Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners

Abstract

The study examines the demanding role of field supervisors in the Bachelor of Community Development program, an adaptation of social work field education, at an urban University in South Africa. Using qualitative interviews with nine supervisors of third-year and honors students, the research highlights challenges such as inadequate training and insufficient resources. Through a systems theory lens, the study underscores the importance of effective communication in field instruction. Recommendations include implementing comprehensive training programs for supervisors to enhance their skills and capabilities, addressing the significant but often overlooked challenges they face.

Full text

Supervision Challenges in the Training
Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Volume 15.1|Spring 2025| General Scholarship| ©April 2025| alswe@simmons.edu
Author(s)
Zainab Cader, MA
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Mpumelelo E. Ncube, PhD
Social Work Dept, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Abstract
The study examines the demanding role of eld supervisors in the Bachelor of
Community Development program, an adaptation of social work eld education,
at an urban University in South Africa. Using qualitative interviews with nine
supervisors of third-year and honors students, the research highlights challenges such
as inadequate training and insufcient resources. Through a systems theory lens, the
study underscores the importance of effective communication in eld instruction.
Recommendations include implementing comprehensive training programs for
supervisors to enhance their skills and capabilities, addressing the signicant but often
overlooked challenges they face.
Keywords: eld instruction; supervision; community development and leadership;
training
Background
Effective community development in South Africa is acknowledged as a fundamental
pillar of national progress (Hart, 2012). Furthermore, Quiroz-Niño and Murga-
Menoyo (2017) argued that the Social Solidarity Economy framework promotes the
development of learning and teaching processes tied to community development,
which occur across various social, workplace, and cultural interactions within
ecosystems to meet basic needs and uphold human rights. As such, South Africa
embarked on the path of professionalizing the practice of community development,
starting with developing academic programs. Despite the growing number of qualied

2
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
community development workers produced annually by institutions offering this
program, there is a scarcity of literature on the education of community development
students. This also includes limited knowledge on the challenges experienced by
eld supervisors in this eld. Cobigo et al. (2016) postulated that a community can be
delineated as a collective of individuals possessing diverse attributes who maintain
social connections and may coexist in proximity (Cobigo et al, 2016).
While some communities exhibit afuence, others require interventions to address
their needs, as outlined by Reisch (2012). Community interventions have demonstrated
effectiveness in mitigating poverty and inequality (Nel, 2009). The escalating adoption
of community interventions has engendered an augmented demand for community
development workers. In response to this need, an urban University in South Africa
established the Bachelor of Community Development and Leadership (BCDL)
program. This academic program is modeled after a Bachelor of Social Work degree
(BSW) program, except in duration. While BSW is a four-year program in South Africa,
BCDL has a three-year duration. Some universities in Africa, Europe, and North
America offer three-year social work degree programs, as is the case with BCDL in this
university. In Europe, the Bologna Declaration standardizes higher education degree
structures, including social work, by requiring a minimum of 180 credits or three years
for a bachelor’s degree to promote consistency and compatibility (Campanini, 2020).
In most cases, social work training is regulated by statutory bodies or government
departments, such as the South African Council for Social Service Professions
(SACSSP), the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) in the United States, and the
Social Workers Board (SWB) in Singapore. However, although the SACSSP began the
process of establishing a board for the training of community development workers,
this process has yet to be nalized.
BCDL aspires to cultivate community leaders. The program has a vertical articulation
to an honors program in Community Development and Leadership or other cognate
elds. It comprises two integral components: a theoretical segment and a practical
facet, often referred to as eld instruction (FI).
The FI program provides learners with a valuable opportunity to apply newly acquired
theories and skills within a workplace environment or one that closely resembles the
professional workplace (Auslander & Rosenne, 2016; Baikady et al., 2022; Kaiser, 2016).
This program places a strong emphasis on the integration of skills, ethical conduct,
and professionalism throughout the eld instruction process (Trevithick, 2001). Ncube
(2019), as well as Ross and Ncube (2018) and Kaiser (2016), elucidated that this process
is overseen by seasoned eld educators employed by the educational institution.
These eld educators collaborate with students, eld supervisors, placement agencies,
educational institutions, and the client service user system, all with the primary aim of
equipping students with high-quality training for community development (Auslander

