Bounded

The second characteristic of the supervisory relationship was that it was bounded. Rose alluded to this when she explained to the researcher:

Patricia and I get on extremely well but we still have a professional

[relationship], I just always think that it’s really always important especially with our clients … because it’s such personal work you can’t go in there as being their friend. (Rose, Field Educator)

Charlotte spoke of boundaries as deeply embedded in social work education, and related this to the challenges of the community context of practice:

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

colleagues practice community work, there’s a huge difference in terms of how people will manage boundaries. Social workers tend to be similar … And I think we’re ingrained in social work, you know it’s one of those things we are trained so heavily in, is the management of boundaries but I think in community work, it’s very different and the longer you work in a community as well, the more they get to know about you and I think the more you feel comfortable, you get to know the community of people, you get a sense of what’s useful and what’s not useful. (Charlotte, Field Educator)

The relationship was a professional one, established to foster a student’s learning, and to model to them how to work with service users. But students were not services user. Two participants spoke of the fine line between developing a student’s self-awareness and of remaining an educator, not a counsellor. Stephanie and Frances both made a point of distinguishing between supervision and counselling, noting that

their roles were not counsellors, but that students could confuse the two. Frances explained that she endeavoured to be very careful about how she addressed personal issues which arose during the course of placement. It emerged that both these Field Educators—Stephanie and Frances—were working with younger students who expressed high levels of anxiety about their practice.

This analysis also suggested that developing a strong supervisory relationship was integral to fostering the student’s use of reflection, a process used by all Field Educators to facilitate students’ learning. The strategies primarily involved a process of reflection-on-action based on a series of exchanges initiated by the student and Field Educator. This was in the style suggested by Schön (1991), not critical reflection in the sense used by Brookfield (2009), who argued that ‘for reflection to be considered critical it must have as its explicit focus uncovering, and challenging, the power dynamics which frame practice and uncovering and challenging hegemonic

assumptions’ (p. 293). This point is discussed further in Section C of this chapter 6. To use this reflective process effectively, it is necessary to encourage frank discussion to establish a baseline of the student’s current knowledge, and to work with them. A supportive relationship allows a student to think aloud in supervision, in a process of guided reflection.

Some Field Educators spoke of the mutuality of the learning process. Clearly, part of this learning was getting to know a student, her prior experiences and the knowledges she was bringing to the placement, and her strengths and limitations. This learning was directed towards a student’s instruction. It also pointed to a stock of knowledges which each Field Educator had gathered about the supervision process in general.

The mutuality of the learning process was also seen when Rose was reflecting with the student about how she had managed the casework which the student had observed. She had been endeavouring to assist Patricia to build a framework to meet the requirements of a university assignment the student had to complete for her mid-

placement assessment. Rose asked the student for feedback about the casework she had observed:

I think I really wanted to know … I think it is important to ask her because supervision is also reflecting on my own practice and if she thought there was anything that… we could have possibly done differently … (Rose, Field Educator)

Keith took mutuality further: ‘I also ask students to be a new set of eyes, to give

me feedback about what they see in the organisation that we might in some way learn from’. (Keith, Field Educator)

Frances explained that she would engage in self-disclosure if she considered this pertinent to a student’s learning, giving dementia as an example. Ornstein and Moses (2010) concluded that these qualities of shared mutuality and power can contribute to the development of knowledge.

While the relationship between each Field Educator and student was clearly viewed as beneficial to a student’s learning, it was not without tensions. Reciprocity was not equal; there is a significant degree of power in this educator and student relationship. The researcher concluded from observing the videotaped session that this educative relationship was not simply a means of promoting learning, both about social work practice and for practice. Rather, the Field Educators listened critically to what the students were saying, demonstrating that they understood that the learning process required an element of feedback and evaluation. They evaluated what a student was

offering and assessed a student’s work throughout the placement. There are a number of inherent strains in developing a supportive and bounded relationship while at the same time evaluating a student’s work.