reflexive/reflective practice process of using theory in practice.
The literature concerning approaches and models of supervision.
At its simplest level the proposed contextual framework for social work supervision
recognises that “there are more people in the room than those sitting in the chairs” and
that “there are more voices to be heard than those present in the building”. In other
words, it recognises the importance of the headlines, by-lines, text, sub-text and context
in supervision stories. It sees stories of supervision as being influenced by the personal
voices of the characters directly involved and those that are back or off stage and it
understands these characters to be influenced and effected by both local and global
voices. In other words it understands that supervision, does not occur in a value-free
environment. Figure 5.2 depicts the framework in diagrammatic form.
Figure 5.2 Contextual Framework for Social Work Supervision
Global Voices
Political Voice
Technological
voice
Local Voices
Personal Voices
Social Policy
Economic
Voice
Clients
Practitioners
Supervisors
Socio-cultural
voice
Supervision
Story, Headlines,
By-lines,
Text, Subtext,
Context
Managers
Other
professionals
Service
Providers
Educators
Social Work Profession
Ecological
Voice
100
The framework essentially provides a heuristic tool that can be used to deconstruct the
supervision context and supervision stories. It also provides the opportunity to
continually revise one’s own supervision story through examining it globally, locally,
interpersonally and personally. With its recognition of the headlines, by-lines, text, subtext and context in supervision stories it also promotes a bio-psychosocial consideration
of the story.
Predicated on the persons and their environments paradigm of social work, the
framework sees supervision practice as social work practice, which assesses and
intervenes in the intrapersonal, personal, interpersonal, social and global arenas. The
framework promotes theoretical pluralism and recognises that because supervision stories
are personal and social constructions there are many ways of understanding people and
their situations. Based on the reflexive/reflective approach to practice the framework
encourages those directly involved in supervision stories to enter into reflective
conversations. In short, the framework encourages practitioners and supervisors to
develop contextual personal practice theories of supervision that relate to the persons and
environments present in their supervision story.
The hope is that by using the framework to restory their supervision that
practitioners and supervisors may engage in intervention that attends to clients,
practitioners, supervisors and agencies, social and global realities and their perception of
this reality. The subsequent intervention that results is constructed on the basis of an
informed understanding of the issues, challenges, strengths, abilities, available resources,
and access to avenues for personal, political, social and global change. Furthermore, that
there is opportunity for the intervention to occur on a number of different levels (e.g.,
personal, local, and global).
In using the framework practitioners and supervisors can work from either
inside/out (i.e., starting with personal level, then social, then global) or outside/in (ie.,
starting with the global level, then social, then personal). It has been my experience that
generally most social workers start with the client’s story and then family, social and
occasionally global voices before working back in to restory with their client. The
important thing however, is not where your start in identifying the voices and their
101
influence rather, it is that you identify them and then having identified them and their
influence you restory the revised supervision story.
Finally the contextual framework also provides a heuristic device for social work
and supervision students to use when critiquing theories of social work and supervision.
This can be achieved by examining the theory at the three levels and considering:
a) whether the theory addresses the three levels;
b) the voices it identifies at each level;
c) the role it attributes to each voice and
d) the resultant, headlines, by-lines, text, sub-text of and context of the
supervision story.
In the next chapter, we will flesh out the contextual framework through a discussion of
key principles such as human rights, social justice, power, empowerment and antioppressive/anti-discriminatory practice.
Summary
This chapter has described the theoretical foundations for a contextual framework for
social work supervision and discussed the use of the proposed framework as a tool for
restorying social work supervision. The following key points were made:
•
Social work’s focus on persons and their environments forms a paradigm through
which social work and social workers view, and construct the social work language,
•
principles, beliefs, assumptions and methods.
This persons and their environments paradigm is the thematic framework within
which the social work story is authored and it is what makes the social work story
•
unique.
A false dichotomy has been created between social work practice and supervision.
This dichotomy is due to an overemphasis being placed on the differences between
practice and supervision. The alternative story recognises the commonalties between
•
practice and supervision and asserts that supervision is a field of social work practice.
There are two major perspectives in the debate concerning theory in social work,
namely, the modernist or positivist and the post-modern.
102
•
The modernist perspective argues that theory is a general proposition about the real
world whose essential truth is supported by evidence obtained through the scientific
•
method.
The post-modern perspective is more inclusive and understand theory as one or more
of the following:
a) provable explanations as to why something happens (explanatory
theory);
b) organised descriptions of an activity in a structured form (models); and
c) ways of conceptualising the world or a particular subject
•
•
(perspectives).
The post-modern perspective views theory as a social construction or narrative that is
related to context and circumstance and which accommodates theoretical pluralism.
The same forces that socially construct social work also socially construct social work
theory according to a reflexive process in which theories develop, grow, change, and
•
adapt from interaction with both the practice setting and the social context.
•
theory.
•
is the process by which practitioners use theory in practice.
Social work practice theory is an extensive subject consisting of formal and practice
Formal theory consists of organised textbook explanations, whereas, practice theory
Theory is used in practice through the reflexive/reflective process whereby
practitioners organise, explain, predict and act upon client presented issues by
connecting experiences with theoretical ideas, concepts and principles as they reflect
•
before, during and after action.
Generally, the development of theories of supervision has mirrored that of practice
theory. The only area of significant difference has been in the conceptualisation of
•
context.
It has only been as the result of recent developments that supervision theory has
considered the context beyond that of the organisation. These developments have
arguably started a paradigm shift from a psycho-bureaucratic supervision paradigm
toward a bio-psychosocial one.
103
•
At its simplest level the proposed contextual framework recognises that “there are
more people in the room than those sitting in the chairs and that there are more voices
•
to be heard than those in the building.”
The contextual framework recognises the importance of headlines, by-lines, text, subtext, and context in stories of supervision. It asserts that these stories are influenced
by the personal voices of those directly and indirectly involved who in turn are all
•
influenced and effected by local and global voices.
The contextual framework is a heuristic tool that can be used to restory supervision
and to develop personal practice theories of supervision that are based in the context
•
or the persons and environments of the particular supervision story.
The contextual framework can also be used as a device to critique theories of social
work and supervision.
Reflection Questions
1. What are the important elements of the social work paradigm?
2. To what extent is supervision a field of social work practice?
3. Which view of theory do you prefer? And why?
4. How would you describe the process by which you use theory in practice?
5. What is your understanding of the proposed contextual framework of social work
supervision and its use?
6. What is your personal view concerning the arguments made in this chapter?
104
CHAPTER 6
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK
In this chapter, the foundations of the contextual framework introduced in the previous
chapter will be discussed. This will be achieved through discussing the key principles of
human rights, social justice, power, empowerment, anti-oppressive/anti-discriminatory
practice, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation for supervision practice within
Aotearoa New Zealand.
Human Rights and Social Justice
The IFSW (2000) definition of social work states that, “Principles of human rights and
social justice are fundamental to social work”. In the commentary which explains the
definition these principles are described as “the motivation and justification for social
work action.” The commentary further states that, “In solidarity with those who are
disadvantaged, the profession strives to alleviate poverty and to liberate vulnerable and
oppressed people in order to promote social inclusion.”
Because human rights and social justice are fundamental principles of social work
it is important that both principles are discussed so that it is clear how human rights and
social justice are integral principles in supervision and the contextual framework.
What are Human Rights?
Before discussing human rights, it is important that the concept of ‘rights’ is clarified.
According to Lowery (1998: 24) “the concept of ‘rights’ stands at the intersection of
morality, justice and relationships as a triangulated base of social justice.” In other words
rights are intrinsically linked to well being. They are specific entitlements, which are
based, in relational and reciprocal moral obligations and duties that are inherent to all
people. Human rights are therefore those rights that are inherent to the human being.
The concept of human rights affirms that all human beings are entitled to exercise
their human rights without distinctions such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
class, disability, religion etc… In essence, human rights are fundamental freedoms that
are based in the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. They are universal and
105
are applicable to all people equally without discrimination. They are also inalienable in
the sense that they cannot be taken away except for specific situations when they may be
restricted (e.g. if a person is convicted of a crime by a court of law they their right to
liberty may be restricted through imprisonment). Human rights are also deemed to be
indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. This means that all human rights are of equal
importance and equally necessary to respect the dignity and worth of each human person
(Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2001).
Internationally, the traditional discourse of human rights is the United Nations’
International Bill of Human Rights (1993), which includes the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2001; Lowery, 1998). This Bill together
with the other United Nations Human Rights Instruments provides a comprehensive
human rights framework by which governments and individuals can be held to account.
Human Rights instruments cover the following areas:
the right to self determination; the prevention of discrimination; the rights of
women; the rights of the child; slavery, servitude forced labour and similar
institutions and practices; human rights in the administration of justice;
freedom of information; freedom of association; employment; internally
displaced persons; marriage, family and youth; social welfare progress and
development; the right to enjoy culture, international cultural development and
co-operation; nationality, statelessness, asylum and refugees; war crimes, and
crimes against humanity including genocide; and humanitarian law.
This framework, however, contains one key omission, namely, ‘A Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. Work on this draft declaration has been in progress for the
past few years and is described in United Nations Guide for Indigenous People (2001) as
being a consciousness raising process that is still in its early stages.
The United Nations’ framework has been criticised for its western dominance and
for its universalism (Ife, 2000). According to Ife (2000: 10) the concept of human rights
is not a static concept carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. Rather, “it is
106
constructed as the consequence of on-going dialogue about what is important for all the
people of the world, and what constitutes the important elements of our common
humanity and our global citizenship.” Ife (2000: 11) challenges social workers to
consider whose voices are being heard in this international dialogue and posits that the
days of western voices dominating the discussion are passing. He argues that the notion
of universal human rights be retained and reconstructed into “non-ethnocentric
universalism”. The social worker’s role in this arena is to help ensure that the voices of
the disadvantaged are heard. In short, the social worker is a human rights advocate and
social work is a human rights profession. Locally, in Aotearoa New Zealand, we need
also to be cognisant of our local construction of human rights found in our human rights
legislation (e.g. Human Rights Act, 1993) and the voices and interests that authored it
when considering human rights in our context.
For social workers and supervisors navigating your way through the Declarations,
Conventions, other human rights documentation and legislation let alone considering
their application in practice is a challenge. Recently, the United Nations in partnership
with the IFSW have developed a Human Rights Manual for Social Workers (due for
publication on IFSW’s website). The manual consists of three parts and covers the
following areas: 1) Social work and human rights; 2) Basic human rights instruments;
and 3) Issues for practice reality. The manual provides comprehensive coverage of the
subject together with useful practical examples.
Human Rights and Social Justice
In the previous section human rights were described as fundamental freedoms that are
based in the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. In respecting the inherent
dignity and worth of each human person it is important that they have access to and use
of the resources and protections required to maintain and sustain their dignity and worth
as a human person. Ensuring that all people experience fair treatment and have equal
access to and use of these resources and protections is a social justice concern (Cheyne et
al., 1997). Essentially, social justice is concerned with reducing the disparities and
identifying and working with those experiencing disadvantage to address the causes of
disadvantage. In social work, human rights and social justice are integrally related,
107
because, both are concerned with fundamental human needs; current obligations that the
state or other individuals may legitimately demand that people meet; provide the
foundation for justifying actions and seeking protection for others; and provide a
rationale for supporting or challenging social policy, bureaucratic institutions, or
particular programs of service delivery (Lowery, 1998).
Human Rights, Social Justice and the Contextual Framework
Human rights and social justice are two key principles that are cornerstones in the
contextual framework. These principles espouse the fundamental values, moral and
ethical bases that underpin and inform both social work and supervision. They challenge
practitioners and supervisors to look through their lenses, consider and act upon the
issues of social justice and human rights present in supervision stories. These cornerstone
principles are both analytic and active in the contextual framework. They are analytic in
providing a lens for assessing the issues and they active in the area of the interventions
that advocate for and protect human rights, and redress personal, cultural and social
disparities.
Power and Empowerment
Power and empowerment are key concepts in social work. The ISFW (2000) definition of
social work refers to social work as a profession that promotes, “the empowerment and
liberation of people to enhance well being. In this section the concepts of power and
empowerment will be discussed followed by their role and place in the contextual
framework.
Power
In chapter 1, it was stated that power is a concept that is central in the constructionist
approach used in this book and that power would be discussed in both its positive and
negative senses. Its positive sense was described as the ability to voice and story. Whilst,
the negative sense of power was described as the ability to diminish, oppress, contain,
restrain and subjugate voice and storying. As indicated in chapter 4, one’s power is
derived from designated authority ascribed by virtue of role and status; b) personal and
professional attributes; and c) structurally determined identities and roles based on key
108
characteristics like ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, age, sexual orientation and
(dis)ability (Kadushin, 1992: 84-115; Brown et al., 1996: 32-49; Kaiser, 1996: 25-60).
Previously, it was also asserted that power is both present and influential whether
a voice or story is heard or recognised and legitimated. In discussing the “voices” from
the social and personal stories of supervision (chapters 3 and 4) consideration was given
to the way that each voice exercised power and was acted upon and influenced by power.
The key point concerning power is that we are immersed in it, we exercise it, we are
influenced and acted upon by it and it is an ever-present companion in our stories, and
storying. The exercising of power by people can be empowering or de-powering, or both.
When used power is relational and affective. It will advantage or disadvantage or both,
those who exercise it, those influenced by it and those upon whom it acts. Arguably,
social work supervision which argues that its raison d’être is best practice with clients is
primarily concerned with how power is used by the many voices that speak its words
with the intention of ultimately empowering clients and improving their situations.
Empowerment
Throughout this book the words empowerment and empowered have been used with
reference to a person’s ability to speak in their own indigenous voice and author, tell and
act freely in their own story (see chapters 3 and 4). Since the 1970s, social work has
developed the concept of empowerment into a practice approach and theory. A
significant contributor to conceptualisation of the empowerment approach and theory of
social work was a Brazilian educator named Paulo Friere (Lee, 1996). Friere’s (1974)
concepts of “radical pedagogy” and “dialogic process” aligned with social work’s desire
to empower in each human person the capacity to critically assess their world in a
dialogical encounter and claim back their right to name the world in their own words.
It is important to state that the empowerment process resides in the person and not
the helper. The helper’s role is that of a catalyst. According to (Lee, 1996: 224)
empowerment consists of the following three interlocking dimensions:
1) the enhancement and strengthening of one’s self concept;
2) the acquisition of knowledge and proficiency in the critical analysis of social
and political discourses present in one’s context.