3
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
& Rosenne, 2016).
As indicated earlier, Ncube (2019) asserted that FI is not unique to the BCDL program
but has been adapted from social work and other applied sciences programs. He
further asserted that it represents the distinctive contribution of social work to the
body of knowledge and practice in the realm of applied social science programs,
including BCDL (Ncube, 2019). The role of eld educators is substantial, given their
pivotal responsibility for shaping the development of students. Field supervisors
are thus a critical component of the eld instruction program, as they engage with
students where practical knowledge is paramount. They serve as gatekeepers,
determining the students’ readiness for professional practice (Ross & Ncube, 2018).
In this regard, they play a role akin to that of superheroes or ordinary individuals
with exceptional abilities (Coogan, 2009). Similar to superheroes, supervisors are
expected to achieve remarkable results. However, a pertinent question arises: Are eld
educators adequately prepared for these formidable responsibilities?
In the context of this inquiry, the BCDL program’s eld supervisors are individuals
who possess bachelors’ qualications in either community development or social work
and bring with them a wealth of experience in the realm of community development.
The selection of these supervisors is based on a careful evaluation of their suitability
and credentials. Additionally, the educational institution responsible for overseeing
the program provides supplementary training to enhance the capabilities of these
supervisors, enabling them to guide and mentor students within the program
effectively.
This study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the training and support
mechanisms provided and their subsequent impact on the quality of supervision
extended to the students. The primary focus of this research was to explore the
challenges and training needs of eld supervisors in the BCDL program at an urban
university in South Africa. Its objectives were to explore the perceptions of supervisors
on their training and support needs related to their supervisory role, to investigate the
supervision challenges and coping strategies of eld supervisors, and to contribute
to the body of knowledge on eld instruction in community development. Given the
relatively recent establishment of this program, in 2010, at this institution, and the
scarcity of comparable programs nationwide, the available information pertaining to
eld instruction within the BCDL program is notably limited.
The study employed a systems theory framework to examine and analyze FI. Within
this framework, FI is conceptualized as a system comprising various interconnected
subsystems, namely the agency, educational institution, student, and supervisor
(Dimo, 2013). Applying systems theory to FI posits that there exists a continuous and
dynamic interaction between the overarching system and its constituent subsystems

4
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
(Payne, 2005). The functionality of the system hinges on the ability of these subsystems
to collaborate effectively (Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2009). In the context of this study, the
FI system and its subsystems share a common objective, which is the cultivation of
procient and high-caliber community development workers.
Methodology
A qualitative research approach was employed to collect in-depth data on the training
needs of eld supervisors using participant narratives in their context. Employing
a descriptive research design (Bless et al., 2013), the study explored and explained
specic concepts, offering exibility to identify previously unexplored phenomena.
Data Presentation and Discussion
Demographics
(See Table 1). Six of the nine participants were female and three were male. Gender
did not signicantly affect the study’s outcome and is noted only for context. All
participants were university graduates with community work experience. Eight
were qualied community development workers, and one had a social work degree.
Each had at least one year of experience supervising students. However, none had
a formal qualication in supervision. These ndings align with Engelbrecht’s (2010)
South African case study, in which none of the participants had formal supervision
qualications. The study explored supervisor working conditions, supervision
training, and supervision functions.
4
Table 1
Demographic Profile of Participants
Qualification Group supervised No. of years
supervising Gender Age
Participant 1 CDL Honors 3rd-year 2 F 20-30
Participant 2 CDL Honors 3rd-year 2 F 20-30
Participant 3 CDL Honors Honors 1 F 20-30
Participant 4 CDL Honors Honors 3 F 30-40
Participant 5 BSW Honors 4 M 20-30
Participant 6 CDL Honors 3rd-year 4 M 20-30
Participant 7 CDL Honors Honors 2 M 30-40
Participant 8 CDL Honors 3rd-year 3 F 20-30
Participant 9 CDL Honors Honors 1 F 30-40
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted thematic analysis on transcriptions of audio-recorded virtual
interviews. Following Clarke and Braun’s (2017) six-step process, this involved becoming
familiar with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes,
defining and naming themes, and finally, producing the report.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical risks were carefully considered due to the involvement of human participants. Data
were treated confidentially, using pseudonyms, and participants' safety was prioritized to
prevent harm. Arrangements were made with Sophiatown Counselling Centre for therapeutic
intervention if needed. The study received ethical clearance from the university's Ethics
Committee.
Limitations
The study faced limitations, including the inability to conduct face-to-face interviews due to
COVID-19, but this did not affect data quality. Potential bias from respondents' university
affiliation was addressed with careful follow-up questions. Although not all field supervisors
participated, the results are generalizable within that specific population, as the participants
fairly represented the overall group.
Results
While there were points of convergence among participants, there were also disparities in the
viewpoints held by field supervisors. A meticulous examination of the data led to the
identification of the following distinct themes: perceptions of participants on the training

