Social Work Supervision in a Developing Country Experiences of Students

Full text

1
Nadesan, V.S. (2020). Social Work Supervision in a Developing
Country: Experiences of Students. The Indian Journal of Social
Work, 81(3), 263-282. (DOI 10.32444/IJSW.2020.81.3.263-282)
Abstract
This article examines student supervision in social work education using a qualitative multi-
case study design. The voices of current and past students at three unique, heterogeneous and
diverse field instruction sites in developing South Africa highlight perceptions of varied
supervision models, supervisory practices and students’ coping mechanisms when faced with
supervision challenges. Insights are provided into challenges experienced by final year students
when faced with alleged unethical and unprofessional supervisory practices. This article
contributes to debates on the quality, nature, models and styles of supervision, and provides
unique insight into student learning styles and coping mechanisms.
Varoshini Nadesan is a Lecturer: University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-5291X
Key words: Developing countries, Ethics; Field instruction; Social work students;
Supervision.
Article:
Introduction
Ongoing research on the supervision of social work students during their field instruction
placements has raised concerns about the quality and effectiveness of supervision (Ross and
Ncube 2018). Supervision is arguably the pedagogical training that provides opportunities for
students to gain advanced insight into professional social work, apply theories learnt in the
classroom to practice, and obtain professional guidance and direction from experienced social
work practitioners. Reflecting on general supervision of students, Manathunga (2005, 17)
argues that supervision is the “private pedagogical space” that supports the transmission of
knowledge from the expert to the student, as is evident in social work student supervision.
Social workers who supervise students have an obligation to provide a competent and a high
standard of supervision to students, whilst at the same time demonstrating impeccable
professional and personal behaviour that can be emulated by students (Engelbrecht 2014). The
supervision process occurs during the process of field instruction when social work students
are required to complete field practice as part of the degree. Based on the principle of
progression, field instruction education provides opportunities for social work students to
experience increasingly complex knowledge and practice opportunities (Sheafor and Horejsi

2
2008). Having successfully traversed the previous three years of the Bachelor of Social Work
(BSW) degree, South African students in the fourth year of study are faced with an intense
workload of theory and field instruction.
The didactic triangle of the student, university and field supervisor is critical to student growth
and professional development. The field supervisor is responsible for the onsite student
experience, providing professional mentorship and guidance to the student during the
placement (Ross and Ncube 2018, Kiser 2016). South African policy directs that students may
not practice field instruction without the direct supervision of a social worker (SACSSP 2006).
Implicit therefore is that field supervisors have several years of practice experience,
demonstrated practice wisdom and competency in understanding, supervising and monitoring
students (Wilson 1981).
This article provides insight into the supervision experiences of students across three
universities in South Africa, from a systems perspective. Systems theory allows researchers to
examine the relationship between and interconnectedness of elements (Valentinov 2012).
Systems thinkers propose that actions of element impacts on the actions of the other. The use
of systems theory as its theoretical lens enabled the researcher to understand students’
perspectives of their relationship with supervisors.
Understanding the field instruction experiences of social work students across South Africa has
not previously been brought under scholarly scrutiny from this perspective. The aim of this
article is to discuss the experiences and perceptions of student social workers of the nature and
type of supervision provided by their field supervisors. This article will argue that the quality
and nature of supervision, as well as the supervisory styles of supervisors influence the
professional growth and development of the student. This argument will be evidenced by
narratives of current and previous students across three diverse universities. This qualitative
study used a systems-informed framework to analyse the experiences of 46 students. Three
key themes emerged from the data, which focused on the didactic nature of supervision. This
paper contributes to the debates on the quality of supervision rendered to social work students
in optimising student learning in social work education.
Contextualising student supervision
Student supervision is not an easy process. It is made complex by its immediacy, the several
roles demanded of the supervisor, together with meeting the learning needs of the student. The
nature of the pedagogy of field instruction places demands on students to complete numerous
professional tasks within a designated period of study. Students are placed within human
service organisations for designated periods of time, and encounter situations that challenge

