Abstract
Summary
Field education is a key curriculum component in social work programmes. Students as well as researchers have identified this learning experience as central to the students’ transition to practice. This article reports on a qualitative study with the aim of analysing social work students’ narratives of their experiences during field education in order to elucidate their reasoning with regard to the challenges presented by unique clients and their contexts, along with their objectives set in the service user situation. The narratives of 23 social work students in Sweden describing a sum total of 46 problematic and unproblematic situations during field education were analysed, revealing circumstances that according to the students had either aggravated or facilitated professional action.
Findings
The experiences of being overwhelmed by emotions and of having too much latitude in the interpretation of principles and guidelines were experienced as aggravating circumstances, whereas having knowledge of legislation and clear guidelines to follow was experienced as facilitating client interaction and as providing a sense of security with the professional role. The analysis also revealed differing levels and scope of ambition with regard to the objectives set in the service user situation.
Applications
Our results demonstrate the importance of furthering students’ articulation of and active reflection on their interpretation of guidelines and legislation, and on their own setting of objectives specific to the individual cases and on how these objectives relate to the value base of social work.
Introduction
Field education, or practicum, is a key curriculum component in social work programmes and students identify this learning experience as central to their transition to practice (Gursansky & Le Sueur, 2012; Liu, Sun, & Andersson, 2013). Although researchers assign field education a central role in the training for social work students they have repeatedly discussed how to best help students integrate theory and practice, the type of knowledge relevant for professional practice, the importance of the supervisors’ time commitment and competence, and the goals of practice-based learning (Gursansky & Le Sueur, 2012; Liu et al., 2013).
Several researchers have pointed to the need for critically examining some of the assumptions underlying one of the main goals of field education, namely, the integration of theory and practice (cf. Gursansky & Le Sueur, 2012; Wilson & Kelly, 2010). Suggesting that the occurrence of such integration ‘tends to be assumed rather than demonstrated’, Gursansky and Le Sueur discuss both the meaning of this integration and the concrete implications it has for students in field education, and present a number of suggestions to enhance field education, including constant, reflective communication between universities and the field, to help students realise the connections between theory and practice (2012, p. 919).
With a focus on the challenge of setting and adequately assessing learning goals in field education, Regehr, Regehr, Leeson and Fusco (2002) have evaluated a model that encourages goal setting through a process of articulating both student self-evaluations and field instructor appraisal. In their explorative study high levels of agreement between students and instructors in the ranking of ‘skills from the concrete domains of practice’ (p. 160) were found. However, there was ‘[c]onsiderable disagreement in student and instructor rankings’ with regard to the learning goals of ‘dealing with resistance, ambivalence or conflict in the therapeutic relationship’, and in ‘the adherence to social work ethics’ (p. 62). The authors suggest that the low levels of disagreements on the latter goals may be related to the premise that these ‘deal more directly with personality styles or personal values of the students’, and that students therefore ‘will receive less feedback on these issues’ (p. 62).
We suggest, however, that the considerable levels of disagreement reported by Regehr et al. (2002) might be due to differing frames of evaluation between instructors and students, rather than being connected to students’ personality styles or personal values. When dealing with difficulties or challenges in the meetings with service users, the learning goals set by students may well pertain to lesser objectives than those set by a professional instructor or supervisor – albeit that both parties would refer to the same formulation. A student might assess the ability to conduct a difficult meeting without losing composure as having met the learning goal, whereas an instructor would relate successful performance in that same situation as pertaining not only to the student’s composure, but also to the objectives set for the service user and to social work ethics. The instructor’s frame of assessment would probably include additional objectives over and above the individual learning goals, namely in this case, the objectives set for professional action in the service user situation.
Therefore, it would be of interest to explore students’ experiences during field education in order to learn more about students reasoning when encountering challenges and difficulties in practice. This exploration to elucidate students’ reflections and reasoning with regard to the challenges presented by unique clients and their contexts during field education, and to their objectives set for professional action in the service user situation.