5
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted thematic analysis on transcriptions of audio-recorded
virtual interviews. Following Clarke and Braun’s (2017) six-step process, this involved
becoming familiar with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes,
reviewing themes, dening and naming themes, and nally, producing the report.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical risks were carefully considered due to the involvement of human participants.
Data were treated condentially, using pseudonyms, and participants’ safety was
prioritized to prevent harm. Arrangements were made with Sophiatown Counselling
Centre for therapeutic intervention if needed. The study received ethical clearance
from the university’s Ethics Committee.
Limitations
The study faced limitations, including the inability to conduct face-to-face interviews
due to COVID-19, but this did not affect data quality. Potential bias from respondents’
university afliation was addressed with careful follow-up questions. Although not
all eld supervisors participated, the results are generalizable within that specic
population, as the participants fairly represented the overall group.
Results
While there were points of convergence among participants, there were also disparities
in the viewpoints held by eld supervisors. A meticulous examination of the data led
to the identication of the following distinct themes: perceptions of participants on
the training received, challenges and coping mechanisms for eld supervisors, and
challenges with the education institution.
Perceptions of Participants on the Training Received
Participants shared their views on the training they received for supervisory roles
as mandated by their educational institution. All had completed an introductory
supervision module during their undergraduate studies and underwent specic
training provided by the institution. Despite these opportunities, participants
expressed dissatisfaction with the adequacy of their training. This aligns with Beddoe
et al.’s (2016) study across 14 countries, where over half found supervision training
lacking, and 64% desired formal qualications. Similarly, Bradley et al. (2010) and
Engelbrecht (2010) noted a lack of formal training for supervision in South Africa.

6
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Opinions varied on training efcacy, with two participants nding it adequate
for supervision objectives, while others found it insufcient. Engelbrecht (2013)
emphasized that the content of supervision training greatly impacts supervisor quality
and skills. Most participants felt their training did not enhance their supervisory skills.
One reported,
It was merely a workshop on what we are expected to do as supervisors this
year. It gave us information on how to refer students if they have certain issues. I
was expecting more information on how to mark reports.
Hair (2013) stated that supervision training is required for supervisors to provide
effective services. The ndings suggest that even though all supervisors went through
the same training provided by the university, they had different perceptions of what
constitutes training. They also had different opinions on the quality of the training
they received. One participant described the training as “extensive” while two others
dened it as insufcient. Another participant felt that the training was ambiguous
regarding supervision roles. The responses below have been extracted from the data:
At the beginning of the year, all supervisors received extensive training.
There was no formal training other than a workshop that merely explained
details of referring students and not really practical skills of supervision.
I can’t really say there was any training, I had engagements with people from the
university and the administrators, but I didn’t have any training.
The data question the efcacy of the training program offered by the institution.
Supervisors have three different supervisory functions: administration, support, and
education (Ross & Ncube, 2018). The data collected in the study indicate that, due to
inadequate training, supervisors felt incompetent in some of the functions:
I think we should have more training on the content of the course.
I feel that we should be having more training on what we are expected to do.
Inadequate preparation can hinder supervisors from fullling their responsibilities
effectively, and can create variability in competency levels, which affects the alignment
of collective objectives. Engelbrecht (2010) emphasized the need for standardized,
accredited, and accessible supervision training, advocating for collaboration between
organizations and educational institutions to develop such training. This training
should be consistently available to meet supervisors’ needs.
This study views eld instruction (FI) as a system with subsystems, including the
agency, learning institution, supervisor, and student (Nadesan, 2020). Effective
functioning of this system requires the combined effort of all subsystems (Wright,

7
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
2009). Ackoff (1971) described FI as a goal-seeking system that adapts to events to
achieve outcomes. The system aims to produce competent community development
practitioners through collaborative efforts. For effective eldwork education, role
players must work together to support students’ academic progress and serve
vulnerable users (Carelse & Poggenpoel, 2016). The study’s data reveal varied opinions
on the training’s efcacy among eld educators, which could impact other subsystems,
including student progression and service quality.
Challenges and Coping Mechanisms for Field Supervisors
The researcher sought to reect on the challenges and coping mechanisms faced by
supervisors in the supervisory duties. The data reveal that while there are areas of
satisfactory performance in their duties, they also grapple with numerous challenges
stemming from various subsystems of the FI supersystem, such as the educational
institution, agency, and students:
We need to get access cards to the university premises so that when we get to
campus, we don’t waste time having to sign in and sometimes stand in the queue
to get in. This is time-consuming.
The communication between the agency and the university is bad, there are so
many things that are misinterpreted. At one time, students went to the agency
and were told that they were not expected on that day and they should come
back on another day. In the meantime, the university was expecting them to
attend classes or submit reports on that day.
A challenge many students face is that the agency has unrealistic expectations of them.
The challenges that the agency wants students to address are far beyond the capacity
of the students.
I think we need more training as supervisors because we are dealing with
students that are dealing with so much, so I feel like there has been training but
not at a standard in which I feel I could fully support the students.
The interplay of subsystems within a broader system, as illuminated by systems
theory, highlights the signicance of each component’s impact on overall functionality.
Consequently, when multiple subsystems encounter adverse effects, achieving the
primary objectives of the system can prove challenging. A study by Ross and Ncube
(2018) delved into this dynamic, with 63.5% of students identifying feedback loops as
pivotal for enhancing goal attainment. Within the context of this study, looking at the
development of competent community development practitioners, certain subsystems
may not contribute effectively to this overarching goal. The research ndings indicate
that some supervisors underwent training specically aimed at cultivating feedback
loops, as evident from the provided excerpt:

8
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
The training includes a lot of things on how a supervisor goes about marking
students’ reports. It also indicated how supervisors are expected to assist their
students to solve problems that might arise during their engagements with the
community and how they need to take necessary precautions. So, these are the
things that we discussed including communication skills and other relevant
skills.
The comments align with Jurich and Myers-Bowman (1998) and Payne (2005), who
described supervision as a circular process where input is transformed into output
and then reintroduced as input. Adequate training for supervisors is crucial for
maintaining quality, but Engelbrecht (2013) noted that the quality of supervision
also depends on the supervisors’ resilience. Resilient supervisors better facilitate
student growth, as supported by Carelse and Poggenpoel (2016), who highlighted
that the challenges faced by supervisors affect students’ academic performance.
This emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of these subsystems.
Outlined below are the various subsystems that emerged from the data, as aligned
with systems theory, which serves as the theoretical lens for this study.
Challenges with the Education Institution Subsystem
The education institution, which is the employer of the supervisors as well as the
education service provider to the students, plays a big role in FI. Participants described
having challenges such as communication and other logistical challenges relating to
the institution. Below is one extract from the data:
The university should make venues readily accessible for supervisors. At times
you nd supervisors running their sessions outside the building due to the
inaccessibility thereof. Thus, if they can make venues readily accessible, it would
be highly benecial for the supervisory process.
The issue of supervisors’ employment status highlights that they are often contract
employees lacking the privileges of permanent staff. Some participants sought ofcial
recognition to access university resources, such as libraries and equipment, which are
essential for their duties. As mentors (Ketner et al., 2017), supervisors face challenges
with venue access that can create a perception of underpreparedness and affect student
commitment. Supervision, being laborious and time-consuming (Ketner et al., 2017),
is further complicated by logistical issues. Participants felt that increased attention
to their role and status as adhoc university employess would resolve some of these
logistical problems.
The BCDL FI program supports supervisors through the Supervision Champion
Program. This initiative designates a Supervision Champion (SC) to oversee
supervisors’ work and ensure quality. SCs receive progress reports on students from

9
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
supervisors, allowing close monitoring of student development, with reports also
shared with the FI facilitator to address challenges. Testimonials from participants on
the SC role are included below:
The university is supportive since they have provided us with Supervision
Champions. They are the link between supervisors and the facilitators. They
quality-assure our monthly reports and give us feedback. It also helps us to
monitor student’s progress.
Yes, all supervisors submit progress reports, they report in relation to the
student’s growth and the session that they facilitate. Supervisors are required
to write feedback and send it to the Supervision Champion for each and every
contact they make with each student. Supervisors have about seven to ten
students and for each student they need to give the supervision champion a
report.
We submit monthly reports to the Supervision Champion where we discuss the
growth of each student and highlight any challenges they are facing. This helps
supervisors to monitor students easily and for the system to account for every
student.
In support of the comments, one other participant intimated that facilitators are
available when there are challenges. WhatsApp was used as a platform for immediate
correspondence. In contrast, Holosko and Skinner (2015) noted that there is usually
a poor connection between the learning institution and supervisors. Although this
challenge appears to have been mitigated by the measures described above, some
participants stated that communication needed further improvement so that issues
needing attention do not fall through the cracks. Below are some comments from
participants reecting on this theme:
I think the link between the supervisor, institution, and student is very
important. The quality of supervision depends on those relationships. So, if
there are meetings between these three parties, we can all clarify our roles. With
regular meetings, it would be easier to identify gaps in the Field Instruction
program.
The contact person said that the student was not coming to the agency, but
nothing was done. I only found out about it at the end of the year when the
student had already passed. I felt like my opinion didn’t really matter because
the student passed regardless of what I said to the facilitators.
The sentiments expressed align with Carelse and Poggenpoel’s (2016) study, which
highlighted the need for better coordination among the university, agency, and
supervisors to meet academic requirements. Poor communication between these