3
their intellectual and coping abilities, as well as situations that are beyond their understanding
(Simpson and Raniga 2014). Such situations are best raised during the supervision process.
Parker (2006) argues that each supervision session therefore is a well-planned and regular
period of time that the student and supervisor spend discussing the student’s work during the
field instruction process. Thus, the process focuses on the student’s learning as well as on the
student’s progress in the field placement.
Quality supervision, therefore, requires that student-supervisors maximise learning
opportunities by taking on supportive, developmental, educational and managerial functions in
the supervisory process (Jones 2009). The supportive function of supervision allows the student
to explore and deal with stresses experienced during the field instruction process. However, as
Parker (2006) cautions, supervision is not therapy, but a developmental learning process that
attends to the student’s needs at an emotional, intellectual, professional and personal level.
Parker (2006) argues that the developmental and educational approach enables the student to
navigate from a process of dependence on the student supervisor to one that has evidence of
personal autonomy. Educational supervision develops knowledge, skills and attitudes that are
requisite for effective social work by guiding students on linking theory, readings, literature
and research to what they experience and practice at the placement agency (Bennet et al. 2013).
The student’s learning needs are assessed in relation to past experiences, ethical awareness,
theoretical knowledge and learning goals (Scragg 2013). On the other hand the managerial
function of supervision ensures that the student complies with the agency procedures and
policies. This function of supervision acts as a quality-control mechanism that ensures that the
rights of service providers and the agency are protected (Parker 2006).
The supervision contact sessions, by its very nature, require that supervisors be knowledgeable
of the environment and resultant situations in which students are placed (Budeli 2018). Quality
supervision requires that supervisors use theoretical knowledge, experience and practice
wisdom to guide and direct students to overcome fears and ecounter challenges in practice
(Jasper and Field 2016). This is the pedagogical role of the supervisor, capacitating students to
develop and grow to make informed professional judgements.
The process of supervision, therefore, steers students away from the initial feelings of anxiety
and apprehension towards a confident readiness to face the placement (Mathews, Simpson, and
Crawford 2014). Providing feedback and encouragement is critical to shaping the student’s
focus in the field instruction programme (Carroll 2010), forming part of the developmental and
management roles of the supervisor. Structured and frequent supervisory meetings are

4
essential. Jointly developed learning plans with timely milestones form part of the quality
supervision process (Jasper and Field 2016).
Researchers argue that there are varied models or types of student supervision, a factor that
may hinder or optimise student learning. Social work has long moved away from what Doel et
al. (1996) and (Kiser 2016) refer to as the apprenticeship model, where students learned skills
by observing what workplace practices entailed. Instead supervisors lean towards the use of
the growth and developmental model which emphasises the students’ strengths, awareness of
self and reflective practices (Simpson and Raniga 2014). In order to enable students to make
the most out of student learning, supervisors may opt for the use of the articulated model
(Royse, Dhooper, and Rompf 2012) or a structured learning model where learning experiences
are specifically structured to make the most of student learning in the field instruction
programme (Beverley and Worsely 2007, Kiser 2016). A fourth model of supervisor is gaining
prominence, that of the social development model. Purporting this model, Engelbrecht (2002)
argues that supervision needs to be situation-relevant, based on a competency model and be
empowering to students. Against this backdrop, Ncube (2019) argues that supervision is a
parallel process where the supervisor is the role-model to the student by embodying values of
the social development model for students to emulate in practice. All of these models appear
to support the argument that supervision is a process of education, support and management of
the development of the student in line with the outcomes of the training institution.
Whilst the choice of supervision model is an area for consideration in practice, research
indicates that the individual and diverse learning styles of students leave supervisors feeling
ill-equipped to render effective supervision (Zeira and Schiff 2010). Dykes and Green (2015,
577) argue that it was important to understand that students emerged from “an increasingly
diverse world of differing ages, abilities, cultures, interests, motivations and difficulties”.
Student learning styles are complicated when students enter the placement filled with anxiety.
Students commence initially as very dependent on the supervisor, then seem to fluctuate
between dependency and autonomy, then are seen to develop a sense of self-confidence to the
point of seeming overconfident, and finally progressing to personal autonomy and awareness
of the professional self (Parker 2006, Beverley and Worsely 2007). These arguments therefore
suggest that supervision during field instruction should facilitate opportunities go beyond
theory and practice education, but to include the development of the students’ professional
persona (Dykes and Green 2015).
Two contrary arguments on the requirements for effective supervision emerged from the
literature. First, for student supervision to be effective, the supervisor has to understand the

