Ann Costa dissertation

The Institute for Clinical Social Work

Relational Supervisory Experience in Master Social Work Training

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Partial Fulfillment For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Ann Costa

Chicago, Illinois July 2022

Abstract

Little is known about how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship in teaching Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally. In this mixed method phenomenological research study, the supervisory relationship is examined through Sarnat’s (2016) relational supervision model incorporating relational psychodynamic theory. The study explored the lived experiences of master’s level social work field instructors hermeneutic phenomenology and social construction.

Quantitatively, a survey recruitment tool added aggregate data with the qualitative interviews using reflexive thematic analysis. Thirty-six participants completed the recruitment survey and 10 participants were interviewed. Findings were categorized into four themes and nine sub-themes related to the research questions. The findings suggest the relationship between the field instructor and the master’s level social work student is crucial in teaching the CSWE competencies and in helping the students develop professionally and personally. The most significant finding was the importance of the supervisory relationship in teaching how students become professional social workers and identifying with the profession. Thus, finding the supervisory relationship being pivotal as a developmental function for future social workers that warrants further study.

ii

For my parents.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee for their continued guidance and support throughout this study: My Dissertation Chair, Denise Duval Tsioles, Ph.D., and my Committee, Mead Goedert, Ph.D., Barbara Berger, Ph.D., Michelle Piotrowski, Ph.D. and Brenda Soloman, Ph.D. My journey began at the Sanville Institute, and I owe special gratitude to Whitney van Nouhuys, Ph.D., Lynn Rosenfield, Ph.D., Samoan Barish, Ph.D., and Kristen Zaleski, Ph.D. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and express gratitude for the participants, who were so generous of their time. They are a constant reminder of the generosity and commitment to our social work profession. May this dissertation be an accurate representation of their lived experiences as master’s level social work field instructors.

AC

iv

Table of Contents

Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………….iv List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...…x List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………xi Chapter I.

Introduction………………………………………………………..……..1 General Statement of Purpose Significance for Clinical Social Work Statement of the Problem to Be Achieved Hypothesis or Research to Be Explored Operational Definitions and Theoretical Concepts Statement of Assumptions Epistemological Foundation of the Project Foregrounding

v

Table of Contents—Continued

Chapter II.

Page Literature Review…………………………………………………...….15 Introduction Field Instructor Teaching CSWE Competencies, Role, Relationship, and Developmental Function Models of Master Level Social Work Field Instruction Literature on Supervision Reviews Current Research Trends in Studying Social Work Field Instruction Post-Graduate Psychoanalytic Supervision Models The Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic Relational Supervision— Sarnat’s Model Implicit Tension in the Literature Summary

III.

Methods…………………………………………………………...……..37 Introduction The Rationale for Mixed Method Research Design Rationale for a Specific Methodology Research Sample Research Plan or Process Data Collection

vi

Table of Contents—Continued

Chapter

Page Plan for Data Analysis Ethical Considerations Issues of Trustworthiness Limitations and Delimitations

IV.

Results…………………………………………………………………58 Introduction Reflective Thematic Analysis (TA) Quantitative Results Outliers Summary of Interviewed Participant Responses Summary of Non-Interviewed Participant Responses Summary of the Insights from the Survey and Interview Responses

V.

Findings……………………………………………………….………..102 The Four Research Questions Summary of Findings Implications for Master’s Level Field Instruction Suggestions for CSWE Suggestions for Schools of Social Work Limitations Recommendations for Future Research

vii

Table of Contents—Continued

Appendix

Page

A.

Letter Request to Graduate Schools…………………..………..……134

B.

Flyer……………………………….……………………………….…..136

C.

Survey Monkey………………………………………..…………….…138

D.

Sample Initial Email………….………………………………...……..143

E.

Phase I Quantitative Informed Consent……………..…………..…..146

F.

Phase II Qualitative Informed Consent……………...………………149

G.

Script for Informed Consent………………….………………………153

H.

Interview Guide First Interview…………..………………………….157

I.

Sample Follow-Up Email…………………………………...…………161

J.

Interview Guide Second Interview……………………...……………163

K.

Sample of End of Study Thank-You Email…………………………..166

L.

Email Providing Findings…………………………….……………….168

References…………………………………………………………...…………171

viii

List of Tables

Table

Page

1:

Results Summarized through the Research Questions ..............................................81

2:

Results Summarized through the Research Questions ............................................103

3:

Overview of Findings with Themes, Sub-themes, and Corresponding Theory or Concept ............................................................................................................126

ix

List of Figures

Figure

Page

1.

Summary of total quantitative survey demographics.................................................82

2.

How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?..........................................83

3.

What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker? ........................................................................................................84

4.

“How do you understand your role with your student?” ...........................................84

5.

“What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?” .........85

6.

Male survey participants’ demographics. ..................................................................86

7.

Male respondents’ response to “What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?”. ..................................................................................87

8.

Behavioral as a conceptual framework survey participants’ demographics. ............87

9.

Behavioral Respondents Answer to “How Do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?”. ...............................................................................................................88

10.

Transgender/non-binary survey respondents demographics. ...................................89

x

List of Figures--Continued Figure Figure 11.

Page

Page

Transgender/non-binary survey respondents to “What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?” ...............90

12.

Transgender/non-binary survey participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?” ..........................................................................91

13.

Transgender/non-binary participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?” .........................................................................................91

14.

Participants excluded from the study demographics. ..............................................92

15.

Excluded participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?” ......................................................................................................92

16.

Excluded Participants’ Responses to “How do You Understand Your Role With Your Student?”. ......................................................................................................93

17.

Interviewed participants’ demographics. .................................................................94

18.

Interviewed participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?”. .....................................................................................................95

19.

Interviewed participants’ responses to “What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?”. ...................................95

20.

Interviewed participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?” ................................................................................................................96

xi

List of Figures—Continued

Figure 21.

Page

Interview participants’ responses to “What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?” ..........................................................................97

22.

Non-interviewed survey participant demographics. ................................................98

23.

Non-interviewed survey participants' Responses to “What do You Find to Be Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?” ...........99

24.

Non-interviewed survey participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?” .........................................................................................99

xii

1

Chapter 1

Introduction General Statement of Purpose The purpose of this mixed methods phenomenological research study is to examine how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally. Training for field instructors to be supervisors for master's level social work students typically provides the use of academic models specifically designed for teaching field instruction. Graduate schools focus on the CSWE requirements for competency-based graduate social work field training (Berzoff & Drisko, 2015). However, the supervisory relationship is an essential interplay between supervisor and student, promoting the student's competencies and professional and personal identities. As such, it is valuable to understand how, through this supervisory relationship, the teaching of CSWE competencies and how professional and personal identities develop for master level graduate students. Using a mixed method phenomenological research design with reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), this study explores the nuances of the supervisory field instruction experience and how this relationship impacts the teaching and learning of CSWE competencies and students' professional and personal development.

2 Significance for Clinical Social Work This study on the supervisory relationship is significant for clinical social work supporting social work history, the professional code of ethics, the CSWE standards, and psychodynamic, psychoanalytic historical origins, and the supervisory relationship.

Social work history.

In the literature, field instructor models in supervising master level social work students emphasize the CSWE's competency-based learning. The supervisor teaches tasks or skills to the master level social work student, such as interviewing a client and completing an assessment or treatment plan. Beyond teaching skill sets, it appears that the master level social work student learns HOW to be a social worker first hand through the supervisory relationship. The student sharing the experience with the client in a supervisory meeting often brings anxiety or concerns of working with the client into the interaction with the supervisor in a parallel process. The student conveys the client's conscious or unconscious anxiety or distress to the supervisor in the supervisory relationship. This relationship is where the student and supervisor learn the most information about what is happening for a client internally and explore it to assist the client. It is a process and an experience that is more than just teaching concrete skills, and it is a very under-studied area in field instruction.

Code of ethics.

This study is significant for clinical social work in supporting our social work code of ethics. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) outlines our core

3 values of service, social justice, dignity and worth, the importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence (NASW, 2021). NASW reviews the importance of supervision in the social worker's training with the importance of the supervisor having knowledge and skill. Supervisors have the necessary boundaries, cultural sensitives and evaluate performance in a fair, respectful way. The Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA), is a national organization representing clinical social workers, that clinically expands the NASW's code of ethics (CSWA, 2016). This study on the relational aspects of the supervisory experience in master of social work field training is essential for supporting and promoting both NASW and CSWA’s guidelines.

CSWE. This study is significant for social work supporting graduate social work programs through the CSWE’s (2022) accreditation nine core competencies. These are as follows: 1. Demonstrates ethical and professional behavior.

2. Engage anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in practice.

3. Advance human rights and social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

4. Engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice.

5. Engage in policy practice.

6. Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

7. Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

8. Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

4 9. Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

These core competencies are utilized with the code of ethics from NASW to educate and train social workers per the NASW (2021) 3.01 guidelines for supervisors.

This study examines how these competencies espouse the supervisory relationship not significantly researched in the field.

Historical origins.

Lacking empirical research on how master of social work field instructors train students supports a reconsideration and call to return to our historical social work foundation and the value of the supervisory relationship where future social work students and supervisors can benefit (Applegate, 2004; Farber & Reitmeier, 2019; Fleischer, 2019; Goldstein, 2002, 2007, 2009; Gonzalez & Gelman, 2015; Kautz & Piotrowski, 2019). In maintaining this connection, clinicians and students can enhance the work of all social workers and clients across all social work settings.

Supervisory relationship.

Focusing only on CSWE competency-based learning on tasks or skills minimizes the relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee. Yet, the relationship between the master of social work field instructor and the student learning about self and the client truly assists in providing social work services. The master social work field instructor relationship, plays a vital role in the overall development of the student. Relational

5 techniques can enhance the student's potential in learning how to be a professional social worker where more research and literature from my study can contribute.

Statement of the Problem and Specific Objectives to Be Achieved As a clinical and administrative supervisor for over 30 years in a medical center setting, I have had an enduring interest in the therapeutic and supervisory relationship. I articulate with my team and students that our relationship is vital, especially in working with clients with short-term manualized treatment protocols. Quickly establishing a supportive relationship is a requirement for a successful outcome in any social work encounter, short-term or long-term. Similarly, forming a supportive relationship between staff and supervisor is a requirement for staff satisfaction and retention. Knowing that your supervisor "has your back" regarding your clinical judgment is crucial in forming a supervisory relationship and developing a sense of confidence in staff and students. I utilize a relational approach to understand the supervisor relationship.

In examining the literature, I found no empirical research on master social work field instructors using psychoanalytic concepts or techniques, whether consciously or unconsciously, to strengthen the supervisory relationship. Models of field instruction based on the CSWE competency-based learning models teach future social workers particular tasks and examine the role of the master level field instructor. (Boehm, 1956; Brashears, 1993; Finch et al., 2019; Hensley, 2016; Munson, 2002; Olson-Morrison et al., 2019; Saari, 2012). In the literature, I found numerous models of field instruction for master social work students in the areas of self-awareness, parallel process, reflective/use of self, neurobiology/attachment, trauma-informed, and cross-cultural approaches

6 (Allphin, 1987, 1999, 2005, 2015; Bennett, 2008a, 2008b; Bennett et al., 2008; Bennett & Deal, 2009,, 2012; Bennett et al., 2012; Bennett & Saks, 2006; Bonner, 2002; Davys & Beddoe; 2009; Deal et al., 2011; Ferguson, 2018; Foster et al., 2007; Ganzer & Ornstein; 1999; Gizynski, 1978; Karpetis, 2010; Lee & Kealy, 2018; Bogo & McKnight, 2006; Miehls, 2014; O’Neil & del Mar Farina, 2018; Searles, 2015; Shea, 2020; Solo, 2019; Sumerel, 1994; Taggart, 1934; Tarshis & Baird , 2019) in addition to general articles on the social work supervisory relationship (Kadushin, 1992; Kolevzon, 1979;).