109
3) the fostering of plans and resources, or greater practical effectiveness, in the
pursuit of personal and collective social objectives, or liberation.
The empowerment approach with its emphasis on client self-determination, solidarity
with clients, critical analysis and responsiveness to power, option for the poor, oppressed
and stigmatised, pursuit of personal and social liberation and dual focus on personal
troubles and social forces is a cornerstone of social work and supervision.
Power and Empowerment and the Contextual Framework
Power and empowerment are important concepts in the contextual framework. Power is
important because it is a constant that flows through all levels of the framework and its
presence and effects are felt whether or not they are named, identified, resisted or
responded to. Empowerment is the third cornerstone principle that supports human rights
and social justice. It provides the framework’s response to the power that flows through
all levels of the framework. In practice, it challenges practitioners and supervisors to
story their practice and supervision utilising processes and practises that empower clients
and practitioners in their work together. Like the other two cornerstone principles
empowerment is both analytic and active. It is analytic through its critical analysis of the
discourses present. It is active in its interventive responses that facilitate the
strengthening of the client’s self concept, and promote the development and use of plans
and resources that address both the client’s personal troubles and the social forces that
contributed to them.
The Anti-oppressive/ Anti-discriminatory practice
In the social work and supervision literature the generic concept of anti-oppressive and
anti-discriminatory practice emerged from the feminist, anti-racist, and radical social
work traditions (Payne, 1997; Brown et al., 1996; Morrison, 1993; Dominelli, 1997). In
this section the concepts of anti-oppression and anti-discrimination will be briefly
discussed together with their place as the fourth cornerstone principle in the contextual
framework.
110
Anti-oppression and Anti-discrimination
The distinction between the terms anti-oppression and anti-discrimination according to
Brown et al. (1996) have been blurred by some authors who have used both terms
interchangeably. With this in mind both terms will be defined and examined.
What is anti-oppression?
At its simplest level anti-oppression means opposed to oppression. Oppression is a
complex phenomenon, which is related to historical, structural, cultural and personal
differences in power and status as well as to personal, cultural and social experiences of
oppressing and being oppressed. Oppression manifests itself as a personal, cultural and
social obstacle or blockade that disadvantages and restrains an individual or a group’s
personal and social mobility, freedom, and status in society. It connects with the
experiences of independent fields such as culture, gender, class, sexual orientation, age
and disability, through the sharing of this manifestation (Brown et al., 1996). Antioppressive practice is opposed to oppression in any field and form and seeks to name,
remedy, prevent, minimise and remove the affect of the obstacle or blockade placed by
the oppression at the personal, cultural and social levels. It aims to ensure that the work
itself does not replicate and/or reinforce the obstacle or blockade. It attempts to do this
through the critical examination by the practitioner or supervisor of their biography,
values, assumptions, authority, status and use of power. This critical examination is
followed by action to address any language, traits and/or behaviour that may be perceived
by the client or practitioner group as oppressive. Effective anti-oppressive practice is
based in sensitivity to the signs of the times, gender, culture, society and the world, as
well as to the client and/or practitioner groups’, background, experiences, perceptions,
story, and worldview. It involves working with others, as they are, where they are, how
they are, and according to their way. It validates their experiences, perceptions,
worldview and way of doing things. In short, the practitioner and supervisor work
collaboratively with people to empower and liberate their indigenous voice and story.
What is anti-discrimination?
Anti-discrimination on the other hand at its simplest level means opposed to
discrimination. Discrimination is argued by Brown et al. (1996) to be a quasi-legal term
111
that is used in specific legislation (e.g. Human Rights Act 1993). Generally, the term
discrimination is understood as unequal, unfair, and unjust treatment based on personal
factors (e.g. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, class, politics, religion
etc…). Anti-discriminatory practice is opposed to discrimination in all its forms. It argues
that discrimination occurs at the personal, cultural, and social levels and that it is based
upon biases and prejudices. An anti-discriminatory approach seeks to identify, name and
remedy the effects of discrimination at all levels through challenging unequal, unfair and
unjust treatment of individuals or groups based on personal, cultural and social bias and
prejudice. In doing so it advocates fair, equal and just treatment of individuals and
groups. In essence an anti-discriminatory approach is primarily concerned with ensuring
that the processes used at all levels are transparent, fair, equal and just with personal,
cultural, and social biases and prejudices sublimated for this higher ideal.
Anti-oppression, Anti-discrimination and the Contextual Framework.
Anti-oppression and anti-discrimination form the fourth cornerstone principle of the
contextual framework that supports and interlocks with the other three principles of
human rights, social justice, and empowerment. As a principle for the contextual
framework both anti-oppression and anti-discrimination are included and joined together.
The reason for doing this is that both reinforce and support the other principles.
Anti-oppression brings to the framework, in its analytic form, sensitivity to the
signs of the times, culture, society and the world, as well as to obstacles and/or blockades
presents in the client and/or practitioner groups’, background, experiences, perceptions,
story, and worldview. Its active contribution is two-fold. The first involves the
practitioner/supervisor working to not replicating or reinforcing the obstacles and or
blockades placed by oppression. The second, is the effort made to name, remedy, prevent,
minimise and remove the effects of the obstacle or blockade placed by the oppression at
the personal, cultural and social levels through processes of empowerment and liberation.
The principle of anti-discrimination, on the other hand, contributes an analysis of the role
of intentional and unintentional personal, cultural, and social bias and prejudice in the
unfair, unequal and unjust treatment of individuals and groups. It actively seeks to
address discrimination through reform based on the sublimation of personal, cultural and
112
social bias and prejudices for the higher ideals of a transparent, fair, equal and just
process. Figure 6.1 below illustrates the contextual framework built upon these four
cornerstone social work principles.
Figure 6.1 Contextual Framework with Foundations
Social Justice
Human Rights
Global Voices
Technological
Political
Local Voices
Personal Voices
Social Policy
Clients
Economic
Practitioners
Supervision
Story, Headlines, Bylines
Text, Sub-text,
Context
Supervisors
Socio-cultural
Empowerment
Service
Providers
Managers
Other
professionals
Educators
Social Work Profession
Ecological
Anti-oppression/ Antidiscrimination
The foundation principles discussed thus far relate to international social work principles.
The global construction of the framework when applied locally needs to be informed by
local foundational social work principles. In this next section Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be
discussed as the foundation for social work and supervision practice in Aotearoa New
Zealand.
113
Te Tiriti o Waitangi the foundation of Social Work and Supervision Practice
in Aotearoa New Zealand
In chapter 2, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was discussed as a central theme in the Aotearoa New
Zealand supervision story. In this section Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be discussed in terms
of its place as the foundation for social work and supervision practice and its role as the
keystone in the contextual framework.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi the foundation of Social Work and Supervision Practice
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is described as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand
(Palmer, 1992; Department of Social Welfare, 1994). Oliver (1988) also describes it as
the foundation for social policy in New Zealand. Using these arguments Ruwhui (2001)
asserts that Te Tiriti o Waitangi foreshadows all development in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Since, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of the nation, the foundation for
social policy in this nation and foreshadows all development it therefore must also be the
foundation for social work and social work supervision and foreshadow its development
in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation for social work practice is
supported by the profession (ANZASW) in its Constitution, Bicultural Code of Practice
and Ten Practice Standards. It is further endorsed in the realm of social work education,
firstly through Kahukura, The Possible Dream: What the Treaty of Waitangi Requires of
Courses in the Social Services (Benton et al., 1991) which situates Te Tiriti o Waitangi at
heart of education and training in the social services. The second endorsement comes
from Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi (TKA), the Industry Training Organisation for the Social
Services. In the unit standards for their National Qualifications, TKA have made passing
Te Tiriti o Waitangi unit standards prerequisite to all other standards. Furthermore, all
their unit standards also explicitly assess the student on their application of articles of Te
Tiriti o Waitangi. The unit standard model with its explicit references and assessment of
Te Tiriti o Waitangi has in the author’s opinion succeeded in promoting Te Tiriti o
Waitangi as an explicit practice approach in which social workers’ practice is based upon
its articles and principles. Furthermore, its has contributed to the development of an
indigenous bicultural approach to practice based on the principles of partnership,
114
protection,
participation
and
non-discrimination
(Rivers,
and
Crocket,
2000;
O’Donoghue, 2001b).
Ruwhiu (2001:61) argues that social work practice under Te Tiriti o Waitangi
occurs within a bi-polity paradigm, which at the macro level consists of the two groups of
Tangata Whenua (consisting of Tangata Whenua- Iwi, Maori, Half-caste Bicultural, and
New Zealander) and Tauiwi (consisting of New Zealander, Pakeha, English, Pacific
Island Peoples, Asian peoples and other ethnic groups). This in turn creates a continuum
of Maori and Tauiwi realities at the meso level, which results in the multicultural
engagement between Maori and Tauiwi at the micro level.
This paradigm particularly challenges two commonly held misnomers, the first
being that Tauiwi equals Pakeha and the second being that Te Tiriti o Waitangi does not
support multiculturalism. Concerning the first misnomer, Tauiwi consists of all nonmaori groups who are party to Te Tiriti o Waitangi through the Crown, (Tauiwi’s
representative) who through article one was ascribed the right to set up a government and
govern. Remember, that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was a Crown initiative to establish orderly,
and lawful settlement of Aotearoa New Zealand and that non-maori groups such as
Samoans, Fijians, Chinese, Koreans, etc… are all settlers. With regard to the second
misnomer, that Te Tiriti o Waitangi does support multiculturalism. Te Tiriti o Waitangi
does support multiculturalism; however, it places it second to bi-culturalism and sees the
responsibility for minority settler groups as being that of the Tauiwi partner. In other
words, the needs of other cultural groups should not to be traded off by the Crown at the
expense of its obligations to the Tangata Whenua partner under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The
Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi remain regardless of the size, range and
status of differing minority populations.
In terms of social work and supervision practice Te Tiriti o Waitangi challenges
Tauiwi social workers and supervisors to: 1) work in partnership with Tangata Whenua;
2) protect the well-being and self-determination of Tangata Whenua; 3) facilitate and
support Tangata Whenua participation in practice; and 4) to work in a non-discriminatory
manner that respects the cultural and religious freedom of all people.
115
Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Keystone in the Framework
It is argued that all social work and supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand occurs under
the umbrella of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There is a third misnomer, which I intend to
challenge prior to discussing the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the keystone in the
contextual framework. This misnomer is that the articles and principles of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi don’t apply in Tauiwi social work practice with Tauiwi. It is argued, that Te
Tiriti o Waitangi applies always in social work practice conducted in Aotearoa New
Zealand on the basis that all social work practice effects Aotearoa and her people. The
point is that in Aotearoa New Zealand, Tauiwi when working with Tauiwi, remain in a
relationship with the Tangata Whenua partner at the natural, spiritual and human levels
(Ruwhiu, 2001). Tauiwi are always in a relationship with Tangata Whenua, even if (we)
Tauiwi do not realise or recognise it. Just because people are not physically present does
not mean that one’s relationship, responsibilities and accountabilities under that
relationship cease. For example, at a personal level, when I am away from Rosemary, my
wife, say at work or at a conference, my relationship, responsibilities towards her and my
accountabilities to her as part of my marriage relationship does not cease.
The relationship between Tangata Whenua and Tauiwi under Te Tiriti o
Waiatangi is most obvious at the natural level, because, all social work practice in
Aotearoa New Zealand occurs within the physical tribal boundaries of an Iwi. This has
implications in terms of the social worker’s and client’s use of the resources and respect
of the natural environment. The relationship also occurs at the spiritual level where the
responsibility of the social work practitioner in their work with clients, is to ensure that
the tapu and kawa of Whanau, Hapu and Iwi are respected and to ensure that their work
does not trample or diminish the mana of Tangata Whenua. The relationship also occurs
at a human level, Tauiwi when working with Tauiwi have responsibility to promote
respectful relationships thorough anti-discrimination and anti-oppressive practices with
clients. This also involves challenging personal and structural racism directed towards
Maori people at all levels of practice. It is upon this basis that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the
keystone in the contextual framework when used in Aotearoa New Zealand.
A keystone is the central stone in a building that holds all other stones in place. In
terms of the contextual framework Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the context of Aotearoa New
116
Zealand holds the framework together. Without Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the foundation
stones of human rights, social justice, empowerment and anti-oppression and antidiscrimination will not remain in place. Figure 6.2 below depicts the relationship between
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the four cornerstones.
Figure 6.2 Te Tiriti o Waitangi as Keystone in the Contextual Framework
Te Ti r it i o W ait an g i
Social Ju st ice
Hu m an Rig h t s
Em p ow er m en
t
An t i- op p r ession /
An t i- d iscr i m in at ion
Summary
This chapter has discussed the foundations of the contextual framework introduced in
chapter 5. The following key points were made:
•
•
•
Rights are specific entitlements that are inherent to all people, which are based, in
relational and reciprocal moral obligations and duties.
Human rights are those rights that are inherent to the human being.
Human rights are fundamental freedoms based in the inherent dignity and worth of
the human being. They are universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrelated and
•
interdependent.
Internationally, the traditional discourse of human rights is the United Nations’
International Bill of Human Rights (1993).
117
•
•
The UN human rights framework has been criticised for its western dominance and
universalism.
Ife (2000) asserts that human rights is a concept that is constructed as a result of ongoing dialogue about what is important for all the people of the world and what
•
constitutes the important elements of our common humanity and global citizenship.
•
international dialogue.
•
workers to assist them navigate their way through this area.
•
disadvantage to reduce the disparities and to address the causes of disadvantage.
Social workers are to consider whose voices are shaping and being heard in this
IFSW in conjunction with the UN have produced a human rights manual for social
Social Justice is concerned with identifying and working with those experiencing
In social work, human rights and social justice are integrally related because both are
concerned with fundamental human needs; current obligations that the state or
individuals may legitimately demand that people meet; provide the foundation for
justifying actions and seeking protection for others; and provide a rationale for
supporting or challenging social policy, bureaucratic institutions, or particular
•
programs of service delivery.
•
framework and are used both analytically and actively.
•
Human rights and social justice are two cornerstone principles in the conetxtual
Power is a constant in the framework and flows through all three levels.