10
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
stakeholders can undermine the FI system’s effectiveness. A program coordinator
oversees student submissions during the summative assessment phase, and feedback
from supervisors or agency contacts is integrated into the student’s Portfolio
of Evidence. Perceptions that a supervisor’s report was ignored may indicate a
communication breakdown in the assessment process.
Additionally, supervisors faced challenges in meeting the university’s expectations,
nding them unclear and unmeasurable. The research ndings include excerpts that
support this observation:
To be able to provide the students with the best possible supervision, supervisors
need to fully understand what is expected of them by the university, including
the objectives of the program and how to measure those objectives.
The contract clearly outlined the expectations for both students and supervisors.
However, there was a challenge in determining the most effective way to oversee
and assess compliance with those expectations.
The Agency Subsystem
To enhance the supervision practice and create a signicant benet for the students,
some participants felt that supervisors should spend time observing students at the
agency to improve the FI processes. This was largely with reference to the externally
contracted supervisors who have no afliation with the agency in which the
supervisees are placed.
I think it would also be helpful if the supervisor can spend one day with the
student to experience what they’re experiencing in the community.
The communication between the agency and the university is bad, there are so
many things that are misinterpreted. At one time, students went to the agency
and were told that they were not expected on that day and they should come
back on another day. In the meantime, the university was expecting them to
attend classes or submit reports on that day.
As a supervisor, it’s important that you contact the agencies to nd out what is
the progress of the students.
The above extracts reect the nature of the relationship between the agency and
supervisors. The lack of communication between the parties resulted in agencies
misunderstanding their roles and the roles of the student. Thus, agencies ended up
having unrealistic expectations of students, which undermined the objectives of the
placement. The extracts below indicate the implications of such misunderstandings:
Many students grapple with the issue of unrealistic expectations imposed by the

11
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
agency. At times, the challenges presented by the agency surpass the students’
capabilities, posing a signicant hurdle for them.
Some agencies do not understand what the purpose or need for a community
developer is.
Some agencies were not suitable as placements for community development
practicums, as many students were assigned to schools that did not have the
facilities to put a project in place.
Carelse and Poggenpoel (2016) noted that achieving learning outcomes is difcult
when placement requirements differ signicantly from academic standards. To
address this, Nadesan (2020) suggested prescreening agencies before student
placements. The research ndings reveal a lack of effective feedback loops between
the agency and the university, where input and output are cycled for continuous
improvement (Jurich & Myers-Bowman, 1998; Payne, 2005). Poor collaboration
between the university and agencies, as noted by Carelse and Poggenpoel (2016),
affects supervision quality. Nadesan (2020) also highlighted the need for better
communication before placements. Additionally, one participant felt the agency could
improve the system, as reected in the following extract: “The agency observes how
the student works with the community and is therefore in a better position to monitor
the students’ progress and give adequate and constructive feedback to the university.”
Agencies often have limited resources, which affects how much they can offer students
during their placements: “I know that this institution has great difculty nding
agencies that will agree to be part of the Field Instruction and most of these agencies
have very limited funding.”
According to Nadesan (2020), “the availability of suitable resources is integral to
the proper functioning of the FI system, as these provide placement opportunities
for students to implement praxis” (p. 13). As such, limited resources in the form
of nances to employ supervisors, or agencies with inadequate resources to
accommodate the needs of the students, could hinder the proper functioning of the FI
system.
The Student Subsystem
Kadushin and Harkness (2014) and Ketner et al. (2017) argued that effective
supervision involves a balance of administration, education, and support. The
administrative function focuses on community projects and student interventions
aligning with agency mandates (Bogo & McKnight, 2006). The education function
involves teaching social work skills and reinforcing classroom theory (Kadushin &

12
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Harkness, 2014). Supportive supervision provides encouragement and referrals to help
students become independent practitioners (Bogo & McKnight, 2006). Participants
reported more challenges with the supportive and educational roles than with
administration.
Administrative Function
Data shows that training primarily addressed the administrative function, often
neglecting the educational and supportive roles. Ncube (2019) attributed this to limited
training in supervision. This nding supports Engelbrecht’s (2010) view that the
administrative function often overshadows education and support:
The training was mainly on the structure of the courses. It was also on what
is expected regarding the supervisor; what is also expected in terms of the
students’ participation and just going through the guide that students will
receive regarding the module.
The training of the supervisors should provide details on how to mark the
students’ reports and how to give feedback to help them improve their skills.
During the workshop, we did not get much training on marking of the reports
hence most of the supervisors were confused about how to do this.
Participants expressed that many students struggled with time management due to
the large volume of workload demands in the CDL Honors program. This is a view
also shared by Carelse and Poggenpoel (2016), who stated that poor time management
affected report submission, attendance of supervision sessions, and participation
in eldwork practice. A participant mentioned that time management was a huge
problem, as evidenced by the late submission of reports by most students:
In one month, the student adheres to the deadlines for report submissions,
while in the subsequent month, the student submits reports after the designated
timeframe.
A considerable number of students encountered difculties attending campus-
based supervision sessions, prompting their preference for group supervision.
Their challenges included nancial constraints for transportation and scheduling
conicts between supervision sessions and repeat modules.
One participant noted that students lacked resources like laptops and data coverage,
hindering their ability to complete reports. Financial difculties were lessened when
students had access to university internet and computer labs. Some supervisors found
marking challenging due to the absence of rubrics and insufcient feedback from FI
facilitators and coordinators. Here are some of the comments.:
Some students don’t have laptops to type their reports, so they try to hand-write