5
circumstances of the student, the student’s personal environment, and the student’s learning
style (Budeli 2018, Jasper and Field 2016). Second, students need to understand their own
individual and unique learning styles prior to entering the supervision process (Kourgiantakis,
Sewell, and Bogo 2018, Parker 2006). According to Parker (2006), students need to show
insight into issues of meaningfulness, perceived relevance and currency of practice, skills and
knowledge. However, while the latter argument is particularly significant when taking into
account the time-lapse between learning a theory and implementation thereof, these arguments
relate to adult learning techniques during the supervision process. Research on adult learning
techniques in relation to student supervision by Gardiner (1989) places supervision and
learning on three levels, moving from a focus on content of learning at the first level, to a focus
on experience at the second level, and finally to the level of meta-learning where the student
imbibes various aspects that have been taught to be able to put this into practice.
In order to foster the positive experience of supervision amongst students, student supervisors
should be available, supportive and developmental, have a structured leadership style, be able
to facilitate learning from peers, and are skilled in balancing personal and shared experiences
in a public space. These findings emerged from a qualitative study of graduates at a Canadian
university by Bogo, Globerman, and Sussman (2004). This study further revealed that the
competence of the supervisor was a crucial element leading to the perception of a positive field
instruction experience.
Research Methodology
This research adopted a qualitative approach to understand, identify and describe students’
experiences from their personal perspectives and narratives (Bless, Higson-Smith, and Sithole
2013, Levitt et al. 2018). Multi-case designs were utilised to select field instruction systems
from 19 field instruction programmes in South Africa. Multi-case designs provided a
systematic and in-depth exploration of field instruction systems (Rule and John 2011) across a
developing country recovering from the inequalities of an apartheid system of education.
Purposive sampling was used to obtain a suitable and relevant sample of field instruction
systems that were most characteristic (Strydom 2015), as well as captured the heterogeneity
(Creswell 2012) of the BSW population. This was followed by a paradigmatic case sampling
method (Flyvbjerg 2011) that highlighted more general characteristics derived from the
population. Another factor that was considered in the sampling process was that the model
should have been in operation for at least one academic year at the time of the final data
collection process. Given the varied terrain in South Africa, it was important to select cases
from field instruction sites that offered a diversity of geographical locations, namely that of

6
being urban, semi-urban, semi-rural or rural. South Africa has ‘previously disadvantaged’
universities, recognised by its geographical locations as well as other factors during the
apartheid era. Other criteria indicated included the type of staffing structure, as well as whether
the programme had reaccredited after an earlier audit process by the Council for Higher
Education (CHE) (Table 1). On the basis of the de-accreditation by CHE (2016), two cases
were excluded from the sample.
Table 1: The three cases selected for this study
CRITERIA
Case_B (1)
Case_F (2)
Case_J (3)
Model of placement
Block
x
Concurrent
x
x
Geographical factors
Urban
x
Mostly urban/semi- rural
x
Mostly rural/semi-rural
x
Previously disadvantaged
university
x
x
Access to participants and
documents
x
x
x
CHE accreditation (2013)
Full or conditional accreditation
x
x
x
Unique staffing structure
x
The non-probability sampling technique as indicated in Table 1 provided a balance of cases
based on relevance, diversity and heterogeneity (Bless, Higson-Smith, and Sithole 2013).
Three cases were then purposively selected for this research (referred to as C1, C2 and C3).
C1, situated in a semi-urban area, and regarded as historically disadvantaged (CHE 2017). It
had access to field placement resources amd followed a block placement model where students
spent the second semester of the academic year at the field placement agency. C2 was situated
in a semi-rural area, is part of a university that was regarded as historically disadvantaged (CHE
2017). It had a shortage of field placement resources and followed a block placement model
where students spent the first semester of the academic year at the field placement agency. C3
was situated in an urban area, is a university that was regarded as previously advantaged (CHE
2017). It had an abundance of placement opportunities in both urbanised and informal
locations. C3 followed a concurrent placement model where students spent two to three days a
week at the field placement agency across the academic year. C3 was also selected for its
unique staffing structure where field supervisors were also involved in day-to-day teaching
activities within the field instruction programme at the university, whereas in C1 and C2, the
field supervisors were based at the agency.