Aim
The aim of our study was to analyse social work students’ narratives of their experiences gained during field education in order to elucidate their reasoning with regard to unique clients and their contexts, and with regard to objectives set by students in the service user situation.
The context of the study – Social work education in Sweden
The ‘[d]evelopment of a strong welfare state [in Sweden] has been an important backdrop to the development of social work education as a response to the needs of the welfare state for educated and trained social workers’ (Soydan, 2001, p. 120). Because the ‘education has developed from a vocational, practice- oriented education program into a composite package of education programs driven by the requirements of the traditional academic system’ (Soydan, 2001, p. 120), the experiences of Swedish social work students with reference to their field practice are of interest to explore.
The Swedish social work education consists of seven semesters of 30 ECTS each. Each semester comprises 20 weeks. The first four semesters consist of required course work, and the fifth is a semester for field education. After the sixth semester, which includes writing a paper of 15 ECTS and required course work of 15 ECTS, the students can apply for a bachelor’s degree in social work. However, to earn a degree as a trained social worker, they also have to take a seventh semester (that is on second-cycle level) where they choose between specialised courses.
According to the curriculum students are expected, with supervision, to reflectively and critically apply their theoretical knowledge in practice during field education, and to independently carry out a set of tasks and assignments. Through this practice, they are expected to acquire the knowledge and skills important for continued education and to develop their future professional role and identity through critical and theory-based reflection.
The semester of field education affords the students with a range of opportunities to practice social work. Depending on the setting they will gain experiences of either casework in the exercise of public authority such as assessing client’s needs and rights to social support, or of counselling in positions where individual or group treatment would take place, or of work as social assistants supporting clients in their everyday life. Formal decisions on field practice settings are taken by the educational department for social work based on the relevance of the work place, the availability of competent placement supervisors, and on an agreement with the senior administrator at the work place.
The teachers involved in the semester of field education are placement supervisors in the field education settings, and educational supervisors, that is university lecturers. The placement supervisors, trained social workers, are responsible for support and guidance in the student’s day-to-day activities in the practice settings, and for assessing the student’s performance in practice. The students see their placement supervisors both regularly in scheduled meetings 1.5–2 h a week, and on an as-needs basis.
The educational supervisors are in contact with the students and the placement supervisors, respectively, at least three times during the semester: at the beginning, midterm, and at the conclusion of the term. Twice these contacts are made via phone, and at midterm the educational supervisor makes a personal visit at the field placement. The educational supervisors further give the students two written assignments during the semester in preparation for the conclusive seminars at the end of the term. The first assignment is to describe the different organisational and administrative levels of the setting of their own field education placement. The second is to write narratives where they are expected to describe and reflect on situations that have occurred during field education – one problematic and (at least) one unproblematic. These narratives form the basis of a collegial supervision during a seminar.
Methods and material
As part of the course requirements social work bachelor students at Umeå University were asked to write narratives at the conclusion of their semester of field education. In the narratives they were expected to describe and reflect on a problematic situation and (at least) one unproblematic situation that had occurred during field education, in order to explore and make sense of dilemmas, problematic situations, and particularities experienced in field education (cf. Noble, 2001). The questions were consciously chosen to have an open and broad character (problematic versus unproblematic). Thus, it was left to the students themselves to define and include whatever was experienced as such during their field education – whether concerning lack of ability or knowledge on their own part, lack of support from supervisors, ethical or value dilemmas, or something else. Two written narratives (one-half to one page each) were requested that responded to the following statements: ‘Describe one problematic situation that occurred during your field education’ and ‘Give one or more examples of situations or kinds of situations that you experienced as unproblematic.’ The statements were followed by some instructions on how to respond, that is: describe what made the situation problematic and how this influenced or affected their actions, and further to describe how they reached their decision to act in the chosen way and whether there had been alternatives to act differently. In relation to the unproblematic situations, they were also asked to describe why it was experienced as such, if there had been alternative ways of acting – and if so, how the choice was made between the alternatives.