13
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
their reports which is not in accordance with the university standards.
My issue revolved around students who submitted their reports after the
deadline, often accompanied by excuses such as laptop malfunctions or
difculties in sending reports due to internet connectivity issues.
Marking students’ reports was a challenge for me because you can’t just say this
is right or wrong. I must try to guide the student so that they know what they
can improve on or what they can do differently. You needed to be adequately
trained and assisted by a clear rubric.
The university says they don’t want you to comment “good” on reports, but they
haven’t given us any direction on how to mark reports.
I’m very organized so that’s how I dealt with challenges. I set aside time for
marking and supervision. It was just about aligning it with the student’s needs at
that point.
I nd marking easy since I know that the students are struggling with time
management, so they send reports very late but once I receive them, I quickly
mark them.
When faced with challenges from students, I engage in discussions with
supervisors to address performance issues. I strive to understand the nature
of the challenges and nd solutions. If improvement is not observed, I arrange
another meeting with the student to reinforce expectations. Should the
situation persist, I take the initiative to report to the department, prioritizing
communication with the student before involving the educational institution.
Engelbrecht (2010) advocated against a xation on one supervision function, such as
the administrative function, that may preoccupy supervisors. Instead, all supervision
functions should be employed to optimize the efcacy of the supervision practice.
Educational Function
Bara (2022), and Kadushin and Harkness (2014) posited that the educational function
of supervision calls on the supervisor to assist the supervisee in gaining up-to-date
knowledge on case evaluation methods, innovative case types, and addressing of
ethical concerns. The educational function aims to enhance supervisees’ training
professionally, recognize their knowledge and skills, full the ongoing training needs,
and assess the outcomes following supervision of the workers. In this way, supervisors
are crucial in creating effective practitioners because of the constructive criticism that

14
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
they can provide to students (Engelbrecht, 2004; Lee & Cashwell, 2002). Below are
some of the excerpts relating to this theme:
There is a need for additional training for us as supervisors. Dealing with
students who have diverse challenges requires a higher level of expertise.
Although we have participated in a training program related to our
responsibilities, it did not reach a standard where I could adequately support
students in various supervision functions, including the educational aspect.
I always wonder whether I am doing a good job as a supervisor in comparison to
other supervisors.
I am concerned about whether the students are getting the same amount of
knowledge and support from different supervisors.
What became evident from various participants is that they did not immediately
distinguish the educational function as part of the execution of their duties. As such,
it became difcult for them to clearly indicate what they were doing relating to the
educational function. While this is a gap in the knowledge of participants, it does not
therefore mean that they were not discharging their educational function. It may,
however, suggest that if they were executing the educational function, they did so
unaware of the name of the function. This was apparent when asked about whether
they assisted students on ethical issues, skills, and theory integration in their reports.
Their feedback indicated that they assisted students beyond the topics covered in
training:
I have individual sessions one week, and the following week I have group
sessions. During the individual sessions, I clarify whatever challenge the
students may have. Normally I would have already discussed this with them
during the week via WhatsApp calls. I have an open-door policy when it
comes to WhatsApp communication. I tell them you can text me or write to me
whenever you have any problem. That provides me with the opportunity to give
feedback and seek clarity when I’m marking their reports.
I think the link between the supervisor, institution, and student is very
important. The quality of supervision depends on those relationships. So, if
there are meetings between these three parties, we can all clarify our roles. With
regular meetings, it would be easier to identify gaps in the Field Instruction
program.
This pertains to systems theory, as the subsystems consistently interact. FI, operating
as an open system, demonstrates adaptability, which Ackoff (1971) dened as the
system’s capability to modify itself or its environment, and is crucial. This study’s
results indicates that a system’s adaptability enhances the likelihood of achieving FI’s