Empowerment consists of the following three dimensions: 1) the enhancement and
strengthening of one’s self concept; 2) the acquisition of knowledge and proficiency
in critical analysis of social and political discourses present in one’s context; 3) the
fostering of plans and resources, or greater personal effectiveness, in the pursuit of
•
personal and collective social objectives or liberation.
The empowerment approach with its emphasis on client self-determination, solidarity
with clients critical analysis and responsiveness to power, option for the poor,
oppressed and stigmatised, pursuit of personal and social liberation and dual focus on
•
personal troubles and social forces is a cornerstone of social work and supervision.
Empowerment is the third cornerstone principle in the contextual framework. It
provides the framework’s response to power.
118
•
•
Anti-oppression and anti-discrimination are two specific concepts that are sometimes
confused or used interchangeably.
Anti-oppression means opposed to oppression, with oppression manifesting itself as a
personal, cultural and social obstacle or blockade that disadvantages and restrains an
•
individual or a group’s personal and social mobility, freedom and status in society.
Anti-oppressive practice seeks to name, remedy, prevent, minimise and remove the
affect of the obstacle or blockade placed by the oppression at the personal, cultural,
and social levels. It also aims to ensure that the work itself does not replicate and/or
•
reinforce the obstacle or blockade.
Effective anti-oppressive practice is based in a sensitivity to the signs of the times,
gender, culture, society, and the world as well as to the clients and practitioner
•
groups’ background, experiences, perceptions, story and worldview.
Anti-discrimination means opposed to discrimination, with discrimination being
understood as unequal, unfair, and unjust treatment based on personal prejudice and
•
bias.
Anti-discriminatory practice seeks to identify, name and remedy the affect of
discrimination through challenging it and through ensuring that processes are
•
transparent, fair, equal and just.
Anti-oppression and anti-discrimination together form the fourth cornerstone
principle of the contextual framework which interlocks with the three other
•
principles.
•
supervision practice.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation for social work and
In social work and supervision practice Te Tiriti o Waitangi challenges Tauiwi social
workers and supervisors to: 1) work in partnership with Tangata Whenua; 2) protect
the well-being and self-determination of Tangata Whenua; 3) facilitate and support
Tangata Whenua participation; and 4) to work in a non-discriminatory manner that
•
respects the cultural and religious freedom of all people.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the keystone in the contextual framework, which holds the
other cornerstones in place.
119
Reflection Questions
1. In what ways are human rights and social justice present in your supervision story?
2. How is power experienced in your supervision story?
3. To what extent is empowerment part of your supervision story?
4. In what ways is your supervision story anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory?
5. How do you honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in your supervision story?
120
CHAPTER 7
DECONSTRUCTING THE NARRATIVES OF THE PERSONS
INVOLVED
The next two chapters form an invitation to the reader to deconstruct their supervision
story. In this chapter, the invitation is to deconstruct the stories of the persons,
relationships and systems involved in your supervision. A range of exercises, and
activities will be offered to assist in identifying the voices and their influence in the story.
In chapter 4, the voices of clients, practitioners, supervisors, managers and other social
service and health professionals were discussed in terms of their contribution, influence
and presence in the supervision production. As a warm up exercise, you are invited to
reflect upon your last few supervision sessions using the performance and production
metaphor from chapter 4 and consider the following:
•
•
•
•
What were the on-stage voices?
What were the off-stage or backstage voices?
What echoes of other voices were present in each voice?
•
How would you describe each voice?
•
voice?
What were the headlines, by-lines, text, sub-text and context present in each
What were the headlines, by-lines, text, sub-text and context present in the
supervision performances and the production?
In your reflections and responses to the above questions you are encouraged to name each
voice for yourself and to not be constrained by the descriptions and names of the voices
used in chapter 4. Remember that it is your supervision and your supervision story. We
move on now to looking at the voices. The first voice considered is that of the client.
Client’s voice
As stated in chapter 4, the client’s indigenous voice is rarely heard in supervision and is
usually a narrated or edited voice storied by the practitioner. It was also stated that the
121
client’s voice consisted of many strands and brings with it the echoes of the client’s
history, family, cultural and social systems. The challenge presented to the social worker
when working with the client is to draw out their story by listening and observing
carefully. To do this we need to attend to the client, setting, observe and hear the client’s
immediate concerns (i.e. headlines) and pick up the sub-headings or by-lines. We also
need to hear the words of the story (the text) and the feelings, thoughts, perceptions,
expectations, assumptions and beliefs beneath the words, (the sub-text). The final aspect
that social work practitioners need to tune into is the context of the client’s story. This
involves listening and uncovering the echoes of the client’s history, family, cultural, and
social systems. In listening to the client in this way, hopefully, we will connect with their
frame of reference and read out of the client’s story rather than read ourselves and our
preconceptions into it. In essence, the social worker’s ability to connect with the client
and have empathy for them and their situation is dependent upon the social worker’s
attitudes, and ability to use counselling skills. In terms of attitudes, the key attitude for
the social worker is to seek to understand the people before them together with the
complexities of their life situations and to suspend their preconceptions and judgements.
One process social workers can use to assist them in drawing out the client’s story
is that of externalisation of the problem. This process involves separating the problem
from the person, inviting the client to name or give the problem a personality, and to
discover the effect the problem has had on the person’s feelings, relationships,
experiences etc… Once this is achieved the social worker and the client start uncovering
the exceptions to the problem, namely, the times when the client was able to escape the
problem, then examine what possibilities these exceptions have for them. From there
further evidence of the exceptions is sought. This evidence will form the basis of a new
story and help consider what sort of future might be possible through learning to resist,
escape or stand up to the problem with the support of a network that enhances their new
developing story (Parton et al., 2000).
The challenge faced by all involved in the supervision performance is to gain an
accurate, authentic and valid presentation and understanding of the client’s voice. The
direct involvement of the client in the supervisory process through live observations can
assist in this regard. In cases where this does not occur the supervisor relies upon the
122
practitioner’s interpersonal process recall or edited narration of the client’s story.
Supervisors can become attuned to the client’s voice in supervision through a number of
different ways. The most obvious are through maintaining a direct practice with clients or
by accessing their direct practice experiences. The following are some further ideas that
supervisors can use to become attuned to the client’s voice:
1. Develop or review your agency’s client profile, which details the demographic
features of your agency’s clients (i.e. age, gender, ethnicity, iwi affiliation,
employment status, income, community location and issues of concern).
2. Keep up to date with policy and service delivery issues and their implications
on your agency’s client group (e.g. changes in welfare, housing, employment
and health policy).
3. Keep a log of the client related issues reported in supervision.
4. Regularly review anonymous client feedback (If you don’t have a system for
this develop one).
5. Use circular questions in supervision that encourage reflection upon the
client’s situation (e.g. What do think it might feel like for Jack (the client) to
be in this situation? What do think it might feel like for Jack’s partner, mother
etc…?).
6. Bring the client into the supervision conversation through use of imaginary
dialogue (e.g. Imagine Jack (the client) and his family were here listening to
our conversation about your work with him and your assessment of his
concerns and capabilities what do you think he would be saying?)
As well as utilising these ideas in the practice of supervision to attune oneself to the
client’s story. It is important that both supervisors and practitioners are explicit about
their personal and professional stories so that they can critically examine their
preconceptions, assumptions and values, in order that they are reading out of the client’s
story rather than reading themselves into it. One way of doing this is for the supervisor
and practitioner to have a conversation in which they share the following:
•
Their understanding of clients in terms of their: background; culture, gender
sexual orientation, class, age, disability, religious affiliation, and spirituality;
issues of concern; expectations of the agency.
123
•
•
Their views on how clients describe the service they receive from the agency?
The values/ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural perspectives, theoretical
preferences and ideas, and the practice and life experiences that influence their
perspective and actions with clients.
This type of conversation relies on the trust and quality of the supervision relationship
and its purpose is to ensure that both the supervisor and practitioner examine their
interpretations of clients and their situations and that these interpretations are open to and
stand up to challenge. Before moving on to the practitioner’s voice the following two
exercises are offered as a means by which a team or a group of students can explore the
client’s voice present in supervision.
Exercise 7.1
The Client’s Voice
In a group consider the following:
• What elements and echoes make up the client’s voice?
• How would the client’s voice sound if the group in choir sang it?
• How is the voice’s sound, strength, song and authorship in supervision
different for the following client groups
• Men
• Women
• Children and Young People
• Pakeha
• Maori (Whanau)
• Pacific Island people
• Gay or Lesbian people
• People with disabilities
Then discuss the implications of this exercise in terms of empowering the
client’s voice in supervision in your context.
Exercise 7.2
Reverse Supervision
This exercise involves three role-plays:
1) The client and a social worker (twenty minutes).
2) The practitioner then goes to the supervisor to debrief their role-play
experience. (twenty minutes).
3) The client then goes to their supervisor to debrief their role-play
experience. (twenty minutes).
124
Those not involved in the role-plays are to observe and make notes
concerning the client’s voice in each forum. They are to pay particular
attention to the similarities and differences between role-play two and
three.
The debriefing process of this exercise involves the facilitator reviewing
each role play in descriptive terms (i.e. How did it start? what happened
next? Etc…). This is done with the observers. Once the descriptive
review of a role-play is completed the participants are asked for their
reflections followed by the observing group. Consideration is to be given
to factors that empowered and de-powered the client’s voice. The review
is to be concluded by reflecting on the participants’ learning concerning
the client’s voice and supervision in general.
Practitioners
In chapter 4, it was asserted that the social work practitioner’s voice like that of client’s is
diverse. The practitioner’s voice has been formed by their personality and within the
stories of their personal experiences, family, culture, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
spirituality, socio-economic status, age, and disability as well as their professional
experiences gained from education and training, employment and practice, and
supervision. It was also asserted that the voice of the practitioner resonates with their
values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural perspectives, ideology and theory of
social work and practice skills. What this means for the supervisor is that it is important
to know the practitioners that you supervise. This knowing of the practitioner includes
their personal and professional roles and circumstances. At this point it may be
worthwhile to reflect upon the following questions which concern the supervisor’s
knowledge of the practitioners they supervise:
•
•
•
Their family of origin comes from and comprises of?
Their household consists of?
•
Their previous work experience includes?
•
Their past social work practice experience involved?
•
Their ideological and value base is?
•
They gained their social qualification when, and where?
•
Their previous supervisors were?
•
Their theoretical and personal practice approach includes?
Their skill set comprises of?
125
•
Their practice style involves?
Social work practitioners are influenced by all the factors that form their voice, which
were listed above and by their perception of their supervisors and managers, the
supervision itself, their colleagues and clients. This range of influences and raft of
relationships means that the deconstruction of their stories is perhaps more challenging
than that of the clients. In essence, the process of deconstruction is a complex process of
social work assessment that involves careful listening and observation of the practitioner
in the workplace. It also involves an understanding of the practitioner’s personal history
and circumstances and how these affect them as a person and as social work practitioner.
In short, it means an ongoing learning of their personal and professional story. The key
point here is that the supervisor cares for the work through caring for the practitioner and
that to care for the practitioner s/he needs to know and be tuned into the practitioner.
Knowing the practitioner does not mean turning supervision into therapy. Rather, it
means knowing “enough” about your colleague to be attuned to them and their work. In
other words it means that you are interested in the practitioner not just as a “human
resource”, but rather as a fellow human person. Without overlabouring this point it is
necessary to point out that over the past ten years the social work workplace has become
increasingly impersonal. This impersonality may be attributable to changes in how people
are managed and supervised and the increasing separation of management from
professionals and clients (O’Donoghue, 1999). Another contributing factor is the rise of
“human resource management” and its rhetoric in social services which arguably has
shifted the dialogical relationship between social workers and supervisors from an I-You
relationship to an I –It relationship (Itzhaky et al., 1999: 17-32).
As with the client’s voice the key to the deconstruction of practitioner’s
supervision stories is careful listening and observation. This careful listening involves
hearing beneath the headlines, by-lines, and text to the sub-text of feelings, attitudes,
perceptions, expectations, thoughts and beliefs. It also involves contextualising the
practitioner’s story. At the sub-text level, theoretical ideas such as transference, countertransference and parallel process are important reference points. Likewise, the use of
cognitive approaches in reframing, exploring and challenging the practitioner’s verbal
expressions that depersonalise, label, awfulise, catastrophise, generalise, demonise and
126
glorify, and demand are also important. At the contextual level the influence of the
practitioner’s personal, team, agency, and practice systems are important.
In the previous section the importance of an exploratory conversation between the
social worker and supervisor concerning their views, perceptions and understanding of
clients was signalled. This conversation in relation to practitioner’s voice needs to be
expanded to a sharing of views, perceptions and understandings of the personal and
professional interface, the role and influence of history, the team, the managerial,
professional and industrial setting, and the affect of direct practice upon them. Particular
aspects that are valuable to cover are the practitioner’s resilience factors, strengths,
supports and stress management as well as vulnerabilities and areas of further
development. In the realm of the practice of supervision, the conversation could cover the
participants’ understanding, experiences and aspirations and expectations of supervision.
As stated previously, this conversation will rely on atmosphere of trust. The following
exercises are designed to assist in understanding the concept of the practitioner’s voice
and deconstructing practitioners’ stories.
Exercise 7.3 The Practitioner’s Voice
In a group consider the following:
What elements and echoes make up the practitioner’s voice?
• How would the practitioner’s sound if the group in choir sang it?
• How is the voice’s sound, strength, song and authorship in
supervision different for the following practitioner groups
• Men
• Women
• Pakeha
• Maori (Whanau)
• Pacific Island people
• Gay or Lesbian people
• People with disabilities
Consider how the responses are similar and different from those of the
client’s voice in Exercise 7.1.
Then discuss the implications of this exercise in terms of empowering
the practitioner’s voice in your context.
127
Exercise 7.4 The Story
Form a quad with the following roles:
1 Practitioner, 1 Supervisor and 2 Observers.
•
•
•
The practitioner is to choose and recount a recent supervision story
to the supervisor.
The supervisor is to draw out the practitioner’s story by listening
for the sub-text and connecting to contextual influences.
The two observers are to watch, listen and identify the headlines,
bylines, text, sub-text and context of the practitioner’s story.
The simulation of the story is to last 30 minutes. At the end of 30
minutes the practitioner and supervisor are to bring their session to a
close.
They are then to sit and listen to the observers have a 10-minute
reflective conversation concerning the headlines, bylines, text, sub-text
and context present in the practitioner’s story.
At the end of this conversation the practitioner and social worker are to
engage in a 10-minute conversation reflecting upon the observers’
conversation and their experience.