It was assumed that the narratives would afford the researchers with examples, explicit or implicit, of the students’ reasoning in relation to the challenges presented by unique clients and their contexts and with regard to their objectives set in the service user situation. This as the narratives described both problematic and unproblematic situations alike, along with the students’ reflections on their reasons for having come to act the way they did. The students were invited to voluntarily submit their narratives to the study. Twenty-three students, 20 women (mean age 25.5 years) and three men (mean age 30.7 years), submitted a total of 46 narratives, half of which depicted problematic situations and half unproblematic. Neither of the authors was engaged in the teaching of, or field practice of, these students.
Theoretical framework
Highlighting the process in which social work teachers help social work students develop their use of theory in practice, Fisher and Somerton (2000) seek to clarify what the integration of theory and practice actually means, as knowledge for practice comes in a variety of forms and from a variety of sources. They claim that there is no such thing as theory-less practice because practitioners’ actions are always informed by theory whether or not they are fully aware of the theory that is informing their practice. Therefore, to foster reflexivity, they suggest that there is a need for practice teachers to articulate the thinking underpinning their own practice and to help students explicitly express their thinking and feelings in practice (see also Gursansky, Quinn, & Le Sueur, 2010).
Praxis and the value base of social work
Thomassen (2007) discusses social work knowledge in terms of the Aristotelian concepts of praxis and phronesis (pp. 17–25). Experience and repeated practice are central for the development of praxis knowledge and the subsequently attained practical wisdom (phronesis). Experience and practice are not enough, however, because the actions undertaken in practice must be directed at realising a certain objective according to which the success of one’s actions is evaluated. Thomassen therefore stresses that unless individual and separate actions form an integral part of connected sequences of actions aimed at achieving certain objectives related to the value base of the profession, they cannot be considered to constitute professional praxis (2007, p. 21). In the case of social work students, we take this to imply that both teachers and students need to explicitly relate their thoughts on objectives set in the service user situation and how these relate to the value base of professional social work.
A great diversity of professional duties exists within the social work profession, such as attempting to support or enhance someone’s life in general, preventing social problems, and aiming to decrease problems that already exist. In relation to this diversity and challenges in articulating a unanimous definition of the objectives in social work, Thomassen (2007, p. 22) points to the main objectives of the profession – to promote social welfare at the individual, group, or societal levels – as a value base that bind the specific and separate actions together and create a frame for praxis within the profession. Thus, she claims, if the value base of the profession informs and structure praxis, these values will be inherent to the practitioner’s actions. This means that when a social worker strives to take an adequate approach in a meeting with a client, he or she will act according to a subset of situation-specific objectives in his or her professional duties. This subset of objectives will also be related to the value base inherent in ethical guidelines and social work praxis in general. Thomassen concludes that this relationship between the value base of the profession and the specific actions of the practitioners is a relationship between the parts and the whole. The author (2007, p. 23) further points to how the main ambition for both education and the subsequent exercise of the profession is the development of praxis to enhance clients quality of life in some sense.
As field education affords social work students with the opportunity to work with context-specific cases and challenges presented by unique cases and clients, the students identify this experience as central in their transition to practice (Gursansky & Le Sueur, 2012; Liu et al., 2013). Wilson and Kelly (2010) observe the importance of the inherent culture of field education placements, and that their approaches and guidelines are in accordance with what students have learned about the value base of social work in general.
Challenges that are associated with disturbing events encountered during field education have been shown to provide students with alternative ways to interpret their experiences and to help them critically examine their values, actions, and assumptions (Lam, Wong, & Leung, 2007). Thus, an investigation of the field education experience can be expected to yield important insight to the students’ reasoning on topics such as the interpretation of guidelines/legislation, knowledge performance, and with reference to objectives set.