Furthermore, in the literature were reviews of articles on the process of social work supervision (Bogo, 2015; Bogo & McKnight, 2006; Hafford-Letchfield & Engelbrecht, 2018; Yuen-han Mo et al., 2020; O'Donoghue & Tsi, 2015; O'Donoghue et. al., 2018; Sewell, 2018a, 2018b; Walkins, 2020). There is some literature specific to the use of psychoanalytic concepts in supervision with post-graduate social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and those in analytic training (Bromberg, 1974, 1982; Contrastano, 2020; Cucco, 2020; Hilsenroth et al., 2015; Jacobs et al., 1995; Lane, 2014; Mammen, 2020; Menefee et al., 2014; Ramussen & Mishna, 2018; Rock, 1997; Sarnat, 2010, 2011, 2016; Frawley-O'Dea & Sarnat, 2001; Zetzer et al., 2020). Sarnat (2010, 2011, 2016) expands a relational model of supervision from her prior work (FraweyO'Dea & Sarnat, 2001). Sarnat (2010, 2011, 2016) discusses the use of the parallel process, the teach-treat dilemma, and managing conflict along with others (Ganzer & Ornstein, 2004; Power & Bogo, 2002; Baudry, 1993; Rosbrow, 1997; Stimmel, 1995; Watkins, 2021; Wiener, 2007). Specifically, Sarnat's (2016) relational model of supervision discusses Aron's (1996) concept of 'mutuality with asymmetry’, Benjamin's

7 (2018) concept of 'the Third', and Bion's (1962/1984; Symington & Symington, 1996) concept of the 'container.'

The general psychoanalytic, psychodynamic literature examines the supervisory relationship (Frawley-O'Dea, 2015; McWilliams, 2021; Watkins, 2012; Yellin, 2014).

The literature also explored psychoanalytic training models and competencies (Brody & Grey, 1948; Cabaniss et al., 2001; Junkers et al., 2008; Pegeron, 2008; Szecsody, 1994; Watkins, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). Additional, literature was found on attachment theory in psychoanalytic, psychodynamic supervision (Wrape et al., 2017). Limited literature was found on the developmental models of psychoanalytic supervision (Everett et al., 2011; Nye, 2002; Poncy, 2020; Ronnestad & Skovholt, 2003) and a specific Integrative Developmental Model (IDM; McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2016; Salvador, 2016). Lastly, literature exists on the concepts on co-created space, intersubjectivity, interpersonal perspective of the use of mutuality in supervision (Berman, 2000; Brown & Miller, 2002; WidloCher, 2004; Zicht, 2013) While there is literature on the value of psychoanalytic supervision, there is a dearth of information on master’s in social work field instructors using the supervisory relationship in teaching CSWE competencies and helping students develop, supporting the need for this mixed method phenomenological research study. The goal of this study is to understand what master's level field instructors utilize in the supervisory relationship to teach students CSWE competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally. Study objectives include: 1. Investigate how master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship.

8 2. Obtain an understanding of how master's level field instructors understand their role with their students.

3. Learning how master's level field instructors build relationships with their students.

4. Exploring how master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function.

Hypothesis or Research Questions to be Explored This mixed method phenomenological research study addresses the following research questions: How do master's level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally? Sub-questions are: How do master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

How do master's level field instructors understand their role with their students? How do these master's level field instructors build relationships with their students? How do master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function? The mixed method phenomenological study addresses the nuances of the relational experiences of these master's level social work field instructors, ultimately depicting a more thorough picture of their interaction with their students.

Operational Definitions and Theoretical Concepts Student is a second-year graduate social work student in a Master of Social Work program.

9 Supervisor is an experienced master's level field instructor (at least 3 years) with a second-year Master of Social Work student.

Relational Supervision is a relational interplay or space between the master's level field instructor and the student that develops over the academic year of training.

Parallel process, per Sarnat (2016), refers to, accessing unconscious material from the therapy relationship, demonstrating therapeutic technique, and providing essential emotional/relational experiences (containment, holding, the processing of projective identifications and the resolving of enactments) in the here and now of the supervisory relationship as well as providing a means to think about aspects of the supervisor's unconscious that impact the therapy (pp. 313-314).

All members contribute to the parallel process in this relational view.

Internal Supervisor, per Casement's (2006) is the concept of internal supervision where we "draw upon our own thinking" (p. 132) when with a client.

Container, to paraphrase Bion (1962/1984), refers to the therapist’s holding onto the client’s anxiety until the client can gradually tolerate these feelings.

Mutuality with Asymmetry is a term from Aron (1996) illuminating the supervisor's authority in a relational perspective.

The Third is a concept from Benjamin (2018) meaning a co-created space between the therapist and the client.

Unconscious per Freud (1915) refers to the the process of repression lies, not inputting, an end to, in annihilating, the idea which represents an instinct, but in preventing it from becoming conscious. When this happens we say of the idea that it is in a state of being 'unconscious'. (p. 166)

10

Transference per Freud (1912) is "a whole series of psychological experiences are revived, not as belonging to the past, but as applying to the physician at the present moment" (p. 48). Greenacre (1954) expands this view of transference to say, "If two people are repeatedly alone together, some sort of emotional bond will develop between them" (p. 670).

Countertransference is the analyst's experience(s) in the therapeutic situation that can be used as data to advance treatment (Heimann, 1960; Little, 1951).

Statement of Assumptions 1. Experienced field instructors with at least 3 years of a master of social work student supervisory experience are more likely to utilize a more relational approach that is a more non-hierarchical model of supervision, in line with the relational school of psychoanalytic theory (Frawley O'Dea & Sarnat, 2001; McWilliams, 2021; Sarnat, 2016; Yellin, 2014).

2. Experienced field instructors are more likely to value the moments of real relationship-building in the field instruction over competencies development (Watkins, 2011a, 2011b, 2012).

From this real relationship lens, an assumption

then is that intuitive skills building is valued more than concrete skills (e.g., completing paperwork, templates, or learned tasks).

11 3. Experienced field instructors utilizing a more relational approach to supervision are further likely to have longstanding relationships with their students after graduation. The mutuality of this relationship is rewarding to maintain beyond the field instruction phase of learning moving into a mentoring and peer relationship.

Epistemological Foundation of the Project Heidegger using the philosophy of Husserl expands hermeneutic phenomenology. Heidegger emphasizes Husserl importance of learning the essence of experiences (Van Manen, 2014). Hermeneutic phenomenology explores the world as we see it in all its various aspects in a more profound way (van Manen, 2016). Van Manen (2017) defines phenomenology as studying the lived experience of something not yet known. Themes provide meaningful shared experiences through interviews or 'texts' from master's level social work field instructors. van Manen's (2017) approach allows for reflectivity, intuitiveness, and skills in interviewing the study participants. The themes from the interviews or 'texts' have implicit displays of reflectiveness and meaning inductive with hermeneutic phenomenology (Errasti-Ibarrondo et al., 2018). In-depth interviews are essential to learning about the characteristics of the phenomena studied (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Per Creswell and Poth (2018), a "phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon" (p. 75). This study will also explore the nature of reality through Gergen's (2015) social construction. Reality is socially constructed through various lenses socially, culturally, and historically. Participants develop a subjective

12 meaning of their own, with others, that produce multiple implications (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Master's level social work field instructors have a shared lived experience in training future social workers in an ever-changing reality through constant change socially, culturally, and historically. Master’s level social work field instructions have to balance the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, and class within their agencies, the schools and their immediate environments. Similarity, CSWE has had to make modifications within this same reality of constant change. Master’s level social work field instructors have to balance teaching the required CSWE competencies, while also teaching future social workers how to be a social worker which is explored in this study.

Foregrounding As a supervisor clinician, when COVID-19 stay-at-home orders started in March 2020, my first focus was moving most of my staff to work from home in providing therapy to clients via phone and video platforms. With COVID-19, we immediately had to plan how to provide field instruction to our social work interns in a similar parallel process. A parallel process with the graduate schools of social work piqued my interest in exploring this unique relational experience in a pandemic where the client, social worker, supervisor, graduate school, medical center, community, and the world were all experiencing this anxiety of the unknown. Through all of this, I could see how the supervisory relationship was so meaningful.

With my studies at the Institute for Clinical Social Work (ICSW), it became clear that the student and field instructor supervisory relationship is where the student thrived in learning. The better the relationship, the stronger the student's social work

13 competencies and professional and personal identities. A parallel process within the conscious or unconscious via transference and countertransference in work with the clients and the supervisory relationship is vital in a relational approach to learning.

Examining the literature, I found sources on various supervision models for field instructor training on self-awareness, parallel process, reflective/use of self, neurobiology/attachment, and trauma-informed and cross-cultural models of supervision.

I noticed a disconnect between what academic researchers were studying and in practice.

The literature also supported this on reviews of supervision models. Literature specific to psychoanalytic concepts in supervision was with post-graduate social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and in analytic training institutes. Schools of social work mainly follow the CSWE (2015) required competency-based supervision model. Field instructors attend in-services to review goals, learn how to teach competencies, use process recordings, and terminate supervision at the end of the school year.

The lack of empirical research on master's level field instructor supervisory relationships warrants my mixed method phenomenological study. By contacting graduate schools of social work to recruit field instructors, I asked field instructors what they use to guide their supervisory relationship beyond teaching the required CSWE competencies. Does the field instructor use a parallel process, consciously or unconsciously via transference or countertransference, in exploring the client and supervisory relationship? Or, is it possible the field instructors are using psychoanalytic concepts or techniques mostly unconsciously through the use of the supervisory relationship? Lastly, what do they find most rewarding about the supervisory relationship? A mixed method phenomenological study via thematic saturation of

14 responses from interviews allows understanding on how the relationship between the student and the field instructor can assist the student in developing social work competencies and professional and personal identities. Findings encourage a return to our social work origins, teaching psychodynamic, psychoanalytic theories, and concepts to master social students in the core curriculum and field instructors in supervision.

15

Chapter II

Literature Review Introduction This section provides an overview of master’s level social work field instructors teaching Counsel on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies, role, relationship, and developmental function for the student. Next, a review of the literature will be offered on the models of masters in social work field instruction in self-awareness, parallel process, reflective/use of self, neurobiology/attachment, trauma-informed, and cross-cultural areas. This is followed by the literature on social work supervision reviews. This section finishes with a conclusion on current research trends in studying social work field instruction. Then, moving closer to the area of study, a review of literature in post-graduate psychoanalytic supervision models is provided. Nearer to this study is a review of a psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, relational supervision model by Sarnat (2016), who incorporates concepts from Aron, Maroda, Benjamin, and Bion.

Lastly, an implicit tension in the literature and the lack of literature supports this mixed method study: How master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally.

16 Field Instructor Teaching CSWE Competencies, Role, Relationship, and Developmental Function The CSWE's (2022) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards guide accreditation standards for schools of social work, ensuring the teaching of nine core competencies. CSWE’s nine competencies are as follows: 1. Demonstrates ethical and professional behavior.

2. Engage anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in practice.

3. Advance human rights and social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

4. Engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice.

5. Engage in policy practice.

6. Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

7. Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

8. Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

9. Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

These core competencies are utilized with the code of ethics from NASW to educate and train social workers per the NASW (2021) 3.01 guidelines for supervisors.

With social work competence being "the ability to integrate and apply social work knowledge, values, and skills to practice situations in a purposeful, intentional, and professional manner to promote human and community well-being" (p. 3, CSWE, 2022).