After this all four group members are to engage into a final 10-minute
reflective conversation in which they share their learning about the
practitioner’s voice and supervision.
Consideration is to be given to the factors that empowered and depowered the practitioner’s voice.
Supervisors
In chapter 4, the supervisor’s voice was described as similar to the practitioner’s voice in
that it is a diverse voice that is formed by the same factors. It was also described as
resonating with the supervisor’s values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural
perspectives, ideology and theory of social work, supervision and practice skills. The
supervisor’s voice was further described as a responsive voice that facilitates the creation
of a forum that encourages the practitioner’s narration, disclosure, discussion, debate, and
dialogue on the supervision stage. This voice speaks a language of attendance,
observation, reflective listening, enquiry, support, challenge, ethical and professional
safety, and education and development with its emphasis on process rather than content.
This voice like that of the client and practitioner is a human voice and as a human voice
its responsiveness in supervision is influenced by its humanity, stories concerning their
128
personal and professional self, others, their role, practice, supervision and their
professional, organisational, and social environments. It is also a voice that derives power
from a) its designated authority bestowed by virtue of role and agency status; b) personal
and professional attributes; and c) structurally determined identities and roles based on
key characteristics like ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, age, sexual orientation
and (dis)ability (Kadushin, 1992: 84-115; Brown et al., 1996: 32-49; Kaiser, 1996: 2560). By virtue of its role the supervisor’s voice also carries with it and wears a
mythology. This mythology may romanticise, vilify, demonise, deify, guruise or hero/
heroine the supervisor’s voice as good, bad or ugly. Consider for a moment the
following:
1. The mythology (reputation, personal/ professional image, stories and rumour)
of your supervisor.
2. The mythology that the people you supervise may promote about you.
Having considered the above the next two questions are:
•
•
How does this influence me as a supervisor?
And how does this influence what happens in supervision?
Another facet of the supervisor’s voice is the degree of role conflict experienced. In
Aotearoa New Zealand, supervisors rarely solely supervise. They also hold the roles of
line managers, peer practitioners, practice consultants, social work educators, private
practitioners, professional advisors, directors, team leaders, or practice leaders. The
echoes and demands of these other roles for the supervisor resound as they immerse
themselves in supervision stories. Likewise the reverse also occurs when the person is in
other roles (e.g. line manager, professional adviser, peer practitioner) with the
supervisor’s voice resounding through echoes, whispers and sometimes screams.
In the midst of this cacophony of sound consisting of the notes that form the
supervisor’s voice, their personal/professional situations and circumstances, and the
variety of roles they participate in the supervisor listens for the client’s and practitioners’
voice and interprets their stories. The challenge they face is the same one that
practitioners’ face with clients, namely, to not read themselves into the other’s story, but
rather to draw out the other’s story. The following exercise provides a vehicle through
which the phenomenon of the cacophony of sound is experienced outwardly.
129
Exercise 7.5 Echoes
This exercise focuses on the internal echoes that are present in the
supervisor’s voice.
The exercise starts with the facilitator asking for a volunteer to be a
supervisor. This person then takes a seat in the middle of the room.
The facilitator and the supervisor then work on identifying the echoes
present in the supervisor’s voice through a discussion of the various
roles the person holds. As each role is identified the supervisor and
facilitator invite a group member to stand behind the supervisor and to
take on that echo and some of its key phrases and sounds.
When all the roles are identified and prepared. The facilitator asks for a
practitioner (supervisee) and for that person to take a seat.
The practitioner then gets into role with the help of the facilitator and
supervisor.
The facilitator then directs the drama of a supervision session which is
to last between 10-15 minutes. The facilitator like a conductor will
point to a particular echo or a number of echoes to speak their key
phrases close to the supervisor during the session. Initially the
facilitator may freeze the session for a couple seconds for the echo or
echoes to speak.
At the end of the simulation the supervisor, practitioner, echoes and
any observes are engaged by the facilitator in a reflective conversation
concerning the experience, how it relates to the supervisor’s voice.
Learnings as supervisors and about supervision. The facilitator is to
ensure all participants are de-roled upon completion of the reflection.
The echoes exercise can be modified to highlight other aspects of a supervisor’s voice
such as previous supervisors, role models and the significant people in the supervisors
personal and professional life, or values, ethics, standards, practice theories, etc… The
overall aim of the exercise no matter what form it takes is to externalise the elements of
the supervisor’s voice and facilitate its deconstruction within its particular context.
In terms of the exploratory conversation discussed in the previous sections the
addition to that conversation from the supervisor’s voice is to clearly inform and discuss
with the practitioner the other roles that the supervisor participates in and the limits that
they place on their availability (physically and psychologically). There would also be
value in exploring the mythology concept as it relates to the supervisor’s voice.
130
So far in this chapter you have been invited to deconstruct the voices and stories
of those directly involved in supervision practice. In this next section the invitation is
extended to the backstage voices of managers, educators and other social service and
health professionals.
Managers
The manager’s voice was described in chapter 4 as a diverse voice, which has been
formed by its interaction and meaning making experiences within its personal,
professional and social world. It resonates with the manager’s values and ethics, beliefs,
expectations, cultural perspectives, ideology and theories of social work, supervision,
management, and practice skills. It was also stated that how it speaks of supervision will
be related to the individual manager’s experience of it and their personal position
concerning its value and use. The difference between generic and social work trained
managers was also highlighted. Furthermore, the managerial language of contracts,
production performance, added value, risk and budget and its domination of the social
service setting was discussed.
The deconstruction of the manager’s voice and its influence on supervision is
evident in the following:
•
•
The number of supervisors employed or contracted.
•
The construction of the role of the supervisor.
•
frequency of contact.
•
The monitoring or review of practice and supervision in the agency.
•
The workload expectations of practitioners and supervisors
•
The training provided to them and practitioners.
The policy related to who provides supervision, receives and the
•
The organisation’s model, mode and type of supervision.
•
Statements made concerning practice and supervision.
The organisational culture.
Like supervisors, myths are also created about managers. It is important to unveil these
myths and to consider the person, portfolio, circumstances and history. In other words it
131
is important to know “enough” about the management’s, history, personal and
professional circumstances, values, beliefs and ideological leanings and to study their
language. At this point you are encouraged to reflect upon the following:
•
•
What background does you manager have?
What do you think their personal and professional values, beliefs and
perspectives are concerning clients, practitioners, supervisors, practice
•
and supervision?
•
practice and supervision?
•
What mythology do they promote about themselves, the organisation,
What is their interest in practice and supervision?
What decisions do they or have they made that impact on both practice
and supervision?
The responses to the above questions provide a starting point for considering the effect of
the manager’s voice on supervision practice. This can be further developed through
conversations with peers and supervisors and managers (provided that they are
trustworthy, open, willing to engage in a non-defensive manner and have personal and
professional integrity).
Educators
The educator’s voice was described in chapter 4, as one of legacy, critique and
prompting. Its presence in the production of supervision was found in the scripting and
backstage whispers and prompting. It contributes significantly to practitioners and
supervisors socialisation into supervision through introducing them to supervision, by the
publication of research, theories and models, and commentaries concerning supervision
practice and through formal education and training courses in supervision.
The legacy, scripting, backstage whispers and prompting of the educator’s voice
is stronger when its contact is recent or significant. Examples of recent contact are found
in the new graduate, practitioner or the supervisor who has completed a supervision
qualification or who has just completed a fieldwork placement. Some examples where the
contact is significant are when the experience of the education and the educator have left
132
a lasting impression are through, perhaps, a change in perspective, personal growth or
conflict.
The educator’s voice is also evident in the supervision literature that a supervisor may
provide to supervisees or the books that sit on their bookshelf.
In considering the educator’s voice some worthwhile reflection questions are:
•
•
How was I educated either formally or informally about supervision?
•
How has that education stayed with me or how has it developed?
•
supervision?
Who are the people, books or articles that I refer to when discussing
What influence do these people, books and articles have in my
supervision story?
Other Social Service and Health Professionals
The final voice considered is that of other social service and health professionals. In
chapter 4, the discussion of these voices and their role in influencing the social work
supervision story was discussed with a particular emphasis on the development of
collaborative practice both within services and across service sectors. The degree of
status and legitimisation attributed to the range of professions was also discussed together
with the particular emphasis each profession had in its task of helping people. It was
argued that only social work worked with the full range of human ecology (i.e. at the
intrapersonal, personal, interpersonal, systemic and structural levels).
The key questions concerning the voices of other social service and health
professions are as follows:
1. What is their dominance in the workplace?
2. What is their status and legitimisation with management?
3. What is their construction of supervision?
4. To what degree is their construction of supervision propagated as the
construction of supervision in your work context?
5. How is your supervision influenced by the voices of other
professions?
133
Summary
In this chapter an invitation was extended to deconstruct the personal story of supervision
within your context through identifying and considering the influence of the six
previously discussed voices. Exercises and reflection questions have been provided as
aids that assist in this deconstruction. Before moving on to the next chapter in which an
invitation is extended to deconstruct the local and global stories within which supervision
is immersed and consider their affect and presence in your context. An invitation is
extended to undertake the following exercise, which provides a format for visually
mapping the personal voices and their influence on your supervision story. The exercise
also offers a way of drawing together the influence of the various voices.
Exercise 7.6 Voice Map
Clients
Supervision
Stories
Headlines
By-lines
Text
Sub-text
Context
Other Social
Service and
Health Professions
Practitioners
My Voice,
Personal,
Professional,
Socio-cultural,
Historical
Influences and
Circumstances
Educators
Supervisors
Managers
134
CHAPTER 8
DECONSTRUCTING THE LOCAL AND GLOBAL SUPERVISION
STORIES
This chapter offers an invitation to deconstruct the stories present in the wider
supervision context. A range of exercises and activities are offered for this task. In
chapter 3, the global and local voices involved in supervision were discussed. The local
voices identified were the voices of social policy, services providers and the profession.
The global voices identified were the economic, technological, political, socio-cultural
and ecological voices. In this chapter we will start with the local and move outwards to
the global.
Before moving on to examine the local voices an invitation is extended to you to
reflect on your recent supervision sessions or contacts and consider the following
questions:
1. What would you identify as the local voices in your supervision story?
2. What presence do these local voices have in the supervision?
3. What would you identify as the global voices in your supervision story?
4. What presence do these global voices have in the supervision?
Local Voices
In this section you are invited to identify and consider the influence of social policy,
service providers and the profession. In undertaking this task you are encouraged to name
each voice, its presence and influence for yourself and not to be constrained by the voices
outlined in chapter 3. Remember that it is your supervision context and your story!
Social Policy
In chapter 3, it was argued that the voice social policy dominates the social service
terrain. The construction of social policy in chapter 3, encompassed all other policy areas,
(e.g. economic, health, housing, welfare, employment, justice, maori, environmental,
etc…), under the umbrella of social policy. This construction was based on a slight
adaptation of Cheyne et al’s. (1997: 2-3) definition, with social policy being constructed
135
as actions affecting the well-being of people within society through deciding the
distribution of and access to the goods, treasures and resources in that society. At this
point it may be worthwhile to consider what your construction of social policy is and
what does it include or exclude, together with the possible implications of these
inclusions and exclusions on you, your client group and supervision.
The first challenge in deconstructing the social policy voice in a supervision story
is to identify its various strands. This involves naming the policies that are present for the
client group, social work practitioners, supervisors and the agency. This is not an easy
task. One starting point is with the social policy made by the government.
It needs to be stated that the government is not the sole maker of social policy and
that the business, banking and the non-profit sectors also make social policy. Returning to
social policy made by government within this there are a range of levels. The most
obvious is law. All law is social policy however; not all-social policy is law. So the first
task is identifying the law that affects your client group, practitioners, supervisors and
agency. The next task is to consider is the government’s policy statements espoused by
its ministers, members of parliament, ministries and departments. At this point you may
feel overwhelmed by the prospect of identifying social policies. It is the author’s belief
that you would identify policy in your practice as and when it impacts upon specific
practice situations. What is asked here is that you do this in an explicit way.
In this regard you are encouraged to start with what you already know. For
example, if you worked for Child, Youth and Family, you know of: the UNCROC
(United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child); the CYPF Act 1989; Adoption
Act 1955; Guardianship Act 1968; Domestic Violence Act 1995; Crimes Act 1961;
Summary Offences Act 1989; the Privacy Act 1993; the Employment Relations Act
2000; State Sector Act 1988; Public Finance Act 1989; and the Department of Child,
Youth and Family Act 1999. You are also likely to be aware of the “New Directions”
policy, the “Mick Brown” report, the speeches made by Mr Maharey concerning the
registration of social workers. Likewise within your department you are also likely to be
aware of Puao Te Ata Tu, Te Punga and Lali. Beyond your department you may also be
aware of policies related to child and adolescent mental health, special education needs
and the services available for children with learning or developmental challenges, welfare
136
benefits, tenancy, and housing. Within your town or city you may also be aware of the
city or town council by-laws concerning dogs, parking, rubbish collection, rating and
water supply. Concerning the non-government sector you may be aware of the policies of
power companies, telecom, and the local foodbank.
The later examples mentioned above were drawn from local government, nongovernment and the third (non-profit or voluntary) sectors. Policies in these areas concern
everyday things that clients, practitioners, supervisors and agencies are involved in such
as water supply, food, transport, electricity and communications. In essence
deconstructing the many strands of the social policy voice concerns identifying the
decisions and directions that guide everyday life for clients, practitioners, supervisors and
agencies. Other means of accessing information concerning social policy are through the
news media and via the world wide web which provides access to legislation, minister’s
speeches, hansard reports, government agencies, businesses (e.g. electricity companies,
and Telecom) and third sector organisations.
The questions that follow the identification of social policy are:
•
•
How is the policy affecting people?
•
What are the consequences of this advantage/disadvantage?
•
What advantage/disadvantage is cause by the policy?
How does this policy honour the articles of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi?
The above questions need to be asked of both the espoused policy and the implemented
policy. Exercise 8.1, below, is designed for a group of students or a team to identify and
consider the presence and effects of social policy upon their supervision.
Exercise 8.1 Social Policy Mapping
This exercise involves the group in firstly, developing a map of social
policy as it relates to them, their agency, the practitioners they supervise,
and the client group. The second part of the exercise involves
considering the effect these policies have.