Analysis
A qualitative analysis of the empirical material was conducted in several steps, as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1992, pp. 165–172) and Creswell (2009, pp. 184–187). To get a general sense of the material the anonymous narratives were first read through by the researchers. During the second round of reading, notes were made in the margins on the meanings being conveyed in recurring concepts and wordings used to denote perspectives held by the subjects, and subjects’ ways of thinking about people and objects. Before the third round of reading the narratives were first divided into two sets, according to subjects’ definitions of situations: unproblematic situations and problematic situations, respectively. Then the narratives were coded with a focus on specific kinds of situations, resources or deficiencies/shortcomings, and if and how the students reflected on their own skill and competence. Similar and recurrent topics between narratives were noted. The first author coded the narratives and both authors discussed the codes together. In the fourth round of reading, the two sets of narratives were read through separately, and emerging categories were noted and jointly discussed, such as ‘meeting’, ‘one’s own shortcomings’, and ‘knowledge’. Then the total list of categories – from narratives labelled problematic as well as unproblematic by the students – were read in the context of their occurrence in the narratives, and also checked for occurrence in relation to all narratives. In this step of the analysis, the categories were simultaneously related to the theoretical background of main objectives in social work and praxis. In the last step of interpretation, the total list of categories were reduced to two groupings of topics that referred to either facilitating circumstances or aggravating circumstances for acting in relation to the students’ stated objectives.
Results and analysis of the findings
In the presentation of the results of our analysis, we will first relate the students’ reflections on what they labelled as being unproblematic situations, and then the reflections on what had been experienced as problematic situations. We will further discuss these findings with regard to the students’ choice of relating a situation as being ‘problematic’ or ‘unproblematic’.
All narratives describing unproblematic situations focused on meetings with clients or groups of clients and the aspects or circumstances that had facilitated the meetings. Having knowledge of legislation and clear guidelines, along with prior experiences, were the main themes in these narratives.
In contrast, there was no specific type of situation that was recurrent in the narratives describing problematic situations. Instead a number of aggravating circumstances in the students’ work with their clients were highlighted: such as being overwhelmed by emotions, or of having too much latitude in the interpretation of principles and guidelines.
The choice to label a situation as being ‘problematic’ or ‘unproblematic’ was shown to be related to either the extent to which the outcome met objectives set in the service user situation or to difficulties encountered in the process of reaching these objectives.
The unproblematic situations – Facilitating circumstances
The extent to which the students felt confident and secure in their professional role and their ability to meet clients with respect seems to have determined the students’ perceptions of their meetings with clients as being unproblematic. But there were also narratives describing meetings with clients, which the students labelled as unproblematic, that give us reason to discuss them – in terms of objectives set in the situation.
Feeling confident with legislation
Knowledge of applicable laws, rules, and guidelines were given much weight in the narratives. In most narratives, the students indicated that legislation, manuals, local and national guidelines facilitated their work and even provided a sense of relief: ‘I felt confident when legislation acted as a moral agent’ (1d). The legislation that regulates social work thus seems to have given the students a feeling of confidence in their professional role. Legislation here refers to the Swedish Social Services Act (SFS 2001: 453), a goal-oriented framework law that regulates Social Services and ensures citizens a general right to assistance if needs ‘cannot be met in any other way’. As one student writes: A simple situation is one in which you meet somebody who meets all the criteria for financial support, who is registered as a job applicant at the employment office, who is actively looking for a job but who is without means, and whose needs cannot be met any other way. (2a)
Students’ own qualities, prior experiences, and growth
Other factors included in the narratives that the students experienced as facilitating were prior experiences, good relations, trust, and voluntariness. The ability to create balance and a feeling of equality between the professional and the client, along with a welcoming and cooperative climate in the workplace, was also mentioned. One student described how the ability to receive clients in a good manner prevented problematic situations: ‘When meeting clients, I have not experienced any situations that I would describe as problematic; the reason being, I think, is the manner in which I meet and respond to them’ (7d).