7
Participants in this study were current fourth year social work students as well as recent social
work alumni. The inclusion of recent graduates from the same programme provided more in-
depth reflections on participants’ supervision experiences. There were 46 participants in this
section, 21 of whom were current students and 25 alumni. Demographically, 18 males and 28
females were interviewed across three heterogeneous field instruction sites. Semi-structured
interview schedules were developed using an iterative process (Struwig and Stead 2001). Data
was collected using single-person interviews and group interviews, as per the preference of
participants to be interviewed either alone or with peers. The questions were aligned with the
objectives of the study.
All interviews were captured digitally, transcribed and readied for analysis. Data was managed
systematically, by using labelling and storing conventions for ease of retrieval (Rule and John
2011). The identifying details of the research sample were anonymised in order to respect the
privacy and rights of the participants and the participating field instruction site. All participants
were provided prior with detailed letters and consent forms explaining the study. Participation
in the research was entirely voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any stage,
without penalty (Babbie, 2011; Horn, 2012; Monette et al., 2011).
A systematic process of coding the data was used. Open codes were used to identify an idea,
theory, argument, statement or similar content, and in-vivo codes captured the actual words of
the student participants (Saldaña 2009). Thus 155 open and in-vivo codes were generated
which was subsequently reduced to axial codes, and thereafter grouped into four themes or
selective codes (Saldaña 2009).
Trustworthiness in this study was ensured using the four main dimensions of rigour as
purported by Lincoln and Guba (1985), namely credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability. Credibility was ensured through the process of triangulation using varied
members in the unit of analysis as well as documentation from each case. The purposive
sampling technique and detailed and thick descriptions of the research methodology supported
the transferability of the findings. Dependability was achieved through the use of research tools
that went through a pilot process and iterative review to ensure relevance. Finally,
confirmability was monitored with the use of an audit trail where all documents and
communications were meticulously labelled and filed for easy retrieval, and line by line
referencing facilitated tracing back to the audio recordings, where required.

8
Approval for this research was received from the Faculty of Humanities Higher Degrees
Committee and the Research Ethics Committee of the researcher’s university (REC-01-059-
2017) and institutional permission was obtained from the participating universities.
Discussion
The findings that emanated from narratives with the participants were grouped under four main
themes, focusing on the models of supervision, participants’ perceptions of supervisors and
participants’ coping in situations where structured student supervision was lacking or minimal.
Theme 1: Models of supervision
The use of the growth and development model of supervision was evident across all three cases.
Participants reported on the guidance and opportunities for growth offered by the supervisor.
There were opportunities to write reports that were beyond the requirements of the field
instruction cases, and another participant reflected on guidance given in supervision: “[My
supervisor was] always giving [me] those heads up, saying, ‘Okay in this situation you can do
this, and in another situation that is acceptable’”. Supervisors tapped students’ strengths:
“My supervisor told me that you need to bring the best of yourself. She said to me: ‘I need to
know who you are? What are your strengths and your weaknesses?’”; developmental
supervison led to independent thinking: “I was told that I was not here to copy and paste from
other reports. [I was told that I] need to read them and see how they are written. But now, [I]
need to bring [my]self out and be able to write those reports [my]self’”.
Supportive supervision was evident: “She noticed when something was wrong with any of us.
She knew all of [13 of] us by name in the group, [even though] we were at different placements”
Perhaps the strongest indication of the growth and development model emerged when a
participant had to overcome prejudices and language barriers at the field placement. The
participant revealed that she was placed at a home for the elderly where she encountered racial
tension and language barriers as she was a young Tswana female who was fluent in Sotho,
isiZulu and English, whilst the inmates at the agency were elderly, white and Afrikaans-
speaking.
“When my group members wanted me to speak Afrikaans, I thought they were racist
but my supervisor assured me that it was not about me [and that I should] hold on
because we will find difficult clients in the future and I must start now to understand”
These examples of supportive and developmental supervision typify the relationship between
the supervisor and student, highlights the strength of the supervision relationship, and identifies

9
key systems arguments regarding interconnectedness of elements within the supervision
process.
Examples of the experiences of supervision depicting the articulated model were also present.
Students were encouraged to write professional and statutory reports for presentation at the
local Children’s Court: “So I was able to write my own report. I was able to stand in front of
the magistrate [Presiding Officer], to present my own case with [my supervisor] at my side”.
At the same time, the type of supervision received may have been critical or harsh, but had
helped to foster progress: “There were a lot of times when I wasn’t really used to getting
criticized, but she was extremely honest and that was so helpful”.
The use of the structured learning model was observed across the cases. “[My supervisor] told
me that [I] need to bring the best of [my]self” Supervisors were observed to demonstrate this
narrative as indicated in this narrative:
“[My supervisor] said ‘I need to know who you are? What are your strengths and your
weaknesses? And the only thing that will tell me [the supervisor] that is when you are
writing those reports. You are not here to copy and paste from other reports, you need
to read them and see how they are written. But you need to be able to write those reports
yourself’“[C2_P10].
The knowledge and ability to introduce the student to the many facets of the workplace may
be a key factor in student supervision. “I was having a disagreement with the top management
to the point where my supervisor had to [step in] to say that these are the challenges [the
student] was facing regarding ethics and sharing of information]”.
The empirical evidence presented under this theme confirms the presence of the growth and
development model (Simpson and Raniga 2014), the articulated model (Royse, Dhooper, and
Rompf 2012) and the structured learning model (Beverley and Worsely 2007). Interestingly,
participants from rural areas experienced a stronger alignment with the growth and
development model, whilst participants from semi-urban and urban areas experienced
alignment with the articulated model and the structured learning model of supervision. The use
of the growth and development model of student supervision supported students’ abilities to
reflect on their field instruction placements, their application of theory to practice, and
importantly their reflection on the development of the self within the field instruction
programme (Simpson and Raniga 2014). Social work scholars agree that supervision involves
planned and regular periods of time when students and supervisors meet to discuss student
progress and the student’s work during the placement (Parker 2006, Botha 2002). The

