Concerns are growing that attention to risk aversion and the use of bureaucratic approaches in human service organizations constrain social work supervision to an administrative function rather than attending to the practice needs of social workers. This article explores how long-standing concepts of positional and expert power of supervisors can be reconstructed to resist the pressures of the current sociopolitical, economic landscape. A mixed method study about postdegree supervision using a Web survey provides evidence of 636 social workers’ experiences of power relations during supervision and what they say they need from supervisors to nurture a collaborative, critically reflective exchange of knowledge and decision making. The article concludes with implications for supervision practice and suggestions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonJ., & SammonS (2000). Practice and social service cuts and restructuring: Working with the contradictions of “small victories.”Canadian Social Work Review, 17, 167–187.
2.
AustinL. N. (1979). Basic principles of supervision. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 56-69). New York, NY: Free Press. (Reprinted from Social Casework, 33, December 1952, 411-419)
3.
Barretta-HermanA. (1993). On the development of a model of supervision for licensed social work practitioners.Clinical Supervisor, 11(2), 55–64.
4.
BeddoeL. (2010). Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervision in “the risk society.” British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1279–1296. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq018
5.
BogoM., & DillK (2008). Walking the tightrope: Using power and authority in child welfare supervision.Child Welfare, 87(6), 141–157.
6.
BogoM., & McKnightK (2005). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2), 49–67. doi:10.1300/J001v24n01_04
7.
CaitC.-A. (2006). Implications of intersubjectivity for supervisory practice.Clinical Social Work Journal, 34, 253–265.
8.
CohenB.-Z. (1987). The ethics of social work supervision revisited. Social Work, 32, 194–196.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
DavysA., & BeddoeL (2010). Best practice in professional supervision: A guide for the helping professions.London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
11.
EisikovitsZ., & GuttmanE (1983). Toward a practice theory of learning through experience in social work supervision.Clinical Supervisor, 1(1), 51–63.
12.
FookJ. (2004). Critical reflection and organizational learning and change: A case study. In GouldN. & BaldwinM. (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization (pp. 57–73). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
13.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power and strategies. In GordonC. (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault (pp. 135–145). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
14.
FoucaultM. (1984). The politics and ethics: An interview. In RabinowP. (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 373–380). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
15.
GibbsJ. A. (2001). Maintaining front-line workers in child protection: A case of refocusing supervision.Child Abuse Review, 10, 323–335.
16.
HairH. 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. The British Journal of Social Work, 43,1562-1588. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs071
17.
JohnsonB., & TurnerB (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
KadushinA. (1974). Supervisor-supervisee: A survey.Social Work, 19, 288–297.
19.
KadushinA. (1992). Social work supervision: An updated survey.Clinical Supervisor, 10(2), 9–27.
20.
KadushinA., & HarknessD (2002). Supervision in social work (4th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
21.
Karvinen-NiinikoskiS. (2004). Social work supervision: Contributing to innovative knowledge production and open expertise. In GouldN. & BaldwinM. (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization (pp. 23–39). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
22.
LevyC. S. (1973). The ethics of supervision.Social Work, 18(2), 14–21.
23.
LietzC. A. (2009). Critical thinking in child welfare supervision.Administration in Social Work, 31, 68-78. doi:10.1080/03643100903432966
24.
LincolnY., & GubaE (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
25.
LowryF. (1936). A philosophy of supervision in social case work. In Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work at the sixty-third annual session held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, May 18-23, 1936 (pp. 108-118). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.hti.umich.edu/n/ncosw/.
26.
Mor BarakM., TravisD., PyunH., & XieB. (2009). The impact of supervision on worker outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Service Review, 83(1), 3–32. doi:10.1086/599028
27.
MunsonC. E. (1979a). An empirical study of structure and authority in social work supervision. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 286–296). New York, NY: Free Press.
28.
MunsonC. E. (1979b). Introduction. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 2–5). New York, NY: Free Press.
29.
MunsonC. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
30.
NobleC., & IrwinJ (2009). Social work supervision: An exploration of the current challenges in a rapidly changing social, economic and political environment. Journal of Social Work, 9(3), 345–358. doi:10.1177/1468017309334848
31.
OnwuegbuzieA. J., & TeddlieC. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
ScherzF. H. (1979). A concept of supervision based on definitions of job responsibility. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 70-82). New York, NY: Free Press. (Reprinted from Social Casework, 39, October 1958, 435-443)
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 671–701). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
TewJ. (2006). Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a framework for emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work, 6(1), 33–51. doi:10.1177/1468017306062222
36.
TosoneC. (1997). Countertransference and clinical social work supervision: Contributions and considerations.Clinical Supervisor, 16(2), 17–32.
37.
TsuiM.-S. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
WassermanH. (1979). The professional social work in a bureaucracy. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 206-215). New York, NY: Free Press. (Reprinted from Social Work, 16, January 1971, 89-95)
39.
WilliamsA. B. (1997). On parallel process in social work supervision.Clinical Social Work Journal, 25(4), 425–435.
40.
WolfeC. H. (1958). Basic components in supervision. In The Social Welfare Forum, 1958: Official proceedings, 85th National Conference on Social Welfare, Chicago, Illinois, May 11-16, 1958 (pp. 177-189). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hti.umich.edu/n/ncosw/.
41.
ZetzelE. R. (1979). The dynamic basis of supervision. In MunsonC. E. (Ed.), Social work supervision: Classic statements and critical issues (pp. 41-51). New York, NY: Free Press. (Reprinted from Social Casework, 34, April 1953, 143-149)