A number of students also chose the label ‘unproblematic’ when describing situations that they obviously, according to the narratives, were able to solve or handle in a positive way despite apparent complexities. In these cases, the students described their own interventions in relation to a client or group of clients that initially was expected to be difficult to handle. One student described how a good meeting was established with a client who knew neither Swedish nor English. In such situations it is a legal obligation to use an interpreter, but still the use of an intermediate part in the communication means an extra effort. Another student described a client who was very much ashamed, but how the meeting, due to the student’s own efforts to be gentle, flexible, and empathetic, was turned into a rewarding and positive experience for the client.
Students who had worked with the exercise of public authority in their field practice also mentioned exercises performed in earlier semesters of their education, where competence had been gained through work on cases given out by teachers. A few students also chose to highlight their own personal development during their field education. In the narratives they describe themselves as having been nervous and inhibited in the beginning, and having gone strictly by the book in the meeting with clients. But during the months that followed they had become more confident and secure in their professional role. One student described what might be seen as the essence and goal of field education namely to, under the supervision of experienced social workers, have the opportunity to become prepared to assume responsibility as a professional.
‘Unproblematic’ as referring to which objectives set?
Two of the narratives described meetings as being unproblematic, but we found reason to look closer at the objectives set in the individual cases. In one case important information about regulation of law was withheld, and in the other legislation was set aside. In the first narrative, the student in a non-recurrent meeting with a client helped the client with an application for support by a social work assistant. According to the narrative this was a good meeting. [T]he reasons for the client’s application were so clear, and it was as clear that these reasons did not meet the criteria for support by a social work assistant. Even though I felt sure what the result of this application would be, I did not mention the probability of it being rejected. But I was able to help the client by suggesting some other solutions, and tell the client about the aim of support. I did what I could to enhance the client's own capacity to solve the problems. Everything was completely unproblematic, and the meeting seemed to content the client. (11d)
The second narrative described a meeting with a client who had been forced to leave the home of her/his childhood and who was afforded economic support. What makes this narrative interesting is that in the narrative it was clearly stated that the client, a young student, was not eligible for economic support. The social work student describes how economic support and help to find new lodging was given, but without discussing why s/he chose a way of acting that actually constituted an irregularity of procedure. Why the student chose the perceived need to become superordinate to legislation in this case seems to be due to the emotional involvement on part of the student who writes of ‘feeling sorry for the client’ (4a). Compared to the aforementioned narrative, where good terms during the face-to-face meeting with the client comes forth as an objective, the objective of the student in this case was to help solve the situation for the client no matter what, while choosing not to heed the applicable legislation.
This case also highlights a tension between a situation-specific objective, to help the individual client, and one of main objectives of Social Services (with limited resources) in a welfare state: that decisions on support should not be arbitrary or based on personal preferences. Support shall be given according to specified needs, legislation, and guidelines. The choice not to heed legislation and guidelines, due to personal preferences or feelings, is clearly a case where a discussion with the placement supervisor in field education is desperately needed, for risk of unethical practice.
Another student facing a similar situation, with a young client who was not eligible for economic support, relates a strongly felt tension between feelings of recognition and sympathy for the client and the duty to exercise public authority according to the rules. In this case the student felt that it was possible to follow legislation, and explain why the client did not meet the criteria for support, whilst at the same time communicating empathy and understanding for the client's difficulties.
The problematic situations – Circumstances that aggravate
In the students’ descriptions of problematic situations, no specific type of situation could be identified as recurrent in the narratives. However, a number of problematising circumstances in their work with clients were highlighted.
Focus on emotions or one’s own shortcomings
In situations when the students’ emotions, such as hopelessness or lack of power, took control, the strong personal involvement challenged their ability to stay professional in the meetings with clients. One example of such a challenge: ‘The client had a way to move and affect people that came close. Just the look of the eyes made me paralysed; I wanted to cry when I was with them. The pain was so obvious’ (6d).