17 Field instructor role.

CSWE's (2022) nine core competencies outline the role of the master level field instructor utilizing a 'signature pedagogy' of instruction where through professional socialization, students learn how to perform as a practitioner (Finch et al., 2019; OlsonMorrison et al., 2019; Pierce, 2016). Master of social work schools require field instructors to have at least two years of clinical practice post-graduation and may even require advanced practice licensure. Therefore, the field instructor is an experienced clinician who guides the students learning through their knowledge and skill. CSWE's nine core competencies provide the structure and tools for field instructors to use with the student to assess, complete the initial learning agreement and evaluate all nine areas throughout the school year. The field instructor's role is to integrate all nine core competencies into the students’ learning (Knight, 2016; Munson, 2002). Master of social work programs incorporate the CSWE’s nine core competencies into a rubric for the field instructor to assess and evaluate the student throughout the school year. A rubric, acting like a check-off list for all of the CSWE’s nine core competencies, ensures that all of the necessary values, knowledge, affective and cognitive reactions, and skills are thoroughly address during the beginning, middle, and end of field placement (Finch et al., 2019; Knight, 2016).

Initially, the field instructor assesses the master level student's learning needs. A learning agreement or agenda is reviewed and signed within the first few weeks of the field placement with assignments and activities supporting their learning (Bosch, 2016; Bogo, 2016; Erickson, 2016; Knight, 2016). Assessment of learning needs explores the

18 student's prior experiences, ethical awareness, theoretical understanding, assessment, diagnosis, and intervention knowledge (Erickson, 2016; Zeff et al., 2016).

In addition to setting expectations through the initial learning agreement, the field instructor is also responsible for orienting the student to the agency and setting.

Through their experience, field instructors can teach the student how to integrate theory into practice and point out the benefits of research as it applies to practice. Field instructors are confident in their knowledge and open to questions, are non-defensive, fair, honest, transparent, and supportive. The field instructor also models involvement with the agency, community, and profession holding our code of ethics (Munson, 2002).

In addition, the field instructor sees the student as a partner learning about their own lived experience and how that influences their work together (Finch et al., 2019). Also, the field instructor explores the student's attitudes, values, goals, and objectives for the year (Munson, 2002). Lastly, the field instructor has to balance these learning objectives with the student's emotional self-care, develop professionalism, set boundaries, integrate classroom knowledge with practice, develop professional writing skills, accept feedback, and ask for help or consultation (Hensley, 2016). Inherent in their various learning roles as field instructors, is their facilitation of a relationship with the student to assist in this process.

Field instructor build relationship.

Essential to master level social work student supervision is the field instructor establishing a trusting working alliance or relationship. Through this relationship, the student can explore their assumptions, expand abilities, learn, grow, and develop

19 professionally. With a safe space, the student is encouraged to be creative, practice techniques and new skills in an environment where mistakes facilitate new learning (Finch et al., 2019; Kadushin, 1992; Kolevzon, 1979). In many ways, through this relationship, the student can begin to see the field instructor as a social worker, and the field instructor can see themselves in the student to facilitate growth for both (Brashears, 1993).

Field instructor developmental function.

Specific to master level social work field instruction is Reynolds's developmental five-stage model from the 1942 classic textbook Learning and Teaching in the Practice of Social Work. The first stage of the student's journey is gaining confidence in their role and function in the agency. In this first stage, the student often has high anxiety that the field instructor has to normalize and support. The second stage is the "sink or swim" feeling where the student needs feedback on meeting expectations and focusing on strengths. In stage three, the student begins to start understanding the situation where setbacks can occur. Students learn various factors that can play a role in a successful or unsuccessful outcome. In stage four, the student can apply theory to practice and gain initial mastery with more confidence. In the fifth and final stage, the student has the mastery to teach and consult with others. These developmental stages are not linear but move back and forth between them (Finch et al., 2019; Reynolds, 1942; Saari, 2012).

Deal (2002) outlines a three-stage developmental model of social work field instruction. The first stage is with the novice learner at the beginning of the school year.

In the second stage, the student can integrate theory with practice. Finally, in the third

20 stage, the student can develop an understanding and use of self with clients in practice.

Bennett and Deal (2009) incorporate developmental stages with attachment theory, as evident through their field instruction models explored later in this chapter. Overall, research supports the benefits of using a developmental model in social work field instruction (Everett et al., 2011).

Outside of social work are two known developmental models for professional counseling, the Integrative Developmental Model (IDM) by McNeill and Stoltenberg (2016) and the Ronnestead and Skovholt (2003) model. First, the IDM offers a five-stage developmental model for the therapist to apply for field instruction of social work students. Utilizing an overarching frame of motivation, autonomy, and self/other awareness, in the first stage, the new therapist is intensely seeking skills and guidance with high anxiety. In the second stage, the new therapist has a mixed level of confidence, shows some autonomy but still seeks assistance with beginning to see the client's perspective with over-identification and empathy. At level three, the therapist's professional identity is becoming more autonomous, formed, and accepts the strengths and weaknesses of both the therapist and client. The therapist also now understands their reactions in the therapy process. In the last fourth stage, known as 3i, the therapist is stable across all areas of motivation, autonomy, and self/other awareness (McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2016; Poncy, 2020; Salvador, 2016).

Ronnestead and Skovholt's (2003) model stems from their longitudinal qualitative study with six phases of development. These six phases are the lay helper, beginning student phase, advanced student, novice professional, experienced professional, and senior professional. Phases are intuitive processes of development with

21 themes to cover these phases. Themes are related to professional development through a gradual increase of higher-order integration of both professional and personal selfshifting over time from an internal to external than internal professional and personal processes. Through commitment and reflection, the therapist can confidently move through all phases with assistance from the supervisor until mastery. Professional development is a life-long process. Initially, the new therapist has much anxiety which becomes more manageable through experience. The therapist's personal life with added support can impact professional functioning and development. The new therapist also seeks experienced elders as mentors along with graduate and post-graduate training.

Lastly, the therapist's anxiety and suffering allow for identification with the client and seeing their gains through their joint work together (Ronnestad & Skovholt, 2003).

Models of Master Level Social Work Field Instruction Self-awareness.

The earliest literature on social work training is from Taggart (1934), who advocated for the importance of self-awareness in social work training and the whole education process. In supervision, self-awareness is an interactive process between the supervisor and the student. The supervisor demonstrates behavior through self-awareness and invites a dialogue on various options or techniques the students can utilize.

Supervisors need to be mindful of when the student is ready to take the next "step ahead, never pushing beyond the capacity of the moment" (Taggart, 1934, p. 367). In other words, the supervisor needs to be aware of the student developmentally to build on what they know. If not, the supervisor could overwhelm the student. Instead, the supervisor

22 helps the student develop the knowledge and skills to meet the client's needs and facilitate how they can see their role in the situation. Gizynski (1978) expanded this concept for supervisors to have self-awareness in how their style, response to student's dependency on knowledge, and values can be shared.

Parallel process.

In the late 1980s to 1990s, the parallel process in supervision became known and advocated in graduate social work programs. A parallel process is defined as "the unconscious reenactment of the therapeutic dynamics while in the supervisory session" (Williams, 1997, p. 434). In other words, what is going on between the student and client is also experienced in the supervisory relationship. The parallel process has received considerable attention on the supervisory relationship in the literature (Allphin, 1987, 1999, 2005, 2015), where supervisors are conscious of their reactions and share their past mistakes when working with supervisees to assist with the supervision process. Sumerel (1994) discusses the parallel process of transference in which students present a problem or emotions of the client, which then get reenacted in the supervision.

Countertransference occurs when a supervisor responds to the student in the same way the student responds to the client. Transference and countertransference are both unconscious until brought to consciousness through the relationship through reflection (Searles, 1955). Ganzer and Ornstein (1999) expand the parallel process to include a more relational perspective using transference and countertransference material to foster curiosity. Supervisees can experience empathy in the therapeutic encounter for the client by feeling the emotions that the client is experiencing in the supervisory relationship.

23 The supervisor applying this information can teach the student how best to intervene with the client. More recently, Mills (2012) discusses parallel process in agency work of child protection supervision along with concepts of transference, countertransference, projection, repression and containment.

Reflective/use of self.

In the early 2000s, reflective practice and the use of self model in social work field instruction dominated (Davys & Beddoe, 2009; Karpetis, 2010). Davys and Beddoe (2009) developed a reflective learning model. In this reflective learning model, the supervisor and student (the novice social worker) reflect on the client and social worker's interactions during supervision to learn how to be a social worker. Following this model, the supervisor allows the student to set agenda items to explore during supervision. Then, the supervisor and student explore options on how to work with the client through mutual reflection. Lastly, the student and supervisor evaluate the usefulness of the plan developed. The process ends with the supervisor ensuring that all agenda items were covered (Davys & Beddoe, 2009). Shea (2020) developed a reflective practice training model for Bachelor-level social workers for field instructors. Field instructors completed six, 2-hour trainings, on reflective practice including critical components of the model, balancing demands, developmental issues, parallel processes, and reflective practice. Her qualitative study with 8 participants found outcomes were positive to encourage future use.

In addition to these structured models, the following discussed more experiential use of self and reflective models.

Karpetis (2010) working with a small group of

24 graduate social work students, also used a reflective supervision model. Group supervision focused on reflecting the unique personality issues that came up with the students or clients during fieldwork. Reflection by the group members also addressed any boundary or limit setting within the group supervision. Ferguson's (2018) ethnographic study on the use of reflection in supervision with child protection social workers found Casement's 'internal supervisor' concept helpful in teaching students the benefits of reflective practice. Knowing how you feel with a client can help the graduate social work student understand how the client is experiencing their inner world or relationships with others. Similar to reflective practice, Solo (2019) explores the use of self in emerging adulthood and identity for developmentally informed supervision.

Bogo and McKnight (2006) expand the use of self to support cultural competence. The social worker is used as an 'instrument' to understand the client better. The social worker uses their experiences to understand the client's culture better.

Neurobiology/attachment.

In the 1990s to 2000s, social work applied knowledge in neurobiology and attachment led to neuroscience (Miehls, 2014) and attachment theory (Foster et al., 2007) in graduate social work supervision. The most significant researcher in the area of attachment styles of both students and field instructors is Bennett (2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2012; Bennett & Saks, 2006). Bennett and Saks conceptualized an attachment-based model of field instructor supervision, applying Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Main attachment styles to both the student and field instructor with supervision case examples. Bennett et al. (2008) studied 72 graduate social work students on various attachment styles and the

25 perception of the supervisor's style and alliance. Insecure attachment in the student leads to insecure attachment with a supervisor. The study also found the perception of a supervisory alliance regardless of the general attachment style of the student. Following Bennett et al.'s (2008) research, Bennett's (2008a) article outlines an attachment informed supervision model for field instructors providing education about attachment, the working alliance, goal setting, mutual tasks, supervisory bond, addressing ruptures, developmental stages of student learning and termination with a positive outcome. In another study, Bennett (2008b) provides a case example of finding a secure attachment in the supervisory relationship leads to greater self-reflection and affect regulation. Bennett and Deal (2009) outline a developmental stage model in attachment that later would become the Developmental Relational Approach to Field Supervision (DRAFS) model (Bennett et al., 2012; Deal et al., 2011). In this model, field instructors attend a 3-day training. Day one is instruction on successful supervision and the working alliance, then developmental and attachment theory review. Day two covers the relationship between attachment and student development, then ruptures in supervision and culturally competent supervision. Day three covers the evaluation of students and ethical issues.

Field instructors, complete numerous scales on the working alliance, competencies, positive/negative affect, relationship, and demographics. Testing this model through randomly assigned field instructors, 48 in the training group and 52 in the control group with 64 students, found the need for further empirical study. Bennett and Deal's (2012) last article summarizes their research and model with implications for future research.