10
researcher was unable to locate evidence of the use of the apprenticeship model or the social
development model in this research. The evidence of the growth and development model,
articulated model and the structured learning model of supervision forms part of the original
contribution of this article to the field as empirical evidence supporting the application of these
models in student supervision has been scarce in the literature, both locally and internationally.
Theme 2: Perceptions about supervisors and the supervision process
Supervisors are critical role models in the learning process. This theme reflects on participants’
perceptions of their supervisors, reflecting on observed behaviours and perceived supervision
styles. Participants provided descriptions depicting supervisors as “awesome and
professional” and “understanding”. “But she was like a mother bear. I was like a little baby
bear. She would protect me”. However, perceptions of other participants of their supervisors
was not as complimentary. One participant reflected that “[my supervisor] was short
tempered”, crossed personal boundaries by sharing personal information and “was lazy. Most
of the time I had to stop my school work and do her stuff, her typing. So I was backlogged”.
Participants also found themselves having to reorganise theior supervisors’ office: “I had to do
her work for her, even her office was so deurmekaar [disorganised]”.
Supervisors should be self-confident as a result of their own field experience., however this did
not seem to be the case: “My supervisor didn’t have a back bone. I said to her A is A; B is B”,
reflecting the timidity of the supervisor. Participants were less complimentary of their
supervisors’ styles of supervision, revealing the supervisor as being overly critical: “I couldn’t
understand what was I doing wrong?”; “my supervisor wanted 110 %”, and, [my supervisor]
would say ‘your work is not good enough’”.
The evidence suggests that whilst some participants felt that the supervision process was
enhanced by the positive attributes of their supervisors, many participants experienced
supervisors whose behaviours appeared to be unprofessional and unethical. Supervisors who
display positive role-modelling bring forth growth and independence in students (Engelbrecht
2014). On the other hand, and as indicated in this research, supervisors who do not display
positive role-modelling are unable to support constructive learning, leaving students with
unfulfilled student experiences in their field instruction (Ross and Ncube 2018, McSweeney
and Williams 2018).

11
Theme 3: Coping with supervision and supervisor behaviour
The behaviour of supervisors should epitomise professional conduct; however, this was not
always the case. This theme depicts participants’ responses on how they coped with errant
supervisors: “I did reports for my supervisor but I had to put her name on the report; “the only
time that I had supervision was in the first week whereby I was introduced to how to write
process notes and everything - and the rest I had to try myself”; “No one is supervising you.
Sometimes we would encounter difficult cases and you struggle to attend to this. You don’t
know what to do; “And then my supervisor would tell me that my work was not good enough. I
would be in tears because I am working so hard” . To cope with the ‘fear’ experienced in the
power relationship between the student and the supervisor, the student appears to relent and
succumb to the supervisor who made unprofessional demands. To address their need for
learning, participants resorted to seeking professional guidance from other staff members at the
organisation: “If I had a problem I had to go to someone else”; “The co-workers [at the
agency] always assisted me on how to do case work, how to do conduct a case, [and] how to
write a report. Her [the supervisor’s] co-workers taught me how to do those things”. On the
other hand, some supervisotrs were hands-on and assisted their student supervisees: “I
consulted on everything. I would say to my supervisor: ‘I don’t understand this, what should I
do? What should I recommend? Where should I refer the client?’”.
Examples of the demands by supervisors was not uncommon. To cope with these demands,
students developed their own coping strategies: “Sometimes I would escape and hide in the
boardroom in order to my reports”; “Until I spoke up. I said to my supervisor ‘I am here to
learn. Give me something to do’, and that is when she went to the office supervisor and asked
for files for me”.
Examples of being neglected by supervisors was also revealed. Supervisor absenteeism for
long periods of time meant that students had to consult with other staff members at the agency:
“[The staff] told me that I should go to the chief social worker for supervision but [the chief
social worker] is always busy and not always there in the office”;or, “I am just doing
everything on my own currently… They [the agency] don’t even check my reports”. Another
student revealed becoming emotional when responding to harsh criticism from her supervisor.
This evidence of lack of support from the supervisor also supports the developmental role
wherein the supervisor strengthens the student to reach potential.
Theme 4: Coping with stressful supervision via the peer sub-system
One of the coping strategies that was evident across all three Cases was the reliance on the peer
support sub-system. Participants reported that: “whenever I could sense I was not coping I