Three students described complicated and rather serious cases that they, according to the narratives, seem to have dealt with successfully when relating the results to objectives they had set in relation to their interaction with their clients. Common to these narratives was the personal commitment of the students to their clients guided, as it seems, by the value base of the profession: ‘I cannot understand that the case processors are so guided by norms and loyal to the budget of the municipality!’ (1a)
Although the nature of the situations described is problematic, they are not problematic from a professional point of view. The students dealt with their cases correctly but still chose to describe the situations as problematic. Our interpretation is that the students, guided by the main objective to promote social welfare at the individual level, experienced a personal commitment to their clients. Having become somewhat frustrated with restraints given by guidelines they had to some degree felt the need to put up a fight for their clients, and after discussion with their placement supervisors, succeeded.
Loss of control was the theme of one narrative in which the student described being almost brought to tears in the meeting with a client who started accusing the student of not caring enough. The student was genuinely surprised, and there is no explanation in the narrative for why the client started this verbal attack without warning. A meeting of this kind, where what is felt to be an unwarranted critique is delivered in a very aggressive way, is bound to be experienced as problematic because the accused has no clue as to what fuelled the critique.
Some of the narratives related experiences of problematic meetings or situations that occurred because of the students’ own shortcomings, and in which they had identified and corrected their focus and objectives in the situation. A typical example: ‘I kind of forgot, at first, to focus on the client. The way I acted and my notes for the session got more attention because of the pressure I had put on myself to be a good professional social work student’ (3a).
An experience described in several narratives was that of feeling insecure and overwhelmed with responsibility when there was what was experienced as too much latitude in the interpretation of guidelines and principles.
Interestingly, only once did a student refer to a lack of knowledge or theory. In a very short and concise description of a case, the student described the decision that his or her own knowledge about the subject was too limited, and thus felt the need to consult an expert to be able to handle the case correctly. However, this student experienced this ‘lack’ as being rather unproblematic and regarded field education as a period for learning, not for already knowing everything. This narrative differed from the students referred to above who related their own shortcomings as being problematic.
The placement supervisors’ role and circumstances out of the students’ control
A number of students described problematic situations that arose due to circumstances out of their control, which were at times related to the role and actions of their placement supervisors.
Three students claimed that the venue for their field education was problematic or dysfunctional in terms of organisation or staff, or had premises that were unsuited for the occupational tasks. One student complained of having received no support or help whatsoever from the placement supervisor, and another felt unwelcome at the workplace. For the latter, the relationship with one of the staff became so troubled that the student felt forced to stay at home when their work shifts coincided: ‘There were days when I thought, “May this come to an end soon!” And I could tell how the rest of the staff felt bad with regard to this person’s demeanour towards us’ (7d).
In their descriptions of problematic situations, some students focused on other people and their behaviours. Two students described clients who did not seem to understand the seriousness of the situation in question and did not act appropriately towards them as professionals. We interpret these narratives that focus on other people and their unwanted behaviour as the students seeing the others as the cause of a problematic situation. Both narratives discussed only the clients and their behaviour without mentioning the students’ own actions or role in the specific situations, nor how one as a professional-to-be is expected to be able to handle difficult clients as well whilst still striving for good results.
Ethical, cultural, or value dilemmas
In two narratives experiences of difficulty in meetings with clients were put down to differences in cultural norms and values. One of the students writes: ‘This became somewhat problematic, as the part of culture that we were discussing is quite the opposite of our view on this in Sweden’ (9a). According to this student’s description, the meeting became less problematic after a discussion in which the client realised that the family had to abide by the Swedish law. It seems that the student labelled the meeting as problematic in terms of culture because it dealt with what was experienced as a sensitive and challenging subject to raise, that is, the topic of differing ethnical backgrounds with what might be differing norms and values rather than the differing backgrounds in themselves.