26 Indirect trauma.

Unlike the prior models focusing on the student and supervisor self-awareness, parallel process, reflection, use of self or attachment, recent field instructor models consider the client population and context. For example, in working with clients with intimate partner violence (IPV), Tarshis and Baird (2019) discuss a proposed model where the supervisor reviews both the structural - indirect trauma by focusing on the relationship with the student, community/ organizational support, and then the intrapersonal - psychological components with the student on self-care, resilience, reflection, and awareness. The supervisor provides these educational components to strengthen the supervisory relationship. Knight (2019) further supports trauma-informed practice in the field of social work instruction. Five core principles from her research findings are for social work students: ensuring safety, developing trust, empowerment, following core social work ethics, and collaborating with clients. Lastly, Knight (2019) provides case examples of how field instruction can incorporate these principles into students' instruction to demonstrate this model.

Cross-cultural.

Considering the cultural context and differences of the supervisor, graduate social work student, and the client, Lee and Kealy (2018) propose a model of crosscultural supervision that incorporates self-reflexivity using a social constructivist approach. In addition, the supervisor uses collaboration and conversation to strengthen the graduate social work student's supervisory alliance, development, and competencies.

The model comprises four components: contracting on cross-cultural integration in

27 supervision, active listening for cross-cultural markers, self-reflexivity, and modeling relational reflexivity, supporting earlier research on the need to address diversity in supervision within psychoanalytic theory with graduate social work students (Bonner, 2002; O'Neil & del Mar Farina, 2018).

Literature on Supervision Reviews The previous extensive research reviews on field instruction supervision models, the research remains mixed in whether the evidence-informed practice is necessary.

Specific to graduate social work supervision, Yuen-han Mo et al. (2020) reviews the origin of social work training from the 1870s to the present. Yuen-han Mo et al. (2020) found that field instructors need to balance educational functions with administrative demands of supervision, provide evidence-informed supervision practice, and allow for more professional autonomy. In addition to Yuen-han Mo et al. (2020), other research emphasizes the value of empirical evidence-informed social work supervision models (Bogo, 2015; Bogo & McKnight, 2006; Hafford-Letchfield & Engelbrecht, 2018; O'Donogue & Tsui, 2015; O'Donoghue et al., 2018; Sewell, 2018). Across all counseling disciplines, e.g., psychiatry, psychology, mental health, etc., Watkins (2020) reviewed supervision literature over the past 25 years. The literature found no empirical basis for supervision, supporting earlier noted literature reviews on supervision.

Current Research Trends in Studying Social Work Field Instruction From these literature reviews of graduate social work field instructor models and supervision, some literature looks at trends in studying social work field instruction. The

28 main movement is examining evidence-based social work supervision models. Models noted in the above literature section but are then empirically tested and or with larger sample sizes (Bennett & Deal, 2012; Bogo, 2015; Bogo & McKnight, 2006; HaffordLetchfield & Engelbrecht (2018), Yuen-han Mo et al., 2020; 2018; O'Donogue & Tsui, 2015; O'Donoghue et al., 2018; Sewell, 2018; Smith-Osborne & Daniel, 2017).

However, there is a newly validated Field Instructor Supervision Scale (FISS) by Coohey and Landsman (2020) that allows for further study of the student's perception of the field instructor's tasks and developmental support. Also, in the future, distance learning and supervision are incorporated for both the student and the field instructor (Berzin et al., 2015; Dombo et al., 2014; Rosenfield, 2012; Vernon et al., 2009). Another current interest is what factors lead a person to become a field instructor to ensure the future in social work by giving back to their profession through field instruction (Hill et al., 2019).

Post-Graduate Psychoanalytic Supervision Models The previous review of graduate social work field instructor models emphasizes an educational approach, with some empirically tested. The closest literature to psychoanalytically informed supervision was in post-graduate social work, psychology, psychiatry, and analytic training. In post-graduate social work supervision, Ramussen and Mishna (2018) advocated using a relational approach to clinical supervision. A case example using psychoanalytic, interpersonal, and attachment theory explores what occurs in the therapist-client dyad and the supervisee and supervisor dyad. Rock (1997) explores psychodynamic supervision from a supervisory 'parataxis' or parallel process experience, structure, and effectiveness. Rock's (1997) approaches for supervision are

29 reviewed through relational, intersubjective, self-psychology, and developmental theories. Next, examining areas of problems and solutions in supervision, Rock (1997) expands on prior psychodynamic supervision literature from Bromberg (1974, 1982).

Specific to psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, Jacobs et al. (1995) provide a model in supervision based on the mode of thought. First, the review is the usual phases of supervision, adding inductive and associative modes of thought. Next, these creative and self-reflective modes of thought apply in the interpersonal relationship of client/therapist and supervisee/supervisor dyads using unconscious or conscious transference and countertransference material.

In post-graduate psychology psychodynamic supervision, Lane (2014) provides an edited book Psychoanalytic Approaches to Supervision that offers an overview of psychoanalytic supervision from the selection of the supervision case, transference, countertransference, parallel process, cross culture and other issues related to supervision.

Hilsenroth et al. (2015) studied alliance and technique across multiple cases, using a structured time-limited psychodynamic psychotherapy and supervision model. Cucco (2020) discusses her supervision as a post-graduate psychology doctoral student exploring the unconscious through transference and countertransference. Her experience was very positive in her supervisor modeling curiosity, compassion, and safety.

Contrastano (2020), another post-graduate psychology doctoral student, investigates the shared vulnerability and need for boundaries in clinical supervision. Mammen (2020) discusses the parallel attachment dynamics between client/therapist, supervisee/ supervisor, and parent/child relationships, continuing the need for a non-judgmental,

30 compassionate, and collaborative relationship with the supervisor. Finally, Menefee et al.

(2014) develops a scale on Supervisee Attachment Strategies that needs further testing.

Most closely related to the focus on my research area is post-graduate psychology and analytic training supervision, as explained in the book by Frawey-O'Dea and Sarnat's (2001) The Supervisory Relationship: A Contemporary Psychodynamic Approach. Sarnat's follow-up articles expand their approach (2010, 2011). Sarnat (2010) outlines key competencies for psychodynamic supervision using competencies of professional psychology: relationship, self-reflection, assessment-case conceptualization, and intervention (Rodolfa et al., as cited in Sarnat 2010). Sarnat (2011) reviews the history behind competencies in psychoanalytic supervision and how to teach them through a relational model. Sarnat (2016) expands her relational supervision model in a book that investigates the supervisor’s view of authority, nature of the material discussed, and the mode of participation in supervision to be further reviewed in the next section.

Sarnat (2019) explores what is new with the parallel process in supervision, disputing Watkins’ that parallel process is not empirically based. However, Zetzer et al. (2020) completed qualitative research on parallel processes in psychodynamic supervision with post-graduate psychology doctoral students. Nine experienced clinicians were able to observe, describe, and respond to parallel processes in the supervisory relationship.

Participants were supervisors who responded to the research question on experiencing parallel processes with their supervisees. Results found an eight-step parallel process pattern. Parallel processes in the supervision provided understanding, growth, and insight to both the supervisee and supervisor (Zetzer et al., 2020). Implications for further research are to explore parallel processes outside of conscious awareness.

31 The Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic Relational Supervision—Sarnat's Model Sarnat (2016) provides her relational supervision model in Supervision Essentials for Psychodynamic Psychotherapies. The three dimensions of relational supervision are the supervisor’s view of authority, the nature of material discussed and the supervisor’s mode of participation in the supervision.

In dimension one for Sarnat's

(2016) relational model of supervision, the view of authority moves away from the classic psychodynamic supervision model. Classical supervision authority relies on the supervisor's knowledge or expertise on various theories and techniques. In a relational view of supervision, the supervisor wants to understand the supervisee's theory and techniques in thinking about their client. The meaning behind an agreement or disagreement of theory or technique utilized is more critical. The supervisor is an active participant in the therapy with the client then just an objective expert (Sarnat, 2016).

In this first dimension, Sarnat (2016) draws on Aron's (1996) concept of mutuality with asymmetry to apply to the relational view of the supervisor's authority.

Aron uses this concept in the therapist and client dyad. Aron explains how mutuality with asymmetry in the therapist-client dyad for therapy is beneficial in holding our psychoanalytical frame. Where an optimal balance or tension must occur, the therapist chooses to either participate or not participate in what emerges or is co-created in the work together. The result is unique to the therapist and the client that can change moment to moment in the work created together and different with another therapist or client. The difference is the therapist has a fiduciary relationship in the therapy dyad. In the supervision dyad, the supervisor has a responsibility to ensure learning for the supervisee.

32 Sarnat (2016) applies this concept of the supervisor’s view of authority, to the supervisory dyad; the supervisor is responsible for holding the structure, expectation, and focus on the supervisory task. Yet, there is an understanding that both bring "subjectivities to the work and to participate mutually in unconscious resistance and enactment, that is, the acting out of material that is too painful to be consciously known" (p. 20). Through trust, the supervisee and supervisor value what is co-created between them. According to Sarnat, what is co-created acts as an influence in addition the supervisor's expertise.

Sarnat's (2016) second dimension in relational supervision, the nature of material discussed in the supervisory relationship, is an instrument to assist in learning for the supervisee. The supervisory relationship addresses any "feelings, somatic experiences, and enactments that arise in the supervisory session" (p. 21). Thus, supervisors need to teach supervisees to work with the material from these feelings or enactments to facilitate their learning.

Recently, Maroda (2020) defines the therapeutic action of enactment as twofold.

First, an enactment "is aimed at restoring the relationship between analyst and the patient which has been eroded or ruptured through a process if disengagement” (p. 8). Secondly, “it can provide a needed venue for conflict-and its resolution-when either patient and/or analyst are incapable of engaging in behavior that will lead to constructive conflict" (p.

8). Disengagements are negative countertransference emotions that often occur before the disengagement of the therapist to the client. For example, applied to relational supervision, negative reactions from a supervisor may resonate with the supervisee’s early experiences that then resonate with the supervisee.

33 Sarnat (2016) demonstrates this second dimension through two clinical vignettes, one working through a dissociated state and the other an enactment. For the first case, Sarnat (2016) seeks consultation in experiencing a 'deadness' in the work with her supervisee. This 'deadness' also played out in the supervisee's and client's relationship in a parallel process. A parallel process defined by Sarnat (2019) as accessing unconscious material from the therapy relationship, demonstrating therapeutic technique, and providing essential emotional/relational experiences (containment, holding, the processing of projective identifications and the resolving of enactments) in the here and now of the supervisory relationship as well as providing a means to think about aspects of the supervisor's unconscious that impact the therapy. (p. 313-314) Sarnat (2016), sharing feelings of ‘deadness and despair’ that led her to seek consultation, lifted her supervisee's feelings of failure and shame in the case. Acknowledging this shared experience then lifted the impasse in both the supervision and in the work with the client. In the second example, Sarnat, describes a supervisee who does not assert herself with her clients. Initially, Sarnat focused on the supervisee's issue or defense.

Eventually, Sarnat realized she was in an enactment where there was an "unprocessed internalized relationship with an authoritarian object" (p. 23). The supervisee was carrying this into her relationships with her clients via a parallel process. Fortunately, her supervisee confronted her in frustration for not being assisted in the supervision. Sarnat (2016) believes this mutual preconscious awareness of what was going on in the supervision, allowed her to contain non-defensively the supervisee's anger. After this experience, the supervisee could better tolerate or manage her anger in her work with her

34 clients, becoming more assertive. Sarnat (2016) and her supervisee in managing the unconscious or preconscious material in the supervision dyad, models how the supervisee can utilize it in the work with clients. As Benjamin (2018) notes, "mutual influence and co-construction are a general property of dyadic systems whether we transcend or get struck in complementarity" (p. 50). Per Benjamin (2018), there is complementarity in the dynamic of reciprocal influence, but there can be times where the subjectivity of those involved do not necessarily feel reciprocity but rather could feel being 'done to.' Sarnat (2016), seeking her consultation and sense of something being off, prevented an experience where the supervisee felt 'done to.' Sarnat held the frame of supervision, taking the responsibility to ensure learning took place.