Part 1
On a whiteboard or large piece of newsprint the group are encouraged
using concentric circles to identify social policies from Government,
Local Government, Business and third sectors that effect clients,
practitioners, supervisors and social service agencies.
137
Part 2
Using four intersecting circles consisting of client, practitioner,
supervisor and agency consider the effect of the identified social policies
on supervision.
It is all very well to identify and consider the effects of social policy upon supervision the
greater challenge concerns the action that results from the deconstruction. This challenge
relates
to
interventions
made
in
the
supervisor/practitioner
forum
and
the
client/practitioner forum, which adjust, adapt, stand up to or challenge the policy’s
effects. The questions posed here concern whether these interventions will ignore the
social policy voice or be adaptive to it or will they seek to challenge and or change it, or
will they be both adaptive and proactive. At this stage an invitation is extended to reflect
on and consider the following questions:
1. What does the social policy voice tell you about the resources that are
available and accessible to clients, practitioners, supervisors and agencies?
2. What are the implications of this for your supervision practice?
3. What challenges does social policy voice provoke concerning assertive
advocacy for client and practitioner well being?
4. What are the implications of this for your supervision practice?
Service Provider
Previously in chapter 3, the service provider’s voice was described as dominated by
purchaser and managerial voices that have established a dominant production culture in
which the language of business management reconstructs social work and supervision
through the accounting model and its emphasis on risk management. Chapter 3, also
highlighted the separation between purchasers and managers, from practitioners and
clients, and the creation of a range of dialects within the service provider’s voice. In
deconstructing the service provider’s voice we are interested in the organisational context
of supervision recognising that this context is influenced by the previous voice,
particularly, concerning the resources provided and the direction given through the
contract or purchase agreement. In other words we are interested in uncovering the
138
policies and the culture of the Service and then considering how these influence clients,
practitioners, supervisors and supervision practice.
The policies of service provider organisations, like all policy, will be both written
and oral. Generally, the policy areas covered will be the place, personnel, provision of
services, and resources. Policies related to place concern the physical environment (i.e.
buildings, offices, carparks, furniture, keys, rubbish disposal, toilets, and disabled persons
access). Personnel policies relate to the people employed and involve things like
employment contracts, job descriptions, pay, leave, study leave, equal employment
opportunities, employee assistance programmes, training, workload, induction and
orientation, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, discipline and supervision. The policies related to the
the delivery of services to clients cover things like client access, entry and exit criteria,
client rights, responsiveness to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, standards, procedures and models of
practice, and the organisation’s and clients’ roles, responsibilities and obligations to each
other. The other area of policy is that of resources, which are the things that are available
to you in your work such as books, journals, screening tools, cars, computers, printers,
photocopiers, stationery, whiteboards, phones and cellular phones and coffee, tea and
milo. At this point you are invited to consider the policies in your organisation and their
influence on the supervision story.
The culture of service provider organisations derives from its priorities, language,
and practises and manifests itself in the symbols, stories and rites and ceremonies present
in the organisation’s everyday life (Bartol et al., 1991). As well as an overall
organisational culture there will subcultures within particular teams, occupational groups
and areas. Three particular areas of interest for supervisors and practitioners are 1) the
managerial subculture; 2) the practice subculture; and 3) the supervision subculture.
The supervisor and practitioner in deconstructing the organisational culture and
subcultures pays attention to and notices the organisation’s meaning making processes
and the meanings emphasised, attributed and propagated in the organisation. Exercise 8.2
below is an invitation to identify and consider the effect that organisational policies,
culture and subcultures have on your supervision story.
139
Exercise 8.2 Tiles
Policies -Place
PoliciesPersonnel
Organisational
Priorities/
Symbols
Managerial
Priorities/
Symbols
Organisational
Language/
Stories
Managerial
Language/
Stories
Organisational
Practises/Rites
and
Ceremonies
Managerial
Practises/
Rites and
Ceremonies
Policies Provision of
Service
Practice
Priorities/
Symbols
Policies Resourcing
Practice
Language/
Stories
Supervision
Language/Stories
Practice
Practises/
Rites and
Ceremonies
Supervision
Practises/ Rites and
Ceremonies
Supervision
Priorities/
Symbols
Before starting this exercise you will need to 16 A3 size or larger
sheets of paper or newsprint. These will be the tiles that you will use.
You should prepare them as shown above
The are three parts to this exercise.
Part 1, involves identifying and rating the affect of organisational
policies on practice and supervision. This exercise is undertaken with
the top row of tiles and involves identifying the policies on each tile
(write them on the back of the tile) and then rating the influence of
these policies on practice and supervision by shading the tile along
the following continuum:
Blue = Depressing, Orange = Frustrating , Green = Constructive,
Pink = Positive
Once the tile is shaded place on the floor.
Part 2, involves identifying and rating the influence that
organisational culture and the managerial, practice and supervision
subcultures have on practice and supervision. This exercise is
undertaken with the four columns headed organisational, managerial,
practice and supervision. You are encouraged to identify and consider
the three elements of each culture/ subculture (i.e. Priorities/Symbol,
Language/Stories, Practises/rites and ceremonies).
In other words work down then across. When you have completed the
identification part of the tile you are then to rate the influence of each
aspect of the organisational culture or subculture upon practice and
supervision along the following continuum: Black = Very
Unsupportive, Brown = Unsupportive, Red = Supportive, Purple =
Very Supportive.
Then lay the tiles out on the floor as per the floor plan.
140
Part 3
Is called finding the pink, purple, green and red in all tiles and
involves examining the Blue, Black, Brown and Orange tiles and
1) Identifying exceptions to the Blue, Black, Brown and Orange
influences on practice and supervision.
2) Then imagine that last night a miracle happened and that: a) the
Blue and Orange tiles all became Pink; b) the Black and Brown
tiles all became Purple. Then describe the new influence on
practice and supervision and outline what could be done to bring
about this situation in your organisation.
Finish the exercise by reflecting on your learnings about the
organisation, supervision and your supervision story.
Professional
The professional voice is the third of the local voices described in chapter 3, which was
constructed as consisting of the duo-tones of Aotearoa New Zealand Association of
Social Workers (ANZASW) and the New Zealand Association of Social Work Educators
(NZASWE). It was also asserted in chapter 3, that the professional voice relied upon the
patronage of politicians and bureaucrats. At this stage you are invited to consider your
construction of the professional social work voice and its presence in social work practice
and supervision. In unveiling the professional voice and its influence we need to consider
the presence of its membership, policies, education and training, status and referent
authority in matters related to social work and supervision knowledge and practice.
Whether a person is a member of the social work profession depends upon how
one constructs membership. The politics of this in Aotearoa New Zealand are essentially
a tri-polity consisting of:
a) the members of ANZASW;
b) qualified social workers; and
c) employed social workers who are not members of ANZASW nor
hold a social work qualification but consider themselves to be a
member of the social work profession by virtue of their
employment as a social worker.
141
Within each group there are diverse realities concerning the responsibilities,
accountabilities and obligations of membership to the social work profession. In
considering membership of the profession in one’s own context (i.e. agency and region)
the key questions to consider are:
•
•
•
What constitutes membership of the profession?
How does the exercising of this membership make itself apparent?
And what influence does it exert upon social work practice and supervision?
The policies of the professional voice, relate primarily to the professional values, ethics
and standards. In the tri-polity described above only ANZASW articulates its values, and
ethics and practice standards for the profession as a whole. The ANZASW Code of
Ethics, Bi-cultural Code of Practice and Supervision Policy are recognised beyond the
membership of the Association through being included in social work training courses.
As a consequence of this they have a voice and presence amongst qualified social
workers as well as with members of ANZASW. The main consideration with regard to
these policies in one’s own context relates to the recognition, life, presence and influence
that they have in practice and supervision. Another sign of the presence of the
professional voice is continuing professional education and training. Some considerations
here concern the availability of and ability to access continuing professional education
and the resources that support this such as books and journals, research findings,
websites, and study leave.
The status and referent authority of the profession with regard to the knowledge
and practice of social work and supervision pertains to the recognition given to and
claimed by the professional voice in matters related to social work practice and
knowledge.
Things to consider in your workplace and local region are:
•
•
How is the profession present when there are professional issues in
the workplace or the local region?
What is the profession’s presence and influence with and in the
local media?
142
•
•
What is the value placed upon social work research conducted in
Aotearoa New Zealand related to your field of practice?
How is the profession’s role as the guardians of professional
knowledge and practice recognised in the workplace and local
region and what influence does it have on practice and
supervision?
The discussion and reflection questions in this section have attempted to assist in
unveiling the professional social work culture present in your context. In doing so it
brings the process of deconstructing the local voices to a conclusion. Before moving out
of Aotearoa New Zealand into the global voices an invitation is extended to map the local
voices in Exercise 8.3 below. In completing this map you are encouraged to refer to your
map of personal voices in Exercise 7.6.
Exercise 8.3 Local Voice Map
Social Policy
Service Provider
Professional
Influence on
Personal voices
and
Supervision
Story
143
Global Voices
In this section the invitation is to identify and consider the influence of the global voices
upon the local and personal voices within your supervision story. In chapter 3, the global
voices identified were the economic, technological, political, socio-cultural and
ecological.
Economic
In chapter 3, the economic voice was described, as speaking of a global marketplace in
which there is free and unfettered trade, deregulation, low taxation and less government.
It was also described as promoting an ethos of production, and consumption as it pursues
its aim of material wealth creation with its primary concern being capitalist development
and the privatisation of wealth on a global scale. The catch cry of this voice was
described as the ‘trickle down effect’ which asserts that by creating more wealth
everyone will be better off, because the wealth will trickle down from the rich
transnational corporations and nations, to the poorer nations. Arguably, this form of
capitalist development creates nothing short of “Global Darwinism” in which there is the
survival and prosperity of the economically fittest.
The economic voice through global exchange rates, interest rates and commodity
prices effects our day to day existence. In identifying the influence of the economic voice
we need to consider the causes and effects of price variances in things like oil, electricity,
bank charges, insurance, pharmaceuticals, meat, wool, milk, butter and honey together
with changes in mortgage rates. We also need to know where profits are going, for
example, in Aotearoa New Zealand with the exception of the Taranaki Savings Bank
(TSB), Kiwibank, PSIS, and local credit unions the profits made in the Aotearoa New
Zealand banking sector go offshore.
The deconstruction of the global economic voice and its impact and influence on
our supervision stories leads us to examine how the decisions and actions that take place
in the global marketplace shape the economics of our locality. Obviously the degree of
shaping differs according to one’s location.
144
Table 8.1 below contains an annotated list of websites. These sites are offered as
an introduction to considering the influence of the global economic voice in your setting.
Table 8.1 Global Economic Voice Websites
URL
Content
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sp
eeches/2000/082500.htm
Factors Driving Global Economic Integration a speech
made by Michael Mussa
Economic Counselor and Director of Research
IMF, Presented in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
at a symposium sponsored by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
on “Global Opportunities and Challenges,”
August 25, 2000.
This speech provides an optimistic view of globalisation
through a review of the both the historical and current factors
in its development
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bo
arddocs/speeches/2001/20011024/
default.htm
Globalization a speech made by Alan Greenspan,
Chairperson of the Federal Reserve Board, USA. At the
Institute for International Economics’ Inauguration of the
Peter G. Peterson Building, Washington, D.C.
October 24, 2001
This speech provides a pro-globalisation perspective from the
person whose decisions with regard to interest rates influence
the rest of the world.
Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?
An article by IMF Staff originally written in April 12, 2000
then corrected January 2002. It outlines a number of issues
that are present e.g. poverty, in the global economy and argues
that it is wrong to assert that globalisation is the cause.
Znet Global Economic Crisis Site.
This site contains international links critiquing globalisation.
The quick hits links provide a thorough introduction to the
globalisation critic.
Globalisation pages
These pages are composed by John Pilger an investigative
journalist who has researched and produced documentaries on
the effects of globalisation
2001 Report on the World Social Situation
Introduction and overview.
This is report was prepared by the United Nations and
highlights a number of key issues emerging from economic
globalisation.
Life in the economic test-tube:
New Zealand "experiment" a colossal failure
By Prof. Jane Kelsey
Professor of Law,
The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
This is an extract from one of Dr. Kelsey’s book and provides
an analysis of how the reforms of the late eightys and early
nineties were linked to globalisation.
Counter Attack
By Professor Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, Auckland
University. This thought provoking article considers the effect
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ex
r/ib/2000/041200.htm
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurE
vts/Globalism/GlobalEcon.htm
http://pilger.carlton.com/globalisa
tion
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rws
s/overview.html
http://infoweb.magi.com/~ccpa/ar
ticles/article39t.html
http://www.arena.org.nz/janetalk.
htm
145
of globalisation following the events of 11 Sept 2001.
http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/
1999/freywi.pdf
A Current Tale of Two Countries: Health Care Reform In
New Zealand and in the United States.
By William Frey Phd. This paper compares the health reforms
of the 1990s in both countries. The Managed Care and Cost
approach to both systems appears a clear theme. This paper
would be of particular use to health social workers and
supervisors in deconstructing the global economic voice.
In considering the material on these websites you are invited to reflect upon the following
questions:
1. What are the key features of the global economic voice?
2. How does this voice affect your life circumstances?
3. What influence does the global economic voice have on social work
practice and supervision in your setting?
4. To what extent does the managed cost ethos influence practice and
supervision?
Technological
The technological voice was described in chapter 3, as emerging out of the industrial and
digital revolutions with the primary role of aiding economic production and distribution
through increasing, the speed of production and access to the marketplace. The
technological voice was also described as changing social and political life through
providing unprecedented access to information, knowledge and entertainment as well as
the ability to communicate quickly and directly with other people regardless of their
location. It was also asserted that the technological voice was further reinforcing the gap
between those that have, and those that have not, through the so-called digital divide.
With regard to social work and supervision, it was asserted that technology in the form of
the personal computer had, on the one hand, increased the organisational and collegial
access, the amount of administration, recording and surveillance of reported work. Yet,
on the other hand, it has reduced the time spent directly servicing clients.
In terms of deconstructing the technological voice’s influence in your context
some key question are:
146
•
•
How has the digital revolution changed your society?
•
What have been the social benefits/costs of the digital revolution?
•
setting?
•
What information and communications technology is used in your
How is it used? And for what purpose?
How does the use of this technology advantage/disadvantage: 1)
clients; 2) practitioners; 3) supervisors; 4) managers; 5) service
•
provider organisations; and 6) the purchasers of social services?