The other narrative described a client waiting for information on a residence permit. The student and the placement supervisor together were to inform the client that the application was rejected, even though they both knew that the client had threatened to commit suicide in case of rejection. The student was much affected by this meeting and discussed the challenges of trying to relate to and understand a person and their situation when that person comes from a different culture or background. In this case, the student also describes the feeling of being completely powerless – as the decision was not within the jurisdiction of Social Services. Taking part in the exercise of public authority when the matter is experienced as a question of life or death for the client is a major challenge, student or not. Our interpretation of this narrative is in terms of the strong emotions of both empathy and powerlessness evoked, as the difference is rather one of situation, than of culture – where the student relates the difficulty of imagining being in such a vulnerable situation.
Lastly, one narrative described an ethical dilemma in a case with a client who did not want help from home care services, but whose family was genuinely worried as the client was suffering from dementia, which made her forget to eat. After consulting with the relatives and the placement supervisor, the student decided to turn the conversation in such a way so that the client would ask for help through home care services without being fully aware of doing so: ‘I do admit that it felt slightly unethical, but given the information I had from relatives and home care services; I still feel that it was the right thing to do’ (10d).
In this situation, the student presented the intervention as an offer, which made it hard for the client to refuse. This was seen as something that would benefit the client’s well-being, but the student felt that the procedure was unethical. Even though this seems to have been the only way to fulfil the goal of acting in the best interest of the client, the student was uneasy with almost tricking the client into receiving help.
Discussion
The narratives of the social work students shed light on conditions that were experienced as somehow aggravating or facilitating their actions during field practice. Because the students had been asked to supply narratives describing both problematic and unproblematic situations, we partly expected to find recurring descriptions of specific kinds of situations or sequences of situations. Now we instead wish to point to the fact that within the practice of social work there are few, if any, meetings with clients that are purely unproblematic, as a consequence of social work being a problem-solving human service profession. From the narratives, we derived circumstances that were experienced as aggravating or facilitating the meetings and dealings with clients, and most often the circumstances were unique to the specific case. Thus, the labels of ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ refer to the students’ experiences of how they managed assignments and the responsibility encountered in field education as challenges met in their acting towards objectives set in their interaction with clients.
Aggravating circumstances
In the narratives, there were two overarching themes that emerged as aggravating circumstances that threatened the students acting successfully towards the objectives set in the specific cases. The first was being overwhelmed by emotions; the second was feeling insecure when having too much latitude in the interpretation of legislation, guidelines, and principles.
Similar to the findings of Lam et al. (2007), the experience of being overwhelmed by emotions such as hopelessness, frustration, or sorrow became a problem for the students in their work. When these emotions took control, it is apparent that the students had engaged themselves with the client to the extent that their acting in terms of their professional role was jeopardised.
In situations where students could not lean on legislation or clear principles, a sense of heavy responsibility appeared. This latitude in the interpretation of principles and guidelines forced them to act according to a role they did not feel ready for, which led to insecurity.
Facilitating circumstances
The experiences of insecurity discussed above are clearly contrasted by what were reported as unproblematic situations where the students felt that guidelines and principles gave them a sense of security. Required to exercise public authority, knowledge of legislation had played a much appreciated and central role because it provided the students with a sense of security in their professional role.
A need for critical discussion and support
The placement and educational supervisors alike were generally given very little focus in the narratives. Further, the students in this study seem to have been given the opportunity to work rather independently of their placement supervisors. A central claim of Liu et al. (2013) – that students wish for elaborate and carefully prepared supervision – was not found in the narratives, however, and the students did not relate their insecurity to lack of supervision.
However, if the students had been expected and given more opportunity to critically discuss their interpretations of legislation and policy and what this would imply in terms of intervention and advocacy with their placement supervisors – it seems reasonable to believe that some of the reported feelings of insecurity, and the unethical practice revealed, might have been prevented.