12
would go to a friend of mine and ask ‘how can we go about this?’”; or having peer “case-
conferencing” where “we share on how to write reports… for example about child therapy”.
The peer subsystem was “motivational”; and aptly summarised by this participant: “It’s sort of
like having those friendships you know when we study together when we create resources, or
exchange resources so it makes things a little bit easier”. The peer subsystem as a means of
coping was seen within the context of debriefing sessions: “We were even counselling each
other because you would come out from an interview with a patient and take all that
information personally”. Participants with peer support appeared to lean on each other: “I was
lucky to be placed with another student. You feel less intimidated because it is entirely new. To
know you have someone you can talk to about the emotional things”.
This theme highlighted the way participants handled the different types of supervision that they
experienced. Most participants revealed that they relied on their own resiliency and strengths
to manage experiences of poor supervision practices. However, perhaps the most startling
revelations emerged about participants was their unwillingness to contact supervisors for
assistance and rather rely on peers and forming peer-subsystems to support their field
instruction learning. The use of the peer subsystem in social work education has not been
previously explored. However, a recent study by Nadesan (2019) revealed that the peers formed
an integral subsystem in student learning in field instruction. This article therefore argues that
understanding the way students coped with supervision practices and the involvement of the
peer subsystem is critical within the field instruction programme. This theme is one of this
article’s original contribution to literature in the area of student supervision.
Conclusions and recommendations
The quality and nature of supervision, as well as the supervisory styles of supervisors
influences the professional growth and development of the student. The narratives of current
and past students from three unique field instruction programmes in South Africa of their
experiences of their supervision processes and interactions with field placement supervisors,
indicate the presence of three distinct models of supervision, a largely negative recollection of
supervision experiences, and the reliance on the peer subsystem as a means of support and
resilience. The findings on the models of supervision applied in social work education
corroborate with arguments that the use of the growth and development model (Simpson and
Raniga 2014), the articulated model (Royse, Dhooper, and Rompf 2012) and the structured
learning model (Beverley and Worsely 2007). The growth and developmental model appeared

13
to be evident in C1 whereas the articulated and structured learning model appeared prominent
in C2 and C3. Thus the influence of whether previously disadvantaged institutions preferred
particular models of supervision could not be established. However these models are not
exhaustive and it is likely that other models were not identified by the researcher. What was
significant though was that evidence of using the social development model was unclear. The
social development model to supervision supports a situation-specific model of supervision
(Engelbrecht 2002, Ncube 2019). Given that each of the Cases in this study were uniquely
located in terms of their geographical boundaries and resources limitations, the use of the social
development model would have ideally supported the factor of being contextually relevant in
social work education, thereby corroborating the arguments by these African scholars.
The findings in this research revealed that whilst some participants received supervision that
enabled the development of self-growth, other participants did not receive professional
supervision, thus the application of any of the models of supervision referred to above was
debatable. The empirical evidence suggests that some students functioned without profession
whilst some students relied on persons within the agency who were not their allocated
supervisor. The Policy guidelines for Course of Conduct, Code of Ethics and the Rules for
social workers (applying equally to student social workers) of the South African Council for
Social Service Professions (SACSSP), stipulates that student social workers may only practice
the profession unless under the direct guidance and supervision of a registered social worker
(SACSSP 2006, 5.4.1 (f)). The findings, which are contrary of the policy guidelines, imply an
unsupervised practice that could lead to allegations of professional misconduct against the
student, agency, university and supervisor.
On a wider scale, unsupervised student social workers engaged in professional tasks, could be
a basis of litigation against the university and the agency. The finding of unsupervised students
therefore places the profession of social work at great risk and arguably contributes to poor
student and public perception of the profession. In addition, this study could not justify
perceptions that the geographical location or lack of access to resources influenced the
supervision processes.
The existence of adverse behaviours of supervisors could be deemed unprofessional.
Incidences of allocating tasks beyond the realms of the students’ knowledge and capabilities
are examples of abuse of power and manipulation of students. Students should be guided in a
structured, professional and ethical manner. Supervisors should set aside time for supervision,