In what ways could the technological voice better serve clients, social
work practitioners and supervisors in their work together?
In considering your responses to these question you are invited to visit an excellent
bulletin board discussion on the British Association of Social Workers website entitled
“Is it Killing Social Work”. The URL is listed below:
http://www.basw.co.uk/forum/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=20&TID=1&SID=
Political
In chapter 3, it was argued that politically, the voices of globalisation have become
synonymous with the rhetoric of, “The New World order” and “Global policing and
security” (Sampson, 2000). It was also assert that the United Nations has not been able to
fulfil its international political leadership role due to the dominance of rich and military
powerful countries. This dominance has resulted in a political voice that is dominated by
the rich and powerful countries’ interests and the promotion of the representative politics
of the western liberal democracy. It was further argued that this theatre is predominately
one of private meetings and public posturing dominated by rich and powerful countries
that form alliances to support their political interests with access to these power brokers
being based on their invitation solely (Barsamian, 2000).
The presence of the political voice in our setting is most apparent in the news
media and reporting of international events such as the “War on Terrorism” and the
147
activities of political leaders. The following annotated table of weblinks is offered as
means considering the influence of the political voice.
Table 8.2 Global Political Voice Websites
URL
Content
http://www.politicalresources.
net
This site contains listings of political sites available on
the Internet sorted by country, with links to Parties,
Organisations, Governments, Media and more from all
around the world.
http://www.globalissues.org/G
eopolitics/Geopolitics.asp
The Geopolitics webpage attempts to highlight what
some of the consequences of global politics can be. The
power play of personal or national interests can have a
long lasting effect on many, many people.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsk
y/dd/dd-contents.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsk
y/whose_world_order.htm
On this site is Noam Chomsky’s book Deterring
Democracy in html format.
Whose World Order: Conflicting Visions
A speech delivered by Noam Chomsky, Sept. 22, 1998,
at the University of Calgary.
An essay by Noam Chomsky entitled ‘The United States
and the "Challenge of Relativity"’ dealing with the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of the Rights.
An Interview with Noam Chomsky compiled from
diverse email, radio, and journal interviews in the week
before the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre
The Third Way: A summary of the NEXUS on-line
discussion of the politics of the Third Way. Edited by
David Halpern, with David Mikosz.
The website of the International Federation of Social
Workers which contains information concerning their
publications, political activities and campaigns.
Global Social Work site is an Internet-based
International Social Work Community for social
workers, human services workers, humanitarian aid
workers, and human rights organisations.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/ar
ticles/chomud.htm
http://www.zmag.org/chomsk
ypa.htm
http://www.netnexus.org/libra
ry/papers/3way.html
http://www.ifsw.org/
http://hometown.aol.com/eger
atylsw/globalsw.html
In considering the influence of the political voice on social work practice in your setting,
you are invited to reflect upon how international political decisions and actions influence
Aotearoa New Zealand, social work and supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand, and
social work and supervision in your locality. You are also invited to consider how
Aotearoa New Zealand, social work and supervision have resisted and stood up to the
influence of these international political decisions.
148
Socio-cultural
The socio-cultural voice was described in chapter 3, as being subordinated by the
dominance of the economic, technological and political voices with this dominance being
reflected in the use of terms like Americanisation, Consumerism and McDonaldisation
(McLennan, 2000). It was previously argued that these descriptions represented the
cultural imperialism of the West (i.e. USA, Great Britain and Europe etc…) and the
effect the economic voice has had upon societies and cultures right across the globe
through colonisation and conquest. This effect was described in chapter 3, as involving
the squashing of the diversity of range, timbre, and harmony within the socio-cultural
voice through policies of assimilation and integration of indigenous and minority social
and cultural groups into the West’s monotone tune. The indigenous and minority voice
was trained to sing songs of urbanisation, individualism, materialism, privatisation,
deprivation and progressive permissive liberalism. These songs drowned out the songs of
kin-based tribal and communal structures, collective responsibility, common ownership,
spirituality, stewardship or guardianship of the natural world, and traditional norms and
practices. In short the soul of the socio-cultural voice had been traumatised. It was further
asserted that since the 1960s, there has been the emergence of the post-colonial, postmodern tune of social and cultural relativism, and pluralism. This tune has mixed with the
dominant western democratic tradition and the United Nations’ call for universal human
rights and social justice. Within this new and emerging tune of the post-modern, postcolonialism there is also the struggle of indigenous and marginalised voices seeking
redress and reflecting the pain of their post colonial traumatic stress (Turia, 2000).
However, despite this new tune there remains socio-cultural oppression and
inequality with indigenous people and minority groups in many cases lacking the right to
self-determination and self-governance, economic, technological and political parity,
because of the dominance of the western global economic, technological and political
voices.
The deconstruction of the socio-cultural voice and consideration of its influence
upon social work and supervision involves a critical examination of the symbols,
priorities, values, language, stories, practises, rites and ceremonies in one’s setting and
considering the meaning, origin, the colonising or indigenous effect, and status of each
149
element. Having worked through the above the next challenge is to consider its presence
and effect in supervision.
Exercise 8.4 below is an invitation to start the deconstruction process of the sociocultural voice in your setting.
Exercise 8.4 - Socio-Cultural Journal
This exercise involves keeping a journal for the period of a week.
In this journal you are to keep list of the following:
1) The logos and signs seen.
2) The activities undertaken.
3) The main international, national and local stories portrayed in
the media or spoken about in conversation.
4) The languages spoken or heard spoken by others.
5) The social and cultural rituals (e.g. religious, sporting, cultural,
and artistic).
At the end of your week review your journal and consider the
following:
a) What is meaning and values attributed to each symbol,
activity, story, language, and ritual?
b) Where does the symbol, activity, story, language, and ritual
originate?
c) Whose socio-cultural identity do the symbol, activity, story,
language, and ritual celebrate?
d) What do your responses to the previous questions tell you
about the socio-cultural voice in your setting?
e) What do your responses to the previous questions tell you
about the socio-cultural voice’s presence in social work and
supervision?
Ecological
In chapter 3, the ecological voice was described as one of care and concern about
humanity’s impact on the planet which recognises that we all have a responsibility for the
well-being of the natural environment and that our well-being is connected to well-being
of the sustaining global eco-system. It was asserted that despite its plausibility the
ecological voice struggles to get a hearing and validation amongst the constant noise of
the dominant triad of the economic, technological and political voices. It was further
asserted that social work and supervision, despite, claiming an ecological perspective
had reconstructed the ecological voice within a dominant psychosocial paradigm rather
150
than a bio-psychosocial one, which gives credence and recognition to the natural
environment.
The deconstruction of the ecological voice in one’s own setting involves:
1) identifying the policies and practises that impact on the natural ecology of
one’s locality and country;
2) considering the impact of policies and practices in social work and
supervision on the natural ecology; and
3) formulating an eco-sensitive approach to social work practice and supervision
in your setting.
The first point involves at the local level considering your local authority’s position on
sewage, water treatment, rubbish disposal, and recycling etc… At the national level it
will involve consideration of conservation legislation and policies, the Resource
Management Act, and the government’s position and action concerning things like
genetic modification, nuclear power and weapons and the Kyoto protocol. In regard to
the second point, namely, the consideration of the social work practice and supervision
on the natural ecology, this involves giving consideration to how our workplace and our
profession protects the ecological environment. Some considerations in this regard
concern the use of and disposal of consumable resources (e.g. paper, plastics and
glass…), and the profession’s activism or not concerning local or national ecological
issues. The third aspect of developing an eco-sensitive social work and supervision
practice involves exploring and considering the ecological and biological impact of
practice and supervision decisions and actions on the natural environment, people and
future generations.
In this section an invitation has been extended to deconstruct the five global
voices, namely, the economic, technological, political, socio-cultural and ecological and
consider the influence of each upon the local and personal supervision stories. Before
summarising the chapter you are invited to complete Exercise 8.5 mapping the global
voices. In completing this exercise you are encouraged to refer back to the work you did
in exercises 7.6 and 8.3.
151
Exercise 8.5 Global Voices
Economic
Technological
Political
Influence on
Local and
Personal
Supervision
Story
SocioCultural
Ecological
Summary
In this chapter, an invitation was extended to deconstruct the local and global story of
supervision within your context through identifying and considering the influence of the
previously discussed voices. Exercises and reflection questions were provided as aids to
assist in this deconstruction. Before moving on to the next chapter in which the restorying
of the practice of supervision will be discussed an invitation is extended to combine your
three maps from exercises 7.6, 8.3 and 8.5 into a map of your supervision story. In your
story you are also encourage to consider the foundational principles described in chapter
6. Figure 8.1 below, provides an example of the three voices as the petals of a shamrock
with the foundational principles depicted as the stalk, and the supervision story occurring
at the point of convergence between the petals and the stalk.
152
Figure 8.1 – Sample Map of the Three Voices and Foundational Prinicples
Global
Personal
Local
Supervision
Story
Foundational
Principles:
Human Rights,
Social Justice,
Empowerment,
Anti- oppression
/Antidiscrimination,
Te Tiriti o
Waitangi
153
CHAPTER 9
TOWARDS A RESTORIED PRACTICE OF SUPERVISION
This concluding chapter will review the main points covered in the previous chapters and
discuss a restoried supervision practice. The book concludes with an invitation to the
reader to reconstruct their supervision story and to further develop their restoried
supervision practice.
Review
This book has argued that the storying of supervision shapes the practice of supervision
and proposed the restorying of social work supervision through a constructionist
approach. This approach which was described in chapter 1, is based on the premise that
social work supervision is a socially and personally constructed activity which is
constructed by the social, cultural and historical stories in which it is embedded and the
personal stories of those involved. It was also asserted that personal and social
constructions are reflexive organic processes that are mediated through social and
personal systems and structures. In other words the social story affects and contributes to
the personal story and the personal story affects and contributes to the social story. The
degree of influence each story has on the other is dependent upon the power of its voice.
In the book, power has been constructed as the ability to voice and story or the ability to
diminish, oppress, contain, restrain and subjugate voice and storying. It has been viewed
as a constant in supervision that is always present whether it was acknowledged or not.
In chapters 2, 3 and 4, the historical, global, local and personal stories were
discussed. In the discussion of International and the Aotearoa New Zealand supervision
stories, it was argued that these stories are contestable and reflect the author’s
construction, which in turn is influenced by the social and cultural stories in which s/he
are immersed. The international story was described in chapter 2, as being an American
supervision story influenced by the reputable supervision authors from the USA (Bruce et
al., 2000). Whereas, the Aotearoa New Zealand story started from indigenous origins,
followed by the period of contact and contracting related to the signing of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi, and colonising supervision from the dominant Pakeha majority. In this story, it
154
was asserted that the emergence of a post-colonising supervision was still far from being
realised.
The discussion in chapter 3, introduced the concept of social constructionism as a
framework for considering the voices that author the social story of supervision. This
social story was comprised of two sets of voices, namely, the global and the local. The
global voices, which consisted of the economic, technological, political, socio-cultural
and ecological were described as existing in a capitalist, western, culturally imperialist
hegemony in which the economic, technological and political voices sub-ordinate and
dominate the socio-cultural and ecological voices. The effects of this on supervision were
that it tends to be storied as a production cost to be managed and as a residual and
privatised means of reinforcing control, surveillance and social policing. The challenge
that then arises for supervision from this situation is for it to be aware of and critically
responsive to the authorship, telling, editing and censoring amongst and within the global
voices. It also needs to be cautious of and critically responsive to the replication of
oppression and subjugation of voices within its own story.
The global voices were depicted as interacting with and influencing the local
voices of social policy, service providers and the social work profession in Aotearoa New
Zealand with economics dominating social policy and service provision through a
production culture and the accounting model. The effect of this on supervision has been a
greater demand for supervision with fewer resources available and the storying of
supervision in terms of the interests of purchasers and managers rather than professionals
and clients. The social work profession’s influence in this situation has been limited
because it has yet to claim its voice and has relied on the patronage of politicians and
bureaucrats. The effect of this has been that the profession has yet to fully assert its
responsibility as the guardians of social work and supervision’s knowledge, skill and
practice base within Aotearoa New Zealand.
In chapter 4, the personal voices of those involved in supervision were discussed
through reference to personal construct theory as an organising framework. Personal
construct theory explained how individuals frame, view, interpret, define, perceive and
understand the world and their experiences and how the same event and activity can
result in different perceptions, stories and behaviour from different people. The cast of
155
voices included the onstage voices of clients, practitioners, supervisors, and the offstage
or backstage voices of managers, educators and other social service and health
professionals. The characteristics and influence of each voice was examined along with
the voice’s empowerment and ability to empower.
The discussion in the first four chapters provided the platform for the introduction
of the contextual framework and its foundational principles in chapters 5 and 6. The
framework introduced was grounded upon the following:
•
•
The persons and their environments paradigm of social work practice.
•
Supervision as a field of social work practice.
•
argues that theory is socially constructed and reflexive.
•
A post-modern approach to theory, which accepts theoretical pluralism and
The reflexive/reflective practice process of using theory in practice.
The literature concerning approaches and models of supervision.
At its essence the framework recognises that “there are more people in the room than
those sitting in the chairs” and that “there are more voices to be heard than those present
in the building”. In other words its recognises the importance of the headlines, by-lines,
text, sub-text and context in supervision stories. It views stories of supervision as being
influenced by the personal voices of the characters directly involved and those that are
back or off stage and it understands these characters to be influenced and effected by both
local and global voices.
In terms of its use the framework provides a heuristic tool that can be used to
deconstruct the supervision context and supervision stories. It also provides the
opportunity to continually revise one’s own supervision story through examining it
globally, locally, interpersonally and personally. In undertaking this process the
framework encourages practitioners and supervisors to develop contextual personal
practice theories of supervision that relate to the persons and environments present in
their supervision story. Another use for the framework is as a heuristic device to critique
theories of social work and supervision.
In chapter 6, human rights, social justice, empowerment and anti-oppressive and
anti-discriminatory practice were discussed as the foundational cornerstones upon which
156
the contextual framework rested. Also emphasised was the importance of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi as the keystone that holds the four cornerstones in place when the framework is
used within Aotearoa New Zealand.
The descriptive discussion in the two previously mentioned chapters provided the
springboard for chapters 7 and 8 where invitations were extended to the reader to firstly
deconstruct the personal voices in chapter 7 and the local and global voices in chapter 8.