Lastly, in the third dimension of Sarnat's (2016) relational model of supervision, the supervisor’s mode of participation in the supervision, strong emotions are allowed to come up in the supervision and seen as 'pedagogical' or learning opportunities. The relational supervisor engages their experience of feelings coming up in the supervision to address any personal material to assist in treating the client. The relational supervisor maintains the frame to 'teach and treat' the supervisee, a complex, integrated, and challenging part of the supervisee's learning.

During this third dimension of relational supervision, Sarnat (2016) explains how the supervisor can utilize containment of intense affects from the supervisee in supervision. Fears, anxiety, anger, sadness, or criticism can all be projections from any past figures in the supervisee's life. Sarnat (2016) provides a clinical vignette demonstrating how she focuses on the here and now in the supervision which is also being played out with the client in another parallel process example. The supervisee

35 learns about her unconscious expectations or assumptions is about how people will respond to her from her past experiences, ultimately learning how to best work with her client's emotional needs.

Though Sarnat (2016) later discusses Bion's (1962/1984) ‘group as a whole' concept in listening and sharing, the group members comments as the group unconscious material can move the group process. Bion's (1962/1984) concept of "container and contained" can be used during this third dimension of relational supervision. Bion (1962/1984) describes the process of projections, i.e., anxiety, fears, sadness, etc., being contained by the therapist for the client. For Bion, the container, i.e., the therapist, and the contained, i.e., client, is an active process. Activity can be a healthy integration or a destructive one (Symington & Symington, 1996). Again, Sarnat (2016) notes the need for the supervisor to take the responsibility to hold the frame and emotions that come up in supervision to ensure the supervisee's learning. In conclusion, in Sarnat's (2016) relational model of supervision, the supervisor holds her own authority yet recognizes her areas of vulnerability.

When she enlarges the scope of the material to which she attends in supervision to include nonsemantic experience and feelings of the supervisee and the supervisor toward one another and when she judiciously brings to bear her clinical skills to further the supervisory task and facilitate supervisee's development, profound experiences of supervisee's growth and clinical progress become possible. (p. 27)

36 Implicit Tension in the Literature In review of all the social work supervision models there is an undertone of tension between meeting analytic or accreditation competencies and developing the supervisory relationship within this literature, which is not studied explicitly or empirically. Therefore, examining this literature supports my mixed method study on how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally.

Summary This section provided an overview of master’s level social work field instructors teaching CSWE competencies, role, relationship, and developmental function for the student. The literature on the various models of master level social work field instruction, articles on social work supervision reviews and the current research trends in social work field instruction were all examined. Then, closer to the area of study, there is a review of literature of post-graduate psychoanalytic supervision models. Nearer to this study is a completed examination of a psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, relational supervision model by Sarnat (2016), incorporating concepts from Aron, Maroda, Benjamin, and Bion. Lastly, the implicit tension in the literature and the lack of literature supports this mixed method study; how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally.

37

Chapter 3

Methods Introduction This mixed method phenomenological research study examined how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students.

Notably, in teaching Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally. This study addressed the following research questions: How do master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and helping students develop professionally and personally? Sub-questions are: 1. How do master’s level field instructors teach CSWE’s competencies through the supervisory relationship?

2. How do master’s level field instructors understand their role with students?

3. How do these master’s level field instructors build relationships with students?

4. How do master’s level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

This research study explored lived experiences as defined by van Manen's (2014, 2016, 2017) hermeneutic phenomenology and Gergen's (2015) social construction. The qualitative methodology of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022) addressed the nuances of these ordinary experiences of master's level social work field

38 instructors, ultimately describing a detailed picture of their interaction with their students.

The quantitative part of the mixed method design provided additional aggregate data to review with the qualitative interviews.

This chapter includes (a) a continued overview of this chapter; (b) rationale for the mixed method primarily qualitative by design with some additional descriptive quantitative questions, research design of hermeneutic phenomenology; (c) rationale of the specific methodology of reflexive thematic analysis; (d) description of the research sample; (e) outline of the research plan; (f) process of data collection; (g) strategy for data analysis; (h) ethical considerations; (i) issues of trustworthiness evaluating credibility, dependability, and transferability of the study; (j) limitations and delimitations of the study and in closing; and (k) the role and background of the researcher.

The Rationale for Mixed Method Research Design Per Bloomberg and Volpe (2019) "the purpose of phenomenological research is to investigate the meaning of lived experience of people to identify the core essence of the phenomena as described by research participants." (p. 54) Phenomenology does not focus on developing a theory to learn about phenomena but seek to gain greater insight about the phenomena through interaction.

Philosopher Heidegger expands hermeneutic

(interpretive) phenomenology on the philosophy of Husserl. Husserl, in particular, discussed the importance of learning the essence of experiences (van Manen, 2014).

Hermeneutic phenomenology explores the world as we see it in all its various aspects in a more profound way (van Manen, 2016). Van Manen (2017) defines phenomenology as studying the lived experience of something not yet known. Themes provide meaningful

39 shared experiences through interviews or 'texts' from master’s level social work field instructors. Van Manen's (2014, 2016, 2017) approach allows for reflectivity, intuitiveness, and skills in interviewing the study participants. The themes from the qualitative interviews or 'texts' have implicit displays of reflectiveness and meaning inductively (Errasti-Ibarrondo et al., 2018). In-depth interviews are essential to learning about the characteristics of the phenomena studied (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Per Creswell and Poth (2018), a "phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon" (p. 75).

Master's level social work field instructors have a shared lived experience in training future social workers.

This study used ontology or the nature of reality through Gergen's (2015) social construction. Reality is socially constructed through various lenses socially, culturally, and historically. Participants develop a subjective meaning of their own, and with others’ experiences, that produce multiple implications (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

Through dialogue via interviews, master’s level social work field instructors shared their experiences in this socially constructed context incorporating a number of qualitative techniques. For instance, through establishing a rapport and empathic stance, the researcher can obtain thick descriptions from the participants (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006; Medico & Santiago-Delefosse, 2014; Prior, 2017; Stein 1917/1989). Epistemologically, phenomenologically understanding the phenomena of the relationship between the subject and the researcher is subjective. The axiology, values, or assumptions were brought in and bracketed in what the researcher can realistically set aside. The researcher interpreted the meanings of the lived experience inductively through reflexive thematic

40 analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022). The analyzing of data, the interviews or texts, for significant statements, meanings of themes, toward developing an overall 'essence' of the field instructor's supervisory relationships until ‘saturation’ of the themes occurred (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). The researcher reviewed themes from the interviews until saturation. Member checking and peer debriefing ensured trustworthiness, quality, and rigor in this hermeneutic process. Hermeneutic phenomenology with social construction theory best suited the study's research questions compared to the narrative, grounded theory, ethnographic, and case study approaches. This study explored the lived experiences of master’s level social work field instructors instead of studying stories to develop a theory, of focusing on a particular culture sharing group or an in-depth bounded system or case (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Creswell & Poth, 2018).

After examining phenomenon qualitatively, the use of quantitative questions of a mixed design allowed for additional questions obtained from potential participants via recruit survey to be aggregated with the data from the qualitative interviews. Thus, a mixed method approach allowed for the comparison between the information from interviews and the survey responses.

Rationale for a Specific Methodology Phenomenology is both a philosophy and a method in examining a problem or research question (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). This study is a mixed method, exploratory, sequential, and balanced in design (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Creswell & Plano, 2017). Quantitatively interested participants i.e. field instructors, answered four close ended survey questions that assess their opinion of the purpose of supervision

41 evaluated for any meaning. The phenomenological methodology utilized for this study qualitatively is reflexive thematic analysis (TA) from Braun and Clarke (2012, 2022).

Backing hermeneutic phenomenology, reflexive TA permitted the researcher to explore the lived experience by interpreting meaning from data or 'texts' of interviews. Reflexive TA supported social construction as data coming from a language where experiences were socially constructed. Reflexive TA is an inductive systematic organizing process for the researcher to find insight into patterns of meanings through themes across and between a set of data, e.g., interviews related to a research question (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022). Finally, reflexive TA allowed for incorporation of additional qualitative research techniques of bracketing, member checking, and peer debriefing to ensure trustworthiness. Ultimately, a mixed method approach allowed for the comparison between how these field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions) and what they actually do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students via the qualitative questions).

Research Sample The study used purposive sampling to recruit master’s level social work field instructors. Per Creswell and Poth (2018), this "purposeful sample that will intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the research problem under examination. "(p. 148). A group of participants were selected to explore a unique phenomenon of master’s level social work field instructors' use of the supervisory

42 relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and helping students to develop professionally and personally.

The sample size for this study was 10 participants qualitatively, which is consistent with recommendations in the literature (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Creswell & Poth, 2018). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were adult participants who are master’s level social work field instructors in a CSWE accredited program who agreed to participate, be interviewed two times, be audio recorded, and have at least 3 years of experience in this role. Quantitatively, all interested in the study completed a survey as a means to recruit participants qualitatively. The survey was used to recruit eligible participants until the sample size was met. The survey asked demographic information along with four questions exploring the supervision experience. Survey responses were evaluated for additional meaning, exploring any similarities or differences with the qualitative responses. Any additional survey responses were used as aggregate data. A mixed-method approach allowed for a comparison between how field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions) and what they actually do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students).

Research Plan or Process Following a mixed method phenomenological hermeneutic research design, qualitatively the researcher interviewed 10 participants, master’s level social work field instructors, recruited from accredited CSWE programs. The rationale for this small sample size allows for two, 75- to 90-minute in depth semi-structured interviews to

43 enable participants to share thick descriptions of their experiences related to the research question and sub-questions via a video or phone platform (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Researcher first consulted employer the Department of Veteran Affairs IRB to confirm no Veteran Affairs (VA) resources were used in VA time, VA resources, or recruitment of VA veterans or staff were utilized to complete this dissertation project.

Thus, this dissertation project is not VA research, and VA IRB or R&DC approval is not required. In addition, since VA IRB or R&DC approval is not needed, then nor is the notification to the VA Office of Research and Development for publication of the dissertation results.

After this clearance, researcher obtained Intuitional Review Board (IRB) approval from the Institute for Clinical Social Work, and the researcher sent a letter request to four mid-western state accredited graduate schools of social work asking for current master’s level social work field instructors to receive the researcher's survey. The survey was a recruitment tool that includes demographic information including race, gender, age, place of employment and length of being a field instructor along with four questions exploring the supervision experience. Other area schools or professional contacts were utilized to obtain participants. Interested participants from the survey who meet inclusion criteria were sent informed consent forms that include the study's purpose.

Participants were asked to read, sign and send the completed informed consent prior to first interview.

Informed consent forms were reviewed at the first interview, assessing the participants' understanding. Then, the researcher administered the first 75- to 90-minute

44 semi-structured interview with the interview guide and set up a second interview 1 to 2 weeks later. Afterwards, the researcher transcribed the interview either independently or through a private, secured company. Then the researcher then sent the sanitized version of the transcript, whereby any identifying information was removed for the participant for review. In the second interview, the researcher reviewed any questions or themes from the transcripts for member checking and further processing of the experience from the first interview. The second interview was transcribed by researcher. The second interview averaged about 30 to 45 minutes long.

Before, during, and after the research process, the researcher memo or journaled any thoughts, feelings, or ideas from the research process to bracket any bias or assumptions and consulted with the research committee chair. The researcher also noted any relations to the data to the research question, subject area and the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, class or current events. The research committee chair also completed peer checking of the data both qualitative and quantitative during the coding analysis process to ensure trustworthiness. The researcher had regular contact with the research committee chair throughout the research.

Data Collection After receiving approval from the Institute for Clinical Social Work (ICSW) IRB prior to successful dissertation defense on December 4, 2021, the researcher followed these steps: 1. The researcher, with a peer "test" participant who is a social work colleague, followed the research plan and process. This provided insight into the

45 interview guide to ensure questions foster discussion to elicit detailed descriptions in the study area. Conversations with the dissertation chair allowed for further fine-tuning of the interview guide and address any issues.