14
ensure regular and well-structured sessions with students and ensure that both the student and
supervisor are prepared for each session.
This article highlighted the coping mechanisms of students when faced with a lack of or poor
supervision practices. Across all three cases, students were unintentionally and unwittingly
placed in situations of risk, either by exposure to poor supervision practices or a lack of
supervision. While it may be argued that resiliency and adaptation are natural inclinations to
survive in environments of risk (Masten 2014, Van Breda 2018), the requirements of the
profession are clear, that students are required to be supervised on all professional tasks. The
factors of resiliency and coping mechanisms are outweighed by factors of litigation and
unprofessionalism.
The supervision relationship is critical to creating a safe educative context to nurture the
student’s professional development (Unguru and Sandu 2018). Similarly the supervisory
relationship also advances the students’ professional and personal values and skills (Unguru
and Sandu 2018). Furthermore, factors of supervisor’s workloads, contextual factors pertaining
to the agency and supervisory styles are all critical considerations in a wider scale of research.
The relationship between the staffing structure and the behaviour of the student supervisor
could not be conclusively established and is an area for further research.
Supervisors should be aware of their shortcomings, reach out to peers when they recognise
their shortcomings and engage in continuous professional development to build their capacity
to supervise effectively.
References
Babbie, E.
2011
:
Introduction to social research. 5th ed. Brazil:
Wadsworth Cengage Publishing.
Bennet, S., Mohr, J., Deal, K. H., and
Hwang, J.
2013
:
Supervisor attachment, supervisory working
alliance, and affect in social work field
instruction. Research on Social Work Practice,
23, 199.
Beverley, A, and Worsely, A.
2007
:
Learning & Teaching in social work practice.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

15
Bless, C, Higson-Smith, C, and Sithole,
S.L.
2013
:
Fundamentals of social research methods: An
African perspective. 5th ed. Lusaka, Zambia:
Juta and Co Ltd.
Bogo, M, Globerman, J, and Sussman, T.
2004
:
Field instructor competence in group
supervision: students' views. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work 24 (1/2):199-216.
Botha, N. J.
2002
:
Supervision and consultation in social work.
Bloemfontein: Drufoma.
Budeli, J.
2018
:
Supervision during social work fieldwork
practice: A case of the University of Venda. In
Issues around aligning theory, research and
practice in social work education, edited by
A.L. Shokane, J.C. Makhubele and L.V. Blitz.
Cape Town: AOSIS.
Carroll, M.
2010
:
Supervision: Critical reflection for
transformational learning (part 2). In The
Clinical Supervisor 29 (1):1-19.
CHE.
2016
:
Bachelor of Social Work project (2013-2014):
National review for the re-accreditation of
programmes. Pretoria: Council on Higher
Education.
CHE.
2017
:
Decolonising the curriculum: stimulating
debate. In Speaking CHE. Pretoria: Council on
Higher Education.
Doel, M, Shardlow, S, Sawdon, C., and
Sawdon, D.
1996
:
Teaching social work practice. Aldershot:
Arena, Ashgate Publishing
Dykes, G., and Green, S.
2015
:
Learning profiles of social work students: Who
are you and how should this influence my
teaching? Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk
50/4 (8).
Creswell, J.W.
2012
:
Educational research: Planning, conducting,
and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Engelbrecht, L.K.
2002
:
‘n Maatskaplike ontwikkelingsgerigte
perspektief op supervisie aan
maatskaplikewerkstudente by
opleidingsinstansies in Suid-Afrika (A social
development perspective on supervision of
social work students at training institutions in
South Africa). DPhil, Stellenbosch University.
Engelbrecht, L. K.
2014
:
Fundamental aspects of supervision. In L. K.
Engelbrecht (Ed.), Management and
supervision of social workers: Issues and
challenges within a social development
paradigm. United Kingdom: Cengage
Learning: 124-142