On the one hand, when faced with a difficult situation a student might then be aided by critical analysis, reasoning, and debate with the placement supervisor, and reach a defensible decision supported by the supervisor. On the other hand, understandings of legislation or policies as being simply ‘straightforward’ risks being far too simplistic, and as leading to a false sense of security in the professional role. Such understandings ought to be contested and problematised in a critical discussion with the placement supervisor in question as well. For the student to be given the opportunity, also in the ‘simple’ cases, to articulate and critically discuss her/his interpretation of the legislation that pertains, and weigh the possible objectives and interventions for the client against the value base of social work, would aid the learning of the student greatly. The ability to articulate, reason, and debate one’s decisions is a cornerstone in the exercise of public authority. In field practice placement supervisors must therefore give the students ample opportunity, and challenge the students to articulate their reasoning in relation to the individual cases, and to reflect on how their actions relate to ethical practice. If students are left without the critical guidance of debate with the placement supervisors, the students are at risk of reaching simplistic, rather than defensible, decisions.
Knowledge put to the test
A noteworthy observation in our study is that a lack of knowledge was not expressed as an aggravating circumstance except in the case of one student. This is in contrast to the findings of Lam et al. (2007), where they noted concerns with regard to sufficient knowledge of students within a circumscribed knowledge frame. What frequently emerged in the descriptions of problematic situations as well as unproblematic situations, though, is the exercise of praxis. Students described how they evaluated and corrected their ways of acting with and for others during their period of field education. This illustrates a central dimension of praxis, which is the way the performance of such knowledge is always related to, evaluated, and subsequently refined according to a main objective or ideal (cf. Thomassen, 2007).
Setting objectives
Our analysis revealed quite differing levels of ambition and scope with regard to the objectives set in the students’ interaction with clients. Most students in their reflections articulated what we would label as adequate objectives for their acting in the service user situation, aiming for solutions that were expected to be in the best interest of their clients, and which at the same time met legislation and guidelines. But some cases revealed difficulties in weighing and relating the objective of having a ‘good climate’ when conducting meetings with clients, or that of promoting welfare for individual clients, to that of acting as a professional social worker where transparency, justice, and equality in distribution of support is also to be considered. Thus to the list of learning goals suggested by Regehr et al. (2002) – communication, group work, skills, intervention, planning, and evaluation – we suggest that the ability to reflect on and relate situation-specific objectives to the value base of social work, is added. The importance of articulate discussion between educational supervisors and students where contest, complexity, and debate can aid the learning of the student, and help them reach defensible decisions supported by the placement supervisor, therefore must be stressed. This to help stimulate the development of knowledge required in setting and evaluating objectives in the service user situation, and relating these to the value base of social work.
Limitations
One limitation of the present study is that it is based on the narratives of a small group of students from just one Swedish university. Despite this limitation, our results demonstrate the importance of furthering students’ articulation of and active reflection on their interpretation of guidelines and legislation, and on their own setting of objectives specific to the individual cases and on how these objectives relate to the value base of social work.
Concluding remarks
It seems that the assessment of a situation as being a problematic one is an evaluation largely related to the objectives set by the student before meetings with individual clients. In the students’ narratives differing levels and scope of ambition were displayed in objectives set in individual cases. The narratives clearly demonstrated the importance of helping students articulate and actively reflect both on their reasoning with regard to the challenges presented by unique clients and their contexts and on their interpretation of legislation and guidelines. Furthering students’ articulated reflection on these matters and their ability to relate objectives set both to the unique clients and to the value base of the profession is a mission for university teachers, educational and placement supervisors in field education alike, as this forms an essential part of professional knowledge performance, and ethical practice.
Footnotes
Ethics
Ethical approval for this project was given by the Regional Ethical Committee in Umeå (reference number 2010-82-31).
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study is part of a larger research project: ‘How do SWs and GPs use knowledge in practice?’ – originally funded by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS, reference number: 2009-0251). This study as part of the project received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, however.