In addition, the practice participant also assisted in ensuring the email contact, Survey Monkey link, and other particulars to the research study are functional and appropriate to this study.

2. The researcher then sent an email letter request initially to four mid-western states accredited graduate schools of social work asking for a Survey Monkey link to be sent to current master’s level social work field instructors with flyer (See Appendices A & B). As needed, other schools or professional contacts were utilized to obtain participants.

The survey used as a recruitment tool

contained demographic information and a few questions about their thoughts about field instruction and years they have provided this role (see Appendix C for Survey Monkey). The survey link allowed for a quick and easy way for those interested to share a few of their experiences, how long they have been field instructors, and provide demographic information. The survey also provided a means to contact the potential participants. The researcher also provided this information via telephone for those interested in the study but were not comfortable in completing the survey via an online website.

However, all responded via e mail.

3. The researcher continued to memo or journal any thoughts, feelings, or ideas from the research process to bracket any bias or assumptions and consulted with the research committee chair. Researcher also noted any relations to the

46 data to the research question, subject area and the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, class or current events.

4. Interested participants were screened for eligibility by email or phone.

Information about the purpose and consent was provided. The researcher provided any answers to questions, obtained contact information, and set up the first interview. Participants having at least 3 years of experience as a field instructor were selected until 10 were obtained. Participants read, signed, and returned the consent form prior to the first interview. (See Appendix D for Sample Initial Email [or screening script for phone] and Appendix E & F for Phase I Quantitative and Phase II Qualitative Informed Consents.)

5. At the first interview, informed consent forms were reviewed, ensuring and assessing the participant's understanding. (See Appendix G for the script ensuring informed consent.) Participants were made aware they can choose at any time to end the interview. The researcher had planned to document this via research notes and seek alternate participants; however, none choose to end any interview.

6. The researcher administered the first 75- to 90-minute semi-structured interview with the interview guide, and set up a second interview 1 to 2 weeks later. Any sensitive information that came up for the field instructor, or past experience with students was disguised. Both interviews were through video platforms such as ZOOM with audio recordings via a handheld device. The audio device is protected in a double-locked environment, downloaded via a

47 password-protected computer, and secured via document encryption. (See Appendix H for the interview guide for the first interview.)

7. The first interview was transcribed by researcher or via a private, secured company. Audio recordings were deleted and permanently erased once transcriptions were completed. Then, a sanitized transcription was sent to the participant for review. (See Appendix I for the follow-up email.) Any documents with personal identification or data from the study is and will be secured via password-protected computer and encryption of document for five years post-graduation before deletion and permanently erased. The researcher continued to discuss and review any initial thoughts or codes with the dissertation chair to ensure consistency of coding and process.

8. The second interview was completed on a video platform ZOOM and audio recorded via a handheld device. The researcher reviewed any questions from the transcripts or member checking, and allowed for questions, reflection, or further processing of the experience with the first interview. Participants were informed they could choose at any time to end the interview. The researcher had planned to document this via research notes and seek alternate participants; however, none chose to end the interview. Finally, the researcher thanked the participants for contributing to this research to further knowledge in this area with an email thank-you. (See Appendix J for the interview guide for the second interview and Appendix I for the end of study thank-you, email.)

48 9. The second interview was transcribed by researcher. Again, audio recordings were deleted and permanently erased once transcriptions completed.

10. The researcher continued to memo or journal any thoughts, feelings, or ideas from the research process to bracket any bias or assumptions. Researcher also noted any relations to the data to the research question, subject area and the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, class or current events. In addition, the researcher continued to consult with the research committee chair.

11. The researcher then coded and analyzed the data through reflexive thematic analysis to learn from the lived experience of the participants related to the research questions. The research committee chair also conducted a peer review of the data for trustworthiness throughout the research or as indicated.

Research also provided findings of themes to the participants who requested them via email (See Appendix L for email sent.)

12. The researcher continued to memo or journal any thoughts, feelings, or ideas from the qualitative and quantitative research process to bracket any bias or assumptions. The researcher continued to note any relations to the data to the research question, subject area, and the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, class or current events. The researcher continued to consult with the research committee chair throughout this process.

13. A draft of chapter findings and discussion were sent to the research committee dissertation chair than to the committee for review.

14. Finally, a revised draft was written and submitted to committee members for review until approved for completion.

49 Plan for Data Analysis This hermeneutic phenomenological study qualitatively utilized the six-phase data analysis of reflexive thematic analysis (TA) developed by Braun and Clarke (2012, 2022). In the first phase, the researcher familiarized herself with the data, i.e., the interviews, by reading and rereading the transcripts and listening to the audio recording with the transcript, making notes on any points of interest. Then, by repeatedly reading and rereading the transcripts, the researcher absorbed any surface or latent meanings of the participant's experience. Finally, the researcher began to ask questions about the data meanings and became familiar with the content and connection to the research question.

Phase two of reflexive TA generates initial codes in a systematic analysis of the data, i.e., interviews, through coding. Codes provided a way to identify and label data that may be related to the research question or that comes from the data. Coding is both exploring the semantic, descriptive, in vivo words from participants and latent meaning of the data (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022; Creswell & Creswell, 2018, Creswell & Poth, 2018; Saldana, 2016). In this reflexive TA phase, the coding required additional reading of all of the data individually, and all the data sets. All the interview transcripts for each code developed then move onto another code. For any identified code during this phase, the researcher wrote any text associated with the code. Data can have more than one code. Transcripts are read and reread for each code where the researcher makes decisions if a portion of the data, i.e., interviews, fit a new code or an existing one. The researcher organized any extracted material or quotes from the interview to go with the code for later retrieval (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022). During this phase, the 10 qualitative participants’ first and second interviews were

50 first combined into a document as a whole, except for one participant where a second interview was not obtained. The researcher then reviewed all completed 10 participant interviews a total of six times to obtain the list of codes.

In phase three of reflexive TA, the researcher is searching for themes from the codes. Themes derived from the codes associated with the research question or that comes from the data produce a pattern of meaning from the whole data set, i.e., all interviews. The researcher was active in making decisions about the data set as a whole across all interview transcripts, individually, as a group, and any overlap of codes. Per Braun and Clarke (2012), The basic process of generating themes and subthemes, which are the subcomponents of a theme, involves collapsing or clustering codes that seem to share some unifying feature, so that they reflect and describe a coherent and meaningful pattern in the data. (p. 63) Therefore, the researcher began to have distinctive themes and worked to make a story or portrait of the data. Any themes that do not fit any other theme can form a miscellaneous theme where the researcher can decide if it relates to the data or not. During this phase, the researcher reviewed the individual 10 participant interviews 13 times against the shared pattern of meanings of themes and sub-themes derived.

In phase four of reflexive TA, the researcher reviewed the potential themes with the data individually and with the complete data set, i.e., individual and as a group the interview transcripts. Then, the researcher asks a series of questions to check if the themes match the prior extracts or quotes of data from interviews coded earlier.

Checking occurs within individual interview transcripts, and the complete interview

51 transcripts requiring another read through of all the data, e.g., all the interview transcripts (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022).

In phase five of reflexive TA, the researcher defined and named succinct themes, built on and developed from the prior themes, so that as a whole, "the theme provides a coherent overall story about the data." (p. 66, Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022). The researcher used the organized extracts or quotes from the data, i.e., the interviews, that describe the themes, then analyze and interpret meaning. Finally, the researcher explained through writing how these interpretations relate to the research question. Reflexive TA can be descriptive using the participant's own words, in vivo, or conceptual and interpretatively, where the researcher analyzed for any latent or implicit meanings. By the end of this phase, all themes have expressive names with extracted material or quotes from the data to support the theme (Braun & Clarke 2012, 2022).

The final phase of reflective TA is the researcher's finished report, journal article, or dissertation. Themes were organized logically by building or weaving from prior themes to make a compelling and coherent story from the participant's data, e.g., interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2012, 2022). Quantitatively, the survey used for recruitment until qualitative participants were obtained, the demographic information, and four survey questions were evaluated. Through use descriptive statistics. these survey responses were examined to find any potential meaning or lived experience in relation to the qualitative data. Quantitative data was hand coded by the researcher and broken down into the total survey participants: the 10 interviewed participants who met criteria for the study and the 26 non-interviewed survey participants along with any outlier data.

52 Lastly, this mixed-method approach allowed for a comparison between how these field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions) and what they actually do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students). In the data analysis, the researcher analyzed the qualitative data through reflexive TA, then analyzed the survey or quantitative data. This ‘mixed method data analysis’ was used in comparing and contrasting or integrating the two data sources (Berman, 2017; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Ethical Considerations The researcher obtained IRB approval to ensure adherence to ethical standards.

The researcher addressed ethical issues throughout the research process in designing the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of results. The researcher protected the rights of participants via informed consent. Informed consent educated the participants on the right to withdraw from the study at any time voluntarily, however, none asked to withdraw from the study. In addition, the purpose of the study, data collection, procedures, risks, and benefits were all outlined with the study protocol to ensure confidentiality (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). (Also, see Appendixes E and F for the informed consent and Appendix G Script of Informed Consent.)

The researcher assured privacy and confidentiality by securing any documentation with identifying information in a password-protected computer, an encrypted document, which were secured in a double-locked environment. The researcher supported the anonymity of participants. Any sensitive information disclosed

53 during the sharing of the supervisory relationship of past students that information was also disguised with no identifying characteristics or identifying descriptions to ensure confidentiality.

The researcher does not identify the participants' information, nor can

anyone link the responses to a participant. The audio recording device was kept in a double-locked secured environment. The downloaded audio files were stored in a password-protected computer in an encryption file with no identifying information until transcribed. Then the audio recordings were deleted and permanently erased once transcriptions were completed. The researcher also assured further confidentiality is maintained using a private transcription company with no identifying information. At 5 years post-graduation, all data, i.e., interview transcripts, informed consents, and other study documents, will be permanently deleted and erased from the password-protected computer (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

Lastly, before both qualitative interviews, participants are reminded they can withdraw from the study at any time; however, none chose to withdraw. The researcher assessed for any distress during the interview, pausing and asking if they wish to continue. No participant expressed any distress. Quantitatively, any participant beginning the survey consented to take the survey and could choose to not take the survey.

Issues of Trustworthiness The integrity of the study stems from the principles and standards of hermeneutic phenomenology (Dowling, 2004; Errasti-Ibarrondo et al., 2018; Qutoshi, 2019; van Manen, 2014, 2016, 2017) and social construction (Gergen, 2015). The study aimed to

54 understand the lived experience of master’s level social work field instructors through accurate interpretation of meanings from their data, i.e., interviews. The researcher utilized many strategies to ensure credibility, dependability, and transferability (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

For the credibility of the data, the researcher used clinical techniques during any contact with the participants to ensure capturing information correctly. Examples included asking clarifying questions, summarizing responses, and assessing whether replies are understood (See Appendix G for Script of Informed Consent.) In addition, interviews allowed for thick descriptions of experience. The researcher practiced triangulation of the data collection through member checking of the interviews, peer debriefing, and use of field notes, memos, and journaling. In addition, the researcher provided the participant the sanitized transcript for review. The researcher also set up a second interview for member checking to allow for any questions, reflection, or processing from the first interview (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). A mixed method approach allowed for further triangulation of the data with the comparison between how these field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions). and what they actual do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students via the qualitative questions).

Dependability is obtained through the researcher outlining clearly and logically how another researcher can replicate this study. This chapter provides the details of design, procedures, data collection, and analysis along with the appendixes for any researcher to replicate this study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

55 Lastly, the transferability of the study is in the findings applied to a larger context in the area of study. This study of master’s level social work field instructors' lived experience of the research question provides information for a possible change in education that will benefit future master’s social workers and field instructors. This purposeful sample provided qualitative data that was thick, in depth, and a detailed description of their lived experience, which allows others to make their judgments about the quality of the research, the findings, and relevance of the study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Quantitatively, the four survey questions provided additional data or meaning to the field instructor supervisory experience.