15
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
goals.
Supportive Function
The supportive function focuses on providing students with emotional support
(Kadushin & Harkness, 2014). Supervisors play a role in providing support in
challenging situations, and helping the student to release emotional energy, so the
student can continue working (Ross & Ncube, 2018). Ketner et al. (2017) described
supervision as a protective factor which provides students with support against
burnout. Below are some excerpts from the data in this regard:
We are here to give students support, that’s why the relationship between the
supervisor and the supervisee is very important.
It is my responsibility as a supervisor to be observant of my students and
provide support where I feel that performance could be affected by issues not
related to their work.
The challenge that I have since picked is that students who need support do not
openly engage the supervisor. Students need to fully appreciate the role of the
supervisor and use it to their benet.
Engelbrecht (2004) argued that the supportive function in supervision is linked to
the administrative and educational functions, and its effectiveness depends on these
areas. The tone of the supervisory relationship also affects support quality: a positive
relationship encourages openness, while a hostile one fosters animosity. Engelbrecht
(2004) emphasized that supervision requires mutual commitment from both
supervisor and student, characterized by a reciprocal, antidiscriminatory relationship
(Department of Social Development (DSD) & South African Council for Social Service
Professions (SACSSP), 2012).
The study found that that students were not fully taking advantage of the support
offered by their supervisors. This could indicate a gap in understanding the role
of supervision or a lack of awareness of its benets. Secondly, the mention of
“ineffective” supervisory support points to a possible mismatch between student
expectations and the actual supervisory support provided. This could imply that while
supervision is available, it may not be tailored to meet student needs. Thirdly, the lack
of “leveraging” supervisory support could be due to barriers such as communication
issues, student apprehension, or limited rapport between supervisors and students.
Identifying these barriers could inform ways to enhance the supervisory relationship.
Lastly, supervisors may need to communicate the purpose and benets of the support
function more explicitly, perhaps by setting clearer expectations or fostering a more
open environment for support.

16
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Supportive supervision helps students manage placement stresses, but is not a
substitute for therapy (Nadesan, 2020). This implies that where a need for a therapeutic
intervention is identied, the supervisor, in collaboration with the student, needs to
make an appropriate referral. A referral is necessitated by the fact that, even though a
supervisor may be a competent counselor, for ethical reasons they may not embark on
a dual relationship with the student.
Conclusions
The research, guided by systems theory, explored eld supervisors’ challenges and
training needs in the Bachelor of Community Development program. This paper
begins by drawing parallels between the Bachelor of Social Work and the Bachelor of
Community Development, two closely aligned programs. Both programs, in line with
global standards for social work education (Ioakimidis & Sookraj, 2021), emphasize
eld education as their signature pedagogy, managed by eld educators employed by
the university. Students are placed in social welfare organizations to apply theoretical
knowledge to real-world situations involving service users at micro, mezzo, and
macro levels of practice. Field supervisors guide them in bridging theory and practice,
ensuring adherence to professional standards in their interaction with social welfare
organizations and the service users. Key ndings indicate that while supervisors held
relevant degree qualications and received initial training from the university upon
signing supervision contracts, these facts were insufcient for effective supervision.
Engelbrecht (2004) suggested that comprehensive, accessible training is needed for
supervisors. The Supervision Champion initiative within the FI program was seen as
benecial, providing support for supervision.
Challenges included insufcient training, limited campus access for supervisors,
and communication lapses between subsystems. Supervisors often relied on limited
knowledge, instincts, and feedback from Supervision Champions. Access issues could
be mitigated by a department member facilitating venue access. Communication
issues between supervisors and Supervision Champions affected system functioning,
with no clear coping mechanisms identied. Furthermore, training both supervisors
and students on effective utilization of supervision could improve the effectiveness
of supervision across all its functions. Supervisors might benet from skills in active
outreach and student engagement, while students may benet from orientation
sessions on how to use supervision effectively. In line with Nadesan’s (2020)
postulation, some agencies faced orientation and resource challenges, suggesting the
need for prescreening agencies. Overall, the FI system’s effectiveness depends on
the interplay of its subsystems: the institution, agency, student, and supervisor. The
ndings and conclusions from this study are valuable and transferable to social work
programs in South Africa and globally, wherever program structures share similarities.