16
Flyvbjerg, B.C.
2011
:
Case Study. In Handbook of qualitative
research, edited by N.K Denzin and Y.S
Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Gardiner, D.
1989
:
The anatomy of supervision: Developing
learning and professional competence for
social work students. Bury St Edmonds: The
Society for Research into Higher Education
Open University Press.
Horn, R.
2012
:
Researching and writing dissertations: a
complete guide for business and management
students. London: Chartered Institute of
Personanel and Development (CIPD).
Jasper, C., and Field, P.
2016
:
An active conversation each week in
supervision: Practice educator experiences of
the professional capabilities framework and
holistic assessment. British Journal of Social
Work 46:1636-1653.
Kiser, P. M.
2016
:
The human service internship: Getting the most
from your experience. 4th ed. United States:
Cengage Learning.
Kourgiantakis, T, Sewell, K.M., and
Bogo, M.
2018
:
The importance of feedback in preparing social
work students for field education. Clinical
Social Work Journal 46 / 2018 (Online 04
August 2018):1-10.
Jones, S.
2009
:
Critical learning for social work students.
Edited by J Parker and G Bradley. Glasgow:
Learning matters.
Levitt, H.M., Bamberg, M,,Creswell,
J.W., Frost, D.M., Josselson, R., and
Suárez-Orozco, S.
2018
:
Reporting standards for qualitative primary,
qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods
research in psychology: The APA publications
and communications board task force report.
American Psychologist 73 (1):26-46.
Lincoln, Y, and Guba, E.
1985
:
Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Manathunga, C.
2005
:
The development of research supervision:
'Turning the light on a private space'.
International Journal for Academic
Development 10 (1):17-30.
Masten, A. S.
2014
:
Ordinary magic: Resilience in development.
New York: Guilford Publications.
Mathews, I., Simpson, D., and Crawford,
K.
2014
:
Your social work practice placement from start
to finish. London: SAGE.
McSweeney, F, and Williams, D.
2018
:
Social care students’ learning in the practice
placement in Ireland. Social Work

17
Education:1-16. DOI:
10.1080/02615479.2018.1450374.
Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J. and DeJong,
C.R.
2011
:
Applied social research: a tool for human
sciences. 8th ed. Brazil: Brooks/Cole Centage
Learning.
Nadesan, V.S.
2019
:
A systems analysis of field instruction in social
work education. Doctor Litterarum Et
Philosophiae Full published thesis,
Department of Social Work, University of
Johannesburg.
Ncube, M.E.
2019
:
Conceptualising social development
supervision in social work. Indian Journal of
Social Work 80 (1):31-46. doi:
DOI:10.32444/IJSW.2018.80.1.31-46
Parker, J.
2006
:
Effective practice learning in social work.
Exeter, UK: Learning matters.
Ross, E., and Ncube, M. E.
2018
:
Student social workers' experiences of
supervision. Indian Journal of Social Work,
79(1), 31-54.
Royse, D, Dhooper, S.S. and Rompf, E.L.
2012
:
Field instruction: A guide for social work
students (updated edition). 6th ed. New York:
Pearson Education.
Rule, P., and John, V.
2011
:
Your guide to case study research. Pretoria:
Van Schaik Publishers.
SACSSP.
2006
:
Policy guidelines for course of conduct, code of
ethics and the rules for social workers.
Pretoria: SACSSP.
Saldaña, J.
2009
:
The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
London: Sage.
Scragg, T.
2013
:
Working wth your manager. In Reflective
practice in social work, edited by C Knott and
T Scragg, 129-143. California:
SAGE/Learning Matters.
Sheafor, B.W., and Horejsi, C.R.
2008
:
Techniques and guidelines for social work
practice. 8th ed. New York: Pearson Education
Inc.
Simpson, B., and Raniga, T.
2014
:
Student supervision. In Management and
supervision of social workers: Issues and
challenges within a social development
paradigm, edited by L.K. Engelbrecht, 174-
196. Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning
Struwig, F.W., and Stead, G.B
2001
:
Planning, designing and reporting research.
Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.

18
Strydom, H.
2015
:
Sampling in the quantitative paradigm. In
Research at grass roots: for the social sciences
and human services professions, 4th ed., edited
by A.S. De Vos, H Strydom, C. B. Fouché and
C.S.L Delport. Hatfield: Van Schaik
Publishers: 222-235.
Unguru, E., and Sandu, A.
2018
:
Normative and institutional frameworks for the
functioning of supervision in social work.
Revista Românească pentru Educaţie
Multidimensională, 10(2), 69-87. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/47
Valentinov, V.
2012
:
System-Environment Relations in the theories
of open and autopoietic systems: Implications
for critical systems thinking. Systemic Practice
& Action Research Vol 25, 537-542.
Van Breda, A.D.
2018
:
A critical review of resilience theory and its
relevance for social work. Social Work/
Maatskaplikewerk 54 (1):1-18.
Wilson, S.J.
1981
:
Field instruction: Techniques for supervisors.
London: Collier MacMillan Publishers.
Zeira, A, and Schiff, M.
2010
:
Testing group supervision in fieldwork training
for social work students. Research on Social
Work Practice 20:427.