Limitations and Delimitations The study's sample size limits a representative larger population of all master’s level social work field instructors in the greater United States or worldwide population accurately. Results of the study represent a particular time frame during the Omicron coronavirus variant January 2022 through March 2022. The researcher addressed any biases, assumptions, or preconceived notions with the dissertation chair, committee, and through journaling. Future researchers may want to focus on the student relationship with the field instructor or use quantitative research to obtain statistical significance or understanding.

Delimitations derive from the researcher focusing only on master’s level social work field instructors instead of focusing on the student or both participants. Scarce resources of the researcher's time and resources led to a narrowing of the research question and purpose with concurrence from the dissertation chair and committee. The

56 purposive sampling and small sample size is another delimitation. The researcher chose a mixed method design as this fit her experience as a licensed clinical social worker. The researcher is drawn intuitively to the lived experience of the master’s level social work field instructors as socially constructed in a natural setting.

The Role and Background of the Researcher The role of the researcher is following Gergen's (2015) social constructionism and van Manen's (2014, 2016, 2017) hermeneutic phenomenology. Reality is a socially contracted lived experience. Socially constructed reality is constantly changing socially, culturally and historically. This socially constructed reality in master’s level social work field instructor's relationship with students is in parallel with the researcher's interaction with the participants. The researcher has to understand the multiple realities of the participant's perspectives through meaningful interaction during the interviews in this ever-changing reality through constant change socially, culturally and historically. The researcher has to balance the intersectionality of race, culture, gender, and class within the interviews.

The researcher chose mixed method research; primarily qualitative by design with some additional descriptive quantitative questions, for many reasons. In Chapter 1, the researcher shared experience training master’s level social workers in field instruction at a large medical center setting. As an advanced practice licensed social worker, clinical interviewing skills, the ability to quickly establish safety, rapport, alliance, and an empathic stance are all applicable in the research setting (Gair, 2012; Lumma et al., 2019; Prior, 2017; Ross, 2017; Stein, 1917/1989; von Knorring et al., 2019). Empathic stance,

57 in particular, allows the researcher to suspend judgment during the interview, assisting in objectivity in the research process (Prior, 2017; Stein, 1917/1989). Lastly, the researcher's background is instrumental, especially in this mixed method research design relating to social or personal phenomena. The researcher must be keenly aware of any biases, assumptions, reflections, and reactions throughout the study process through memo and journal writing, with peer debriefing from the dissertation chair and committee members. However, the opportunity to hear the in-depth, lived experiences of the participants concerning the research questions outweigh any burden.

58

Chapter IV

Results Introduction This chapter will review the results of this mixed methods phenomenological study. Specifically, the chapter will review the data from the interviews and the recruitment survey that revealed some of the shared experiences of master’s level social work field instructors. The data from the interviews allow us to examine the lived experience of field instructors in order to understand their shared socially constructed reality. In addition, the recruitment survey responses from all of the participants will build on the qualitative responses. This mixed-methods approach allowed for a comparison between how these field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions) and what they actually do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students). This mixed method data analysis was used to compare and contrast or integrate the two data sources (Berman, 2017; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

In this chapter, the researcher will review the process of analyzing the data and sharing the results of the interviews. First, the researcher will explain the analytical approach used to analyze the qualitative data the interviews through reflexive thematic analysis (TA). Then, the researcher will move on to an analysis of the quantitative data

59 from the recruitment survey. The chapter ends with an overview of both the qualitative and the quantitative data.

Reflective Thematic Analysis (TA) The researcher analyzed the qualitative data through reflexive thematic analysis (TA). then analyzed the recruitment survey or quantitative data. Through TA, the researcher examines the data through the lens of the research questions primarily and allows for any themes from the data as a whole. For organization, the themes are structured in this chapter by the four research questions related to the purpose of the study. Each question will have a theme along with sub-theme(s). Themes were a composite derived from the codes, i.e. the latent meaning. Sub-themes were derived codes from the participants actual words, i.e. the semantic meaning. Furthermore, with TA, the codes are “an analytic tool and output; [that] captures an analytic insight from the researcher’s systematic engagement with their data” (p. 284, Braun & Clarke, 2022).

After the qualitative data, there is a summary created of the quantitative data from the total recruitment survey participants. Then, a summary was produced of the aggregate quantitative survey data from the total 36 recruitment survey participants along with a review of the outlier data. Next, the 10 interviewed recruitment survey results were reviewed. The final outcome produced was an overview of the 26 non-interviewed recruitment survey participants along with a comparison and contrasting the overall results. This included a final conclusion, drawing on any nuances of the relational experiences of these master's level social work field instructors qualitative and

60 quantitative data. Before moving onward to the TA of the qualitative data, the purpose and the research questions will be reviewed Because TA examines the qualitative data through the research questions, it is useful to include the research questions here to illustrate how the themes and subtheme(s) of the participants’ narrative were derived. The research questions are: 1. How do master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

2. How do master's level field instructors understand their role with their students?

3. How do these master's level field instructors build relationships with their students?

4. How do master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

1. How do Master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

Predominantly the participants, i.e. field instructors, saw the competencies as a cornerstone to the profession and ones’ social work identity. CSWE competencies play a role in how students learn how to be a social worker. In addition, the participants’ latent meaning acknowledged how the competencies assist in forming the student’s professional identity. CSWE competencies are used as an evaluation tool for the student during the initial, middle and end phases of the student’s school year. The field instructor and student examine the student’s work applying to these competencies. Participants also

61 talked about the struggle between integrating or weaving the competencies into the work that the student performs through the evaluation process throughout the school year.

Theme – Facilitate professional identity through demonstrating the CSWE competencies.

One participant shares that teaching the student is about professional identity; she then shifted focus on the specific competency of social justice and how it interplays in our daily work as a professional social worker. “We're talking about how you present yourself, and then sort of the equity piece and competency, and then how you're interfacing with adults, families, kids, or different modalities of service.”

Another participant elaborates on the competency of policy and of social justice when she says, “competencies are present in every single placement. Yes, we're doing family therapy, but policy absolutely factors in. Social justice absolutely factors in.”

Another participant explains she is “a role model of those competencies and test boundaries, diversities, social justice, some matters [she is] politically active. [she also] live[s] those things.” Lastly, another participant discusses the pedagogy of teaching the competencies, “how can I either make a connection [to the competencies] or how we make sure we have a Socratic discussion around where this [competency] could come into play in their future.”

Participants acknowledged the importance of the CSWE competencies and the responsibility to review and engage with them throughout the school year.

62 Sub-theme – Wrestle with.

Participants talked about the challenges with the CSWE competencies and the amount of time to review them, weaving them into the direct clinical work and the complexity of the language. The participants’ responses demonstrate how they ‘wrestled with’ these CSWE competencies.

A participant states, “there's the complexity of the language that's used.” For another participant, the students are, questioning everything. They're like, "I'm not doing that," "I'm not doing any of this," "I have no idea what--" And there's this panic that sets in until we end up going through, we end up having to decode…. Sometimes it feels like I'm making it work. I'm having to make the connection to a specific part.

Another participant shares, I think in how do I incorporate all of these? There is a lot of jargon and I think almost having to break down what this looks like in real life or action outside of these very sterile situations. I remember feeling panicked years ago when I read the ethics. I said “Oh my gosh, they’re not going to get any of this.” I spent a lot of time thinking about actually, let me break this down for myself.

Another participant agrees, “every time I have to do their evaluation, I feel like they're lofty and a little hard to translate some of them into practical experiences.”

Participant continues “I don't feel like I can give them all the experiences that would lead them towards those competencies and I think that the way they are written, it's confusing.” Lastly the participant clarifies, “I do find that you have to be flexible, they’re

63 aspirational, the competencies in a way that any student would have all of them in their field placement experience.”

One participant points out, “on my notes that I take for supervision, the nine competencies, they're actually the first things at the top along with the date and everything else.” She continues in saying, “we literally are going through and having deeper conversations about what do these nine competencies mean.” Many participants address the competencies weekly in supervision whether making them a part of their agenda or not, in their personal notes or a part of the process recording completed by the student.

Overall, participants shared even though wrestling with the competencies, all mentioned them being ‘grounding’, ‘a pillar in the sand’, a ‘guidepost’ or an ‘anchor’ to ensure they were reviewed with the students regularly.

2. How Do Master's level field instructors understand their role with their students?

All participants noted their role is to provide supportive supervision along with teaching and skill building through modeling applying coursework with field work. A student learns how to be a social worker through fieldwork, applying what they are learning in the classroom with this supervision. In addition, the field instructors shared the role of boundaries in holding the frame of supervision.

Theme – Facilitate supervision and modeling.

A participant shares the importance of supervision in teaching and skill building,

64 I am supposed to help them learn how to function in an organization or a department. So, the basic things of how to do an intake. How do you document it?

What phrases do you use and not use? How do you write well in case you are subpoenaed? All of those things. How do you build the relationship? So, all of that sort of stuff, the actual doing of therapy. But also, the bigger picture of policies and social justice, and being able to show people that being a social worker is way more than just individual therapy.

Another participant expands how skill building can build confidence, “it's really about, I think building the confidence, building the skill, making sure they're using critical thinking skills…be very confident, very competent social workers.”

Lastly, another participant notes teaching the coursework with the field experience in a supportive way, I'm teaching as per the coursework, right? I'm like, "Okay. You read about this in a book. You talked about it in class. Now, we're going to go do it. We're going to make sure that you have an opportunity to do it in a supported way.

One participant sums up what all the participants touched on in applying fieldwork to the coursework: I think that it's so nice to know that you're doing this work in a combination of coursework. I really see my role as, number one, providing access and opportunity for students to be in vivo and have these opportunities that are in their coursework. So, making it come alive for them…the content and the process, I think, are the big pieces. Hopefully, there's an element of modeling, being able to

65 see someone in practice doing things at times well and making mistakes and figuring all those things out.

Participants understand their role in providing experiences for the students to learn not only from their coursework, but actually in practice via the skills and modeling, in order to be confident and employed as a future Master of Social Work social worker.

Sub-theme – Boundaries.

The concept of boundaries came up with this research question and in later research questions along with the importance of self-care. In exploring their role with students, participants emphasized the boundary of supervision being not therapy. Here the focus is on the role to educate students about their boundaries at future places of employment.

One participant states, I like to talk a lot about the professional self and professional boundaries. Because the social work students, in general, are very like, "I want to do it all. I want to help people." That works in all different places. Some agencies have really great boundaries, and sometimes so, so, great boundaries, it'll just chew you up and spit you out. I do feel a responsibility to bring that up in that second year and help people really formulate for themselves what that's going to mean for them.

Another participant elaborates, “Do you understand your yes’s and no’s? Do you have boundaries? Do you understand what your boundaries are?”

Participants point out the inherent qualities of social workers being giving individuals that may have led them to this profession. Encouraging professional

66 boundaries not only between the supervisor and supervisee, therapist and client but also in the future employer and employee relationships to prevent burnout.

3. How do these Master's level field Instructors build relationships with their Students?

Participants discussed how they build relationship from the first contact or interview. Like any relationship, it stems from building rapport, trust, making time, and being fully present and available. Committing to weekly and group supervision is also essential in building the supervisory relationship along with telling stories. In addition, the participants stressed how the supervisory relationship parallels the therapeutic relationship yet different.

Theme – Differs yet parallels the therapeutic relationship.

A participant shares, Just like being with anyone. First of all, when you interview them for the position, that's where you start to meet them. It's like the first of the assessment.

Do your assessment and in that time, I can decide if I want to work with them or not.