17
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11),
661–671. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661
Auslander, G. K., & Rosenne, H. (2016). Data mining for social work students:
Teaching practice-based research in conjunction with a eld work placement.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 36(1), 52–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2016.1125731
Baikady, R., Nadesan, V., Sajid, S. M., & Rezaul Islam, M. (2022). Signature
pedagogy—A practice laboratory of social work education. In B. Rajendra, N.
Varoshni, S. M. Sajid, & M. Rezaul Islam (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of eld
work education in social work. Routledge.
Bara, A. (2022). Supervision in social work. PANGEEA, 21.
https://tinyurl.com/5ak7dzfw
Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M.-s. (2016). Towards an
international consensus on a research agenda for social work supervision: Report
on the rst survey of a Delphi study. British Journal of Social Work, 46(6), 1568–
1586. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcv110
Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C., & Sithole, S. L. (2013). Fundamentals of social research
methods: An African perspective (5th ed.). Juta and Company Ltd.
Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2006). Clinical supervision in social work. The Clinical
Supervisor, 24(1-2), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v24n01_04
Bradley, G., Engelbrecht, L. K., & Hojer, S. (2010). Supervision: A force for change—
Three stories told. International Social Work, 53(6), 773–790.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872809358401
Campanini, A. (2020). Social work education in Europe. In F. Kessl, W. Lorenz, H.-
U. Otto, & S. White (Eds.), European social work—A compendium (pp. 393-419).
Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Carelse, S., & Poggenpoel, L. (2016). Practitioners’ experiences of student supervision
in the Bachelor of Social Work degree. Southern African Journal of Social Work and
Social Development, 28(3), 251–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.25159/2415-5829/1833
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Cobigo, V., Martin, L., & Mcheimech, R. (2016). Understanding community. Canadian
Journal of Disability Studies, 5(4), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v5i4.318
Coogan, P. (2009). The denition of the superhero. In J. Heer & K. Worcester (Eds.), A
comics studies reader (pp. 77–93). University Press of Mississippi.
Department of Social Development (DSD) & South African Council for Social Service
Professions (SACSSP). (2012). Supervision framework for the social work profession.
Unpublished document, DSD and SACSSP.

18
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Dimo, P. M. (2013). Evaluation of eldwork practice in social work education at the University
of Limpopo (Turoop campus): Aligning theory and practice (Master’s thesis).
University of Limpopo.
Engelbrecht, L. K. (2004). Operationalising a competence model of supervision to
empower social workers and students in South Africa. Social Work/Maatskaplike
Werk, 40(2), 206–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.15270/40-2-344
Engelbrecht, L. (2010). Yesterday, today and tomorrow: Is social work supervision in
South Africa keeping up? Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 46(3), 324–342.
https://doi.org/10.15270/46-3-162
Engelbrecht, L. (2013). Social work supervision policies and frameworks: Playing notes
or making music? Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 49(4), 456–468.
https://doi.org/10.15270/49-3-34
Hair, H. J. (2013). The purpose and duration of supervision, and the training and
discipline of supervisors: What social workers say they need to provide effective
services. British Journal of Social Work, 43(8),1562–1588.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs071
Hart, C. S. (2012). Professionalisation of community development in South Africa:
Process, issues and achievements. Africanus, 42(2), 55–66.
https://tinyurl.com/ypa8d69y
Holosko, M., & Skinner, J. (2015). A call for eld coordination leadership to implement
the signature pedagogy. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(3),
275–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2015.1005519
Ioakimidis, V., & Sookraj, D. (2021). Global standards for social work education and
training. International Social Work, 64(2), 161–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020872821989799
Jurich, J. A., & Myers-Bowman, K. S. (1998). Systems theory and its application to
research on human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 72–87.
https://doi.org//10.1080/00224499809551918
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2014). Supervision in social work (5th ed.). Columbia
University Press.
Kaiser, P. M. (2016). The human service internship: Getting the most from your experience
(4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Ketner, M., Cooper-Bolinskey, D.. &VanCleave, D. (2017). The meaning and value of
supervision in social work eld education. Field Educator, 7(2), 1–18.
https://tinyurl.com/4w2be38s
Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. Jr. (2009). Understanding generalist practice (5th ed.).
Brooks/Cole.
Lee, R. W., & Cashwell, C. S. (2002). Ethical issues in counseling supervision: A
comparison of university and site supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 20(2), 91–
100. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v20n02_08

19
Supervision Challenges in the Training Of Community Development Work Practitioners
Nadesan, V. (2020). Social work supervision in a developing country. The Indian Journal
of Social Work, 81(3), 263–282. https://tinyurl.com/3t5czd22
Ncube, M. E. (2019). Conceptualising social development supervision in social work.
Indian Journal of Social Work, 80(1), 31–46. https://tinyurl.com/4xmu7p2t
Nel, H. (2009). An evaluation of a community leadership training program in Soweto.
Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 45(2), 140–153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15270/45-2-211
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Quiroz-Niño, C., & Murga-Menoyo, M. Á. (2017). Social and solidarity economy,
sustainable development goals, and community development: The mission of
adult education and training. Sustainability, 9(12), 2164.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122164
Reisch, M. (2012). Community interventions. In C. Glisson, C. Dulmus, & K. Sowers
(Eds.), Social work practice with groups, communities, and organizations: A foundation
of social work (pp. 81–121). Wiley.
Ross, E., & Ncube, M. E. (2018). Student social workers’ experiences of supervision.
Indian Journal of Social Work, 79(1), 31–54. https://tinyurl.com/3pkxpzjc
Trevithick, P. (2001). Social work skills: A practice handbook. Open University Press.
Wright, D. E. (2009). Thinking in systems: A primer. Earthscan.