At the end of chapter 8, the reader was encouraged to combine their three voice maps
from exercises 7.6, 8.3 and 8.5 into a map of their supervision story with a sample map
offered in Figure 8.1. The bringing together of one’s supervision maps and naming and
telling one’s supervision story takes us to the question of what does restoried supervision
practice look like.
Towards A Restoried Practice of Supervision
In essence a restoried supervision practice will be one that is congruent with, responsive
to and unique to the persons involved and their supervision context. Alongside this a
restoried practice of social work supervision will lead the practitioner and supervisor to
take a participant researcher stance in which they attend to the headlines, by-lines, text,
sub-text and context of the stories present in the supervision forum. As part of this stance
practitioners and supervisors will also study themselves and their environment and
consider the influence that personal, local and global voices have both on them and their
colleagues (Sheppard, 1995: 265-293). In their study they will use a reflective/reflexive
approach to make sense and act in the stories they encounter in an informed and
intentional way through the reference to theoretical ideas from their personal, cultural,
social work and/or supervision stories. Throughout, the practitioner and supervisor is
concerned with human rights and social justice. They aim to act to empower vulnerable
groups (be they clients, family/whanau, marginalised groups or practitioners) by working
in an anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory manner, which when practised in Aotearoa
New Zealand embodies the articles and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Because, a restoried supervision practice is theoretically pluralist and recognises
that supervision stories are personal and social constructions and that there are many
ways of understanding people and their situations it does not place one theory or a
157
particular group of theories over another. This means that local and culturally specific
theories are as important and significant as empirically tested western theories. In other
words, all knowledge counts, with the real test of any knowledge coming from the
particular client’s outcomes achieved from its application in the particular practice
situation.
A restoried supervision practice seeks to engage in intervention that attends to
clients, practitioners, supervisors and agencies, local and global realities and their
perception of this reality. It aims to tailor the intervention to the person and the context
rather than fit the person and context to the intervention. It does this through constructing
interventions in partnership with those involved upon the basis of an informed and shared
understanding of the issues, challenges, strengths, abilities, available resources, and
access to avenues for personal, political, social and global change. It may also intervene
at more than one level (e.g., personal, local, and global). In short, a restoried practice of
supervision aspires to be enquiring, explicit, open, transparent, invitational and
participatory.
Invitation to restory your supervision practice
The aim of this book has been to question and explore beyond the obvious everyday story
of supervision and to unveil and imagine a new supervision story that is grounded in
social work principles, knowledge and practises with this new story being responsive to
the people involved and their world. It is hoped that the new stories that emerge will
result in new practises of social work and social work supervision and to the extinction of
oppressive psycho-bureaucratic, culturally imperialistic and managed cost forms of
practice and supervision.
Returning to the map of your supervision story discussed previously. At this stage
your map most likely consists of the voices and the principles. In Figure 8.1 these were
symbolised by the leaves and the stalk of the shamrock. To complete the map you need to
fill in the background that surround this image with a) your stories and b) your
worldview. Accordingly, you are invited to add the following as a background to your
map:
158
1. Your stories of their personal experiences, family, culture, gender, sexual
orientation, religion, spirituality, socio-economic status, age, and disability
as well as their professional experiences gained from education and
training, employment and practice, and supervision
2. Your values and ethics, beliefs, expectations, cultural perspectives,
ideology and theory of social work, supervision and practice skills.
Finally, you are encouraged to embrace the participant researcher stance as described
above and engage in the ongoing praxis of restorying social work supervision. In
conclusion, I leave you with the following quote from Mahatma Gandhi, which for me
summarises the key facets of restorying social work supervision.
“Be the change you want to see in the world.”
(Mahatma Gandhi)
159
References
Adamson, C. (2001), ‘The Role of Supervision in the Management of Critical
Incidents and Traumatic Events’ in Beddoe, E., and Worrall J. (eds) Supervision
Conference From Rhetoric to Reality Keynote Address and Selected Papers,
Auckland: Auckland College of Education, pp. 33-43.
Amnon, M. (2000), ‘Training and Supervision in Social Work in the Postmodern
Era’, Conference Proceedings, Joint Conference of the International Federation of
Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, July 29August 2, 2000: Montreal, Canada:
http://www.arcaf.net/social_work_proceedings/ftp_files6/Amnon.pdf [accessed 17
April 2001].
Anon. (2000), ‘Old Ireland History: The English Invasion’
http://www.ireland.org/irl_hist/hist19.htm [accessed 17 June 2001].
Ansley, B. (2000), ‘Human Values’, New Zealand Listener, 173, (3124), pp. 16-19.
APB News.com. (2001), ‘APB Internet Crime’,
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/internetcrime/index.html [accessed 5 October
2001].
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. (1974), Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, T. (1972), ‘Supervision in the Statutory Social Work Services’, in Supervision
in Social Work: A New Zealand Perspective, Palmerston North : NZASW
Babbie, E. (1995), The Practice of Social Research (Seventh Edition), Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Bamford,T.(1982), Managing Social Work, London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.
Barsamian, D. (2000) The Meaning of Seattle, An Interview with Noam Chomsky,
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/july00barsamian.htm [accessed 14 February
2002].
Bartol, K., and Martin, D. (1991), Management, New York: McGraw Hill.
BASW Forum. (2001), ‘Is it Killing Social Work’,
http://www.basw.co.uk/forum/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=20&TID=1&SID=
[accessed 5 October 2001].
Beddoe, L. (1997), ‘A New Era for Supervision’, Social Work Now,(7), pp. 10-15.
Beddoe,L. and Davys,A.(1994), ‘The Status of Supervision-Reflections From a
Training Perspective,’ Social Work Review, VI, (5&6), pp. 16-21.
160
Beddoe, L. and Randal, H. (1994), ‘The New Zealand Association of Social Workers:
The Professional Response to a Decade of Change’, in Munford, R. and Nash, E.
(eds) Social Work in Action, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, pp. 21-36.
Bennie, G. (1995), Social Work Supervision An Annotated Bibliography, Palmerston
North: Massey University, Department of Social Policy and Social Work.
Benton, R., Benton, N., Croft, C., and Waaka, A. (1991), Kahukura, the possible
Dream, Wellington: NZCETSS.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1971), The Social Construction of Reality,
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Bernard, J., and Goodyear, R. (1998), Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision, 2nd
Edition, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Besthorn, F. (2001), ‘Toward a Deep-Ecological Social Work: Its Environmental,
Spiritual, and Political Dimensions,
http://www.washburn.edu/ecosocialwork/prspctvs.html [accessed 7 October 2001].
Blake-Palmer, L. and Connolly, M, (1989), ‘Supervision- But Not As We Know It!’
Social Work Review, II (2&3), pp 21-22.
Boone, J. and Peterson, R. (2000) The Start of the Digital Revolution: SIGSALLY
Secure Digital Voice Communications in WWII, Maryland : National Security
Agency, http://www.nsa.gov/wwii/papers/start_of_digital_revolution.htm#Note%204
[accessed 8 September 2001].
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J.and Walsh, P. (1996), Public Management, The New
Zealand Model, Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Bowden, A.R. (1980), Middle Management Supervisors in a Statutory Social Welfare
Agency: A study of the Views of Senior Social Workers, Palmerston North: Massey
University, MSW Thesis.
Bracey, O. (1978a), ‘A Conspiracy of Silence or Supervision in Social Work in NZ’,
New Zealand Social Work, 2 (2), pp. 9-12.
Bracey, O. (1978b), ‘Book Review of Supervision in Social Work by Alfred
Kadushin’, New Zealand Social Work, 2 (2), pp17-18.
Bracey, O. (1981), Casework Supervision In The New Zealand Probation Service,
Auckland, University of Auckland: MA Thesis.
Bradley, J., Jacob, E., and Bradley R. (1999), ‘Reflections on culturally safe
supervision, or why Bill Gates makes more money than we do’ Te Komako 111,
Social Work Review, Vol XI (4), pp. 3-6.
Brashears, F. (1995), ‘Supervision as Social Work Practice: A Reconceptulization,’
Social Work, Vol 40, (5), pp. 692-699.
161
Briggs, L., and Kane, R. (2000), ‘Ethics in Fieldwork’, in Cooper, L., and Briggs, L.
(eds) (2000), Fieldwork in the Human Services, St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin,
pp. 131-144.
Briggs, L. and Cooper, L. (2001), ‘The Old Man: Exploring a complex case”, Social
Work Review, Vol XIII (4), pp. 3-8.
Brown, A., and Bourne, I. (1996), The Social Work Supervisor, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Brown, M. (2001), Care and Protection is about Adult Behaviour. The Ministerial
Review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Wellington:
Department of Child, Youth and Family.
Bruce, E. and Austin, M. (2000), ‘Social Work Supervision: Assessing the Past and
Mapping the Future’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 19(2), pp. 85-107.
Carpenter, D. (1996), ‘Constructivism and Social Work Treatment’, in Turner, F. (ed),
Social Work Treatment (4th Edition), New York: Free Press, pp. 146-167.
Chernesky, R. (1986), ‘A New Model of Supervision’, in Van Den Bergh, N., and
Cooper, L. (eds), Feminist visions for social work, Silver Spring, Md.: NASW Press,
pp. 128-148.
Cheyne, C., O’Brien, M., Belgrave, M. (1997), Social Policy in Aotearoa New
Zealand, Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1998), ‘The United States and the “Challenge of Realitivity”’,
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chomud.htm [10 October 2001].
Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service, (1997) Professional Supervision
Policy, Wellington: The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service.
Cockburn, G. (1994), ‘Supervision in Social Work. A Brief Statement of the
Essentials,’ in Social Work Review, VI (5 & 6), p. 37.
Cohen, B. (1987), ‘The Ethics of Social Work Supervision Revisited’, Social Work,
Vol 32, pp.194-196.
Cohen, B. (1999), ‘Intervention and supervision in strengths-based social work’,
Families in Society, Vol 80 (5) pp. 460-466.
Collins, K. (2001), ‘Church Organisation’, Ken Collins’ Web Site,
http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/polity.htm, [accessed 4 June 2001].
Community Probation Service, (1998), Training and Development Policy,
Wellington: Head Office Department of Corrections.
162
Cooper, L. (2001) ‘Organisational Changes And Social Work Supervision’ in Beddoe,
E., and Worrall J. (eds) Supervision Conference From Rhetoric to Reality Keynote
Address and Selected Papers, Auckland: Auckland College of Education, pp. 21-32.
Corey, G., Corey, M., and Callanan, P. (1998), Issues and Ethics in the Helping
Professions, 5th Edition, Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Coulshed, V. (1990), Management in Social Work, London: Macmillan.
Coulshed, V. (1993), ‘Adult Learning: Implications for Teaching In Social Work
Education’, British Journal of Social Work, 23, pp. 1-13.
Crocket, K. (2001) ‘Storying Professional Identity: Producing Realities in Supervision
Talk’, in Beddoe, E., and Worrall J. (eds) Supervision Conference From Rhetoric to
Reality Keynote Address and Selected Papers, Auckland: Auckland College of
Education, pp. 79-85.
Dallos, R., and Draper, R. (2000), An Introduction to Family Therapy: Systemic
Theory and Practice, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. (2001) Child, Youth and Family
Home page, http://www.cyf.govt.nz [accessed 1 October 2001].
Department of Social Welfare. (1994) Te Punga, Wellington: DSW
Dominelli, L. (1997), Sociology for social work, Basingstoke: MacMillian Press
Drew, J. (1987), Social Work Supervision as a Political Function: A Critique of
Cognitive Interests and the Impact of the Capitalist Welfare State, Palmerston North:
Massey University, MSW Thesis.
Easton, B.(1997), The Commercialisation of New Zealand, Auckland: Auckland
University Press.
Easton, B. (2000), ‘Value Added’, New Zealand Listener, 173, (3124), pp. 20-21.
Erera, I., and Lazar, A. (1994) ‘The Administrative and Educational Functions in
Supervision: Indications of Incompatibility’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 12 (2), pp.
39-55.
Fook, J. (1996), The Reflective Researcher, St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Freire,P. (1974), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, London: Penguin Books.
Gardiner, D. (1989), The Anatomy of Supervision- Developing Learning and
Professional Competence for Social Work Students, Milton Keynes: Society for
Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
163
Geraty, E. (2000), ‘Cyber Practice”,
http://members.aol.com/BehavioralsciCon/cyberhtml [accessed 11 November 2000].
Gibelman, M., and Schervish, P. (1997), ‘Supervision in Social Work: Characteristics
and Trends in a Changing Environment’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 16 (2), pp.115.
Glastonbury, B., Bradley, R. and Orme, J. (1987), Managing People in the Personal
Social Services, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Global Issues.org. (2001), ‘Human Rights for All”,
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/HumanRightsForAll.asp [accessed 11
October 2001].
Gould, N. and Taylor, I. (1996), (eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work,
Aldershot: Arena.
Gowdy, E., Rapp, C., and Poertner, J. (1993), ‘Management Is Performance:
Strategies for Client-Centred Practice in Social Service Organizations’,
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 17 (1) , pp. 3-21.
Guardian Unlimited. (2001), ‘A Moral World Order’,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2001/comment/0,1414,562323,00.html [accessed
6 October 2001].
Halpern, D., and Mikosz, D. (2001), ‘Third Way Debate Summary’,
http://www.netnexus.org/library/papers/3way.html [accessed 6 October 2001].
Halsall, P. (ed) (1999), Internet Modern History Source Book,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook14.html [accessed 8 September 2001].
Hancock, M. (1998), Personal Communication.
Hawkins, P. and Shohet, R. (2000), Supervision In The Helping Professions (2nd
Edition), Buckingham: Open University Press.
Henare, M. (1988), ‘Nga Tikanga Me Nga Ritenga O Te Ao Maori- Standards and
Foundations of Maori Society’ Royal Commission on Social Policy, Vol. III, Part
1:Future Directions, April 1988, pp. 39-69.
Hewson, J. (1999), ‘Training Supervisors to Contract in Supervision”, in Carroll, M.
and Holloway, E. (eds) (1999) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage, pp.
67-97.
Hughes, L. and Phengelly, P. (1997), Staff Supervision in a Turbulent Environment:
Managing Process and Task in Front-Line Services, London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers Ltd.
Ife, J.(2000), ‘Local and Global Practice: relocating social work as a
164
human rights profession in the new global order’, Conference Proceedings, Joint
Conference of the International Federation of Social Workers and the International
Association of Schools of Social Work, July 29-August 2, 2000: Montreal, Canada:
http://www.arcaf.net/social_work_proceedings/ftp_files6/Ife.pdf
International Federation of Social Workers. (2000). ‘Definition of Social Work’,
http://www.ifsw.org/Publications/4.6e.pub.html [accessed 6 October 2001].
International Federation of Social Workers. (2001), ‘IFSW on the Web’,
http://www.ifsw.org/ [accessed 6 October 2001].
Itzhaky, H. (2001), ‘Factors Relating to “Inferences” in Communication Between
Supervisor and Supervisee: Differences Between the External and Internal
Supervisor’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 20 (1), pp. 73-86.
Itzhaky, H., and Hertzanu-Laty, M. (1999) ‘Application of Martin Buber’s Dialogue
Theory in Social Work Supervision’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 18 (1), pp. 17-32.
Jordan, B. (1984), Invitation to Social Work, Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company
Ltd.
Kahn, P. and Dominelli, L. (2000), ‘The Impact of Globalisation on Social Work in
the UK’, European Journal of Social Work, Vol 3 (2), pp. 95-108.
Kasier, T. (1996), Supervisory Relationships Exploring the Human Element, Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kadushin, A. (1976), Supervision in Social Work, New York: University of Columbia
Press.
Kadushin, A. (1977), Consultation in Social Work, New York: University Columbia
Press.
Kadushin, A. (1992), Supervision in Social Work (3rd Edition), New York: University
of Columbia Press.
Kamerman, S. (1998), ‘Fields of Practice’ in Mattaini, M., Lowery, C., and Meyer. C.
(1998), The Foundations of Social Work Practice: A Graduate Text, 2nd Edition,
Washington DC: NASW press pp. 291-311.
Kane, R. (2001), ‘Supervision in New Zealand Social Work’, in Connolly, M. (ed),
New Zealand Social Work Contexts and Practice, Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, G. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.
Kelley, P. (1996), ‘Narrative Therapy and Social Work Treatment’, in Turner, F.(ed),
Social Work Treatment (4th Edition), New York: Free Press, pp. 461-479.
Kelsey, J. (1993), Rolling Back the State, Privatisation of Power in Aotearoa New
Zealand, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
165
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
LaMorte, C. and Lilly, J. (2001), ‘Computers History and Development, Jones
Telecommunication and Multimedia Encyclopaedia,
http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/comp_hd.html [accessed 8 September
2001].
Lee, J. (1996), ‘The Empowerment Approach to Social Work Practice’, in Turner, F.
(ed), Social Work Treatment (4th Edition), New York: Free Press, pp. 218-249.
Lowery, C. (1998), ‘Social Justice and International Human Rights’, in Mattaini, M.,
Lowery, C., and Meyer. C. (1998), The Foundations of Social Work Practice: A
Graduate Text, 2nd Edition, Washington DC: NASW press, pp. 20-42.
McKenzie, M., Kelliher, M. and Henderson, M. (2001), ‘The shift to family-centred
practice in social work: Family voice in evaluation of the Strengthening Families
initiative’, Social Work Review, XIII (1), pp. 13-19.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A., and Spoonley, P. (2000), Exploring Society, Auckland:
Longman.
Maharey, S. (2001), ‘A Collaborative Future-social service education’, Speech notes,
19 July 2001- Southland Social Services Seminar.
Maslach, C., and Leiter, M. (1997), The Truth About Burnout, San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass.
Mataira, P. (1985), A Bi-Cultural Model of Social Work Supervision, Palmerston
North: Massey University.
Mattaini, M., Lowery, C., and Meyer. C. (1998), The Foundations of Social Work
Practice: A Graduate Text, 2nd Edition, Washington DC: NASW press.
Maidment, J. (2000), ‘Strategies to promote student learning and integration of theory
with practice in the field”, in Cooper L., and Briggs L. (eds), Fieldwork in the Human
Services, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
Meyer, C. (1993) Assessment in social work practice, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Milner, J., and O’Bryne, P. (1998), Assessment in Social Work, Basingstoke:
MacMillan.
Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Maori Perspective for the Department of Social
Welfare (1986) Puao-Te-Ata-Tu (Day Break), Wellington: Department of Social
Welfare.
Ministry of Health. (1998), Guideline for Clinical Risk Assessment and Management
166
in Mental Health Services, Wellington: MOH
Morrell, M. (2001) ‘External supervision- confidential or accountable? An
exploration of the relationship between agency, supervisor and supervisee’ Social
Work Review, Vol XIII (1), pp. 36-41.
Morrison, T. (1993), Staff Supervision in Social Care. An Action Learning Approach,
Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.
Morrison, T. (2001), Staff Supervision in Social Care, Making a real difference for
staff and service users, Brighton: Pavilion.
Munson, C, (1979), Social Work Supervision-Classical Statements and Critical
Issues, New York: Free Press.
Munson, C. (1993), Clinical Social Work Supervision (2nd Edition), New York:
Haworth Press.
Munson, C. (1998), ‘Societal Change, Managed Cost Organizations, and Clinical
Social Work Practice’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 17(2), pp. 1-41.
Nash, M. (2001), ‘Social Work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Its Origins and Traditions’,
in Connolly, M (ed), New Zealand Social Work, Auckland: Oxford University, pp. 3243.
National Association of Social Workers. (1998), ‘Milestones in the Development of
Social Work and Social Welfare’,
http://www.naswdc.org/PiecesNASW/Centen/centmil0.htm, [accessed 3 June 2001].
New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1966), Report of Supervision in Social
Work Course Oct- Nov 1965, in New Zealand Social Worker, 2, (1), pp21.
New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1972), Supervision in Social Work a
New Zealand Perspective, Palmerston North: New Zealand Association of Social
Workers.
New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1993) Code of Ethics, Wellington:
NZASW.
New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1998a), Social Work Notice Board
November 1998, Dunedin: NZASW.
New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1998b), Policy Statement on
Supervision, Dunedin: NZASW.
New Zealand Social Work Training Council. (1985), Supervision Resource Package
Wellington: New Zealand Social Work Training Council.
O’Donohue, J. (1997), Anam Cara The Spiritual Wisdom From the Celtic World,
London: Bantam Books.
167
O’Donoghue, K. (1998), Supervising Social Workers: A Practical Handbook,
Palmerston North: School of Policy Studies and Social Work, Massey University.
O’Donoghue, K. (1999), Professional Supervision Practice Under New Public
Management: A Study of the Perspective of Probation Officers and Service Managers
In the Community Probation Service, Palmerston North: Massey University, MPhil
Thesis.
O’Donoghue, K. (2000), ‘The Future of Social Work Supervision within Aotearoa
New Zealand’, paper presented at the National Supervision Conference 7 July 2000,
Auckland, New Zealand: http://www.geocities.com/kieranodsw/confpaper2.html
[accessed 20 August 2001].
O’Donoghue, K. (2001a), ‘Social Work Registration News’,
http://www.geocities.com/kieranodsw/registration.html [accessed 24 October 2001].
O’Donoghue, K. (2001b), ‘Philosophy of the Course’, Supervision Practicum Course
Handbook: Advanced Certificate in Professional Supervision, Hamilton: The Waikato
Polytechnic.
Oliver, W. (1988), ‘Social Policy in New Zealand: an historical overview’, The April
Report Vol. 4. Wellington: Royal Commission on Social Policy.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2001) Human
Rights: A Basic Handbook for UN Staff,
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/handbook.pdf [accessed 23 December 2001].
Palmer, G. (1992), New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis: Reforming Our Political
System, Dunedin: John McIndoe.
Parton, N., and O’Bryne, J. (2000), Constructive Social Work: Towards a New
Practice, Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Payne, M. (1994), ‘Personal Supervision in Social Work’, in O'Connor A, and Black
S, (eds), Performance Review and Quality in Social Care, London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers pp. 43-58.
Payne, M. (1997), Modern Social Work Theory (2nd Edition), London: Macmillan.
Pettes, D. (1979), Staff and Student Supervision- A Task Centered Approach, London:
Allen and Unwin.
Pilalis, J. (1986), ‘The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Re-examination of a
Paradoxical Expectation’, British Journal of Social Work, 16(1), pp. 79-96.
Randal, H. (2000), ‘Executive Officer’s update’, Social Work Notice Board, (May),
pp. 2-3.
168
Rapp, C. (1998), The Strengths Model: Case Management with People Suffering from
Severe and Persistent Mental Illness, New York: Oxford University Press.
Reamer, F. (1989), ‘Liability Issues in Social Work Supervision’, Social Work 34 (5),
pp. 445-448.
Reid, W. (1996), ‘Task-Centred Social Work’, in Turner, F. (ed), Social Work
Treatment (4th Edition), New York: Free Press, pp. 617-640.
Rein, M. and White, S. (1981), ‘Knowledge for Practice’, In Social Service Review,
Vol 55(1), pp. 1-41.
Rich, P. (1993), ‘The Form, Function, and Content of Clinical Supervision:
An Integrated Model’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 11(1), pp. 137-178.
Rita, E. (1998), ‘Solution-Focused Supervision, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 17 (2),
pp. 127-139.
Rivers, S., and Crocket, A. (2000) Personal Communication.
Ruwhiu, L. (1995), ‘Home fires burn so brightly with theoretical flames’ Te Komako
Social Work Review, Vol VII (1), pp. 21-24.
Ruwhiu, L. (2001), ‘Bicultural Issues in Aotearoa New Zealand’, in Connolly, M (ed),
New Zealand Social Work, Auckland: Oxford University, pp. 54-71.
Saleebey, D. (2001), Human Behavior and Social Environments: A Biopsychosocial
Approach, New York: Columbia University Press.
Sampson, A. (2000), ‘Mandela accuses ‘policeman’ Britain’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,178519,00.html [accessed 10
October 2001].
Schon, D. (1991), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action,
Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Schulman, A. (2001), ‘Privacy Foundation Workplace Surveillance Project’,
http://www.privacyfoundation.org/workplace/business/biz_show.asp?id=70&action=0
[accessed 5 October 2001].
Sellner, E. (1990), Mentoring the Ministry of Spiritual Kinship, Notre Dame, Indiana:
Ave Maria Press.
Shannon, P. (1991), Social Policy ,Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Sheppard, M. (1995), “Social Work, Social Science and Practice Wisdom”, British
Journal of Social Work, 25, pp.265-293.
Shulman, L. (1993), Interactional Supervision, Washington DC: NASW Press.
169
Simmons, H. (2001) ‘Let the Symbol Speak: Developing a Feminist Spiral Model of
Supervision’, in Beddoe, E., and Worrall J. (eds), Supervision Conference From
Rhetoric to Reality Keynote Address and Selected Papers, Auckland: Auckland
College of Education, pp. 177-185.
Solas, J. (1994), ‘A pilot study in the application of repertory grid technology for
constructing and construing personal models of social work supervision’, Australian
Social Work, 47 (3), pp. 27-35.
Stofle, G., and Hamilton, S. (1998) ‘Online Supervision for Social Workers’ The New
Social Worker, Fall 1998, Vol 5, (4), http://www.socialworker.com/onlinesu.htm
[accessed 28 June 2002].
Strengthening Families. (2000), Strengthening Families Website,
http://www.strengtheningfamilies.govt.nz/ [accessed 21 October 2001].
Taverner, P. (1989), ‘Supervision’, Social Work Review, 1 (3&4), pp. 20-21.
Taylor, C.(1976), Facsimilies of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of
Waitangi, Wellington: Government Printer.
Trotter, C. (1999), Working with Involuntary Clients, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
Tsui, M. (1997a), ‘Empirical Research on Social Work Supervision: The State of the
Art (1970-1995)’, Journal of Social Service Research, Vol 23(2), pp. 39-54.
Tsui, M. (1997b), ‘The Roots of Social Work Supervision: An Historical Review’,
The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 15(2), pp. 191-198.
Tsui, M. (1998), ‘A Job Performance Model for Professional Social Workers’, Asia
Pacific Journal of Social Work, Vol 8 (2), pp.51-63.
Tsui, M. (2001), Towards A Culturally Sensitive Model of Social Work Supervision in
Hong Kong, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Toronto: Faculty of Social Work,
University of Toronto.
Tsui, M. and Ho, W.(1997), ‘In Search of a Comprehensive Model of Social Work
Supervision’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 16(2), pp. 181-205.
Turia, T. (2000), “Speech to New Zealand Psychological Society Conference,
Waikato University”,
http://www.executive.govt.nz/speech.cfm?speechralph=32299&SR=1 [accessed 15
December, 2000].
Turner, F. (1996), ‘Theory and Social Work Treatment’, Social Work Treatment (4th
Edition) Turner, F. (ed), Social Work Treatment (4th Edition), New York: Free Press,
pp. 1-17.
170
United Nations. (2001) United Nations Guide for Indigenous People,
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/00-indigenousguide.html [accessed 29 December
2001].
United Nations Division for Social Policy and Social Development. (2001), ‘2001
Report on the World Social Situation’
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/overview.html [accessed 30 August 2001].
Van Kessel, L. and Haan, D. (1993), ‘The Intended Way of Learning in Supervision
Seen as a Model’, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 29-44.
Webber-Dreadon, E. (1999), ‘He Taonga Mo o Matou Tipuna (A gift handed down by
our ancestors: An indigenous approach to social work supervision’, Te Komako 111
Social Work Review, Vol XI (4), pp. 7-11.
Walker, P. (2001) ‘Strengthening what?’ Social Work Review, Vol XIII (1), pp. 7-12.
Walker, R. (1993), ‘From the Treaty of Waitangi as the Focus of Maori Protest’, in
Ihimaera, W. (ed), Te Ao Marama Regaining Aotearoa: Maori Writers Speak Out
Volume 2 He Whakaatanga O Te Ao: The Reality, Auckland: Reed, pp. 117-125.
Williams, J. (1993), ‘From Back to the Future: Maori Survival in the 1990s’, in
Ihimaera, W. (ed), Te Ao Marama Regaining Aotearoa: Maori Writers Speak Out
Volume 2 He Whakaatanga O Te Ao: The Reality, Auckland: Reed, pp. 78-82.
Young, G. (1993), Critical Components in the Supervision of Child Protection Social
Workers in a Statutory Agency, unpublished paper. Albany: Department of Social
Policy and Social Work, Massey University.
Kieran O'Donoghue