This participant points out that the first meeting of the student is similar to that first visit with a client in the intake process yet different in this supervisory frame. Another participant expands on this in exploring how meeting the student will parallel the therapy process

67 I think the interviews that I do with them are more conversational. I want to chat with them. I want to hear them talk about what their classes were like, what their life is like, who are their people, do they have interests because I think that I can get a good sense of what it will be like for our clients to maybe talk to them.

Another participant explains the parallel in building rapport with the student is similar to that with a client, Generally, I start out with asking them how do they best learn, what are they interested in, usually to give me a little background on what they've done, and that type of thing. I tell them how I operate, that I listen. I try to help you if you get stuck on something, I help support that, or open up avenues for approaching the intervention.

The next participant explains the parallel in building trust that, “I really want us to be in a relationship and I said, ‘Here's the thing, I need you to tell me whatever's going on. It's not my job whether or not I like it or not. It is my job to hear you and address it.’”

Another participant states similar to therapy there is a goodness of fit in feeling safe enough to feel vulnerable to learn, I say often in the interviews is that “this is about a good fit between us and you.”

You got to feel like, can I picture myself in this setting, working with this person, having a conflict with them, feeling uncomfortable with them, but also feeling vulnerable that I can learn? I think I try to put those things all out there in the interview that that is part of the work.

Some participants also shared being available even after the first interview for those selected, “I do the interview with them, but then I also stay in touch with them throughout

68 the summer.” Participants noted their efforts to be available through communication once a month via email or a video contact to make sure any questions are answered and some offer an onsite orientation before the school year.

A participant states being present in the giving of time and being available, And then it's honestly a lot of time, I blocked out a lot of time in those first few weeks where I am just with them or around or available. It doesn't matter how confident or how it's really scary to ask your supervisor questions. So, I tried to just kind of be available.

Another participant reiterates, “I try to spend some time right from the get-go, spending some time developing a relationship. I consider it a big responsibility to have a student.”

Another participant offers availability, “I try to make it clear to them that if they need something, they can ask for that and they can reach out. So, that's a goal from the start for me that they know that I'm really invested in this enterprise, this mutual enterprise.”

Another participant shares, “the rapport building and the sense of safety in the relationship is so critical.”

All participants note building rapport, trust, spending time, being present, and available are all apart of building the supervisory relationship.

Sub-theme – Supervision.

Another sub-theme that related to how the supervisor builds relationship is in the commitment to weekly and group supervision being crucial in developing a relationship with the student.

69 A participant shares how weekly supervision sets up expectations for both the supervisor and the student, the supervision is really for them so I expect them to bring an agenda every week or to provide me with an agenda the night before and then that I will add to the agenda, but I want it driven by them.

Another participant shares the expectation for the supervisor stating, “I consider it a big responsibility to have a student. So, they're going to get their hours of supervision every week.”

A participant states that “consistency and that routine and that predictability is something that I made a commitment to for these students. I think that helps that grounding, knowing that I will be there when I say I'm going to be there.” Another participant agrees, “doing what you say you're going to do and be reliable, I think it teaches people. I have not missed a supervision.”

Parallel expectations for the future, this participant also shares, I have been able to say to them "Someday if you are in this position, I want you to remember how important this is and not be the kind of person that does driveby supervision. I want you to someday provide this to someone else.” Always talking to them about training students and how someday they might do that. So, I ask them for a lot of feedback. “What is working for you? What isn't working for you?”

Lastly, the participant also states, “they know in supervision, I'm over at the table with them. I don't have a phone. I don't have anything. It's just quality time.”

70 Participants’ commitment to weekly supervision is used as a way to solidify the relationship and provide a building block to the student experience. It is considered an experience that the student will carry on with them throughout their career.

Sub-theme – Telling stories.

All participants mentioned either semantically or latently the use of their own experience via telling stories in supervision as a teaching tool in forming the relationship with the student and helping them normalize experiences. Participants point out how we all make mistakes, are human and learn through mistakes to strengthen the relationship.

In telling these stories, participants were also very aware of the difference in the supervisory relationship compared to a therapeutic relationship. It is about the mutuality with asymmetry of keeping the frame of the field instructor and the student relationship, but also being aware it was more of a mentor and mentee relationship then a therapeutic relationship like with a client.

A participant states, I do share stories a lot. I think that sometimes people will ask how have you done this or I might share a story around something that didn't particularly go well or a time that I felt like I had blind spots … I try to share those so that they recognize that this happens no matter if you're a student or an experienced practitioner.

That's part of the work is that we're going to be concerned about that and worry about that.

71 Another participant shares stories in professional decisions. “I will give stories like that, specifically around professional decisions that I've needed to make and the outcomes of those types of things.”

Another participant shared the need to learn about how the supervisory relationship is a different dynamic than therapy, thus, sharing stories of their own past experience, I had to do a lot of learning about when it comes to supervision… that this is not the same as a therapeutic relationship. It's different. The teaching relationship, there's a mentorship component, it does mean that I do have to do some amount of sharing with my own experience. There's a little bit more access that's given to my personal experience than I never went with a client. It's a different dynamic.

Another participant elaborates the use of feelings as a disclosure, “I give them those examples and to use their feelings as their disclosure. Like, I'm feeling anger or whatever.

You can use yourself that way.” Another participant expands on this in validating, “this is kind of how you feel, and this is something that happens, and normalizing that a little bit.” Lastly, another participant shares, I'll share anecdotes from when I was an intern. I think I mostly I use it to normalize their experiences or occasionally help them think differently about a client…Normalizing it also creates a little bit more of that feeling of comfort of like, "Okay. So, this person who's my supervisor is not perfect.”

Participants use of storytelling or disclosure aids in the forming of the relationship to normalize that we are all human, make mistakes throughout our career, and reinforce it is how we learn. There is also a latent sense of internalization of this being modeled to

72 them when the field instructors were students themselves. This internalization will be touched on in more detail in the next research question.

4. How do Master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

Participants all mentioned the use of field experience to learn the skills needed to be a social worker as a developmental function. Scaffolding as a developmental function in learning occurs when students are encouraged to try new things but the supervisors are careful to not overwhelm them. Participants can support the learning and help them along the way. Participants discussed the importance of teaching the students’ use of self in the development of self-reflection, self-awareness, self-care and their professional self.

All participants shared learning is a life-long process. Lastly, the participants explained the impact of their past experiences with their own supervisors being internalized, how they stay in touch, the use of meaningful conversations, metaphor, and diversity.

Theme – Foster learning skills and the use of self.

Another participant shares learning skills, and use of self, “I teach by seeing what they're doing and correcting if there's an error and also giving them not too much at the beginning… give them what they can as they can learn.” A participant continues on the use of self, “you have to create enough of a relationship or a really strong relationship.

They can share what they feel because all the work is about self-awareness, selfreflection.” Another participant expands, “Self-care is huge and self-care is part of the

73 boundaries, it's part of self-care. So, you have to have professionalism.” Another participant explains life-long learning in social work, is not a career that we get to cross the finish line and then we know enough or we can do enough…I really want [them] to walk out of the internship feeling like they know how to learn as a social worker, they know how to seek out consultation, they know how to do the research, they know how to seek out supervision relationships.

Another participant carries life-long learning further, stating as social workers we are “always trying to grow. Never feeling like you're finished is important.” Lastly, developing into a social worker, a participant states, “it took a lot of time. But people really validating the things you know, asking for feedback, asking for help, how to do that as a professional, this is a normal thing.” One participant states what helped developmentally was “really learning from somebody who had clinical experience and could talk to me and helped me not only develop my own clinical voice but also understand the complexity of the kinds of situations I was encountering.” One participant also teaches to “explain how I know something. I take them step by step through clues, materials, experiences that have been similar that have helped me. What might happen here, that type of thing.” Another participant shares in teaching, Not wanting to take it over, particularly if I feel like I know the frame. I have a sense of where this is going, but I want you to have this experience and I want you to work or struggle through this in a way that helps you feel more confident and comfortable that you could do that risk assessment.

74 However, there is also a scaffolding in learning where the student can ask for what they need, “the student will say, ‘Can you just sit in with me while I do it and then be there and sort of jump in if I don't know what to say.’ Or I got this. ‘Can you just be in your office and I'll come back.’" Another participant offers support in scaffolding by asking, “What do you need? How do we get you through this? Because everyone needs support.”

Lastly, this participant reminds the student of this support because “part of social work is like you're a person in an environment. There's a team. You're not alone.”

For participants, field experience is important to learn developmentally the skills needed to be a social worker, but with a safety in the relationship it allows the student to try new things with support. Supervisors also allow for discussion on use of self through self-reflection, self-awareness, self-care and professional self, teaching through modeling, and disclosure via story telling.

Sub-theme- Internalization.

Participants share that part of development stems from memories of teachable moments in their own learning, and that they often bring up via stories with their own current students. This internalization or identification with a past supervisor also occurs within the current supervisory relationship.

A participant states a past supervisor had a way of “making a learning experience and doing it in a way that always felt safe and comfortable … I think that also shaped how I try and work with my students.” Another participant agrees, “I had different supervisors with lots of different strengths. There are things that I still remember about

75 those supervisors, years ago said to me[sic].” Another participant shares development as internalizing the profession, it's a gradual process of internalizing the values of the field, learning to acknowledge what you bring to it, but also not imposing maybe your value system, your ways of being on somebody else, but to really be able to become reflective and receptive to what somebody else is telling you and trying to convey the challenges they're working with.

The participant also expands on how, they identify with me. I hear them saying some of the things I've said, and things like that. So, I think they internalize it, the supervisory relationship and then, you know, it's one of the tools that you use on their own.

Later, in the interview, the participant draws on the parallel, “internalization, like therapy, they internalize the past supervisor.”

Participants’ narratives brought about the importance of the development of how we become a social worker. As one participant shares so eloquently, we “imprint upon someone as the supervisor whether good, bad or indifferent, and one of the ways which we can truly show up to be the most authentic, and healing and grounding way, for these individuals.” Students take so much from the supervisory relationship in their development as a social worker both professionally and personally that is carried internally throughout their career.

76 Sub-theme – Stay in touch.

Participants all mention some form of contact after the field experience ended, whether to be a reference, or for a check-in during major changes in their lives. Some have opportunities to hire students, thus changing the role to a colleague, consultant, clinical supervisor, or mentor.

A participant notes this about continued contact, “I want them to know that they have a champion, they have someone who's really excited about what they're doing, and that I always want to be in their corner for what's next.” Another participant gives an example of maintaining the connection. “I just heard from another one yesterday…that feels really nice to know that they still value our connection.” Another participant shares keeping in touch, “I’ve had people search me out after they've been out a few years for some counsel. They try to figure out the next step, ‘What do you think’ or they might ask me some questions.” Continuing on this, another participant notes changes in role, “I think that many of them conceptualize me as an ongoing mentor-type person that they can reach out to, even outside of their internship.” Some are able to hire students as one participant states, “I have had second-year students stay on. They're still like a supervisee but they're colleague and not a student.”

Part of the development as a social worker is having professional relationships with mentors to assist with future professional milestones. All participants have positive relationships, valuing that connection with students, and have maintained contact after field instruction.

77 Sub-theme – Meaningful conversations.

All participants shared their own experiences with a past supervisor with a current student. These experiences were meaningful conversations that impacted the supervisor and/or the student developmentally.

A participant states in working through a

challenging time with a student, Let's talk about what's getting in the way. So, we do that. Just like you would in any kind of a relationship. So, it is the same thing. It’s not therapy but … just like when you’re supervising people. You use elements of your awareness to manage the relationship.

Another participant elaborates, “I was avoiding some things that were becoming challenging and was hoping they would just go away and realizing that ‘Nope, we got to address these things.’ Again, it turns out to be meaningful conversations that deepened our connection.” Another participant tells students that they can, fix almost anything. And so, you can walk in braver if you don't have this faulty belief that you're going to ruin someone's life if you say the wrong thing. I think it allows them and gets them to be more creative, to relax, to not use so much jargon with clients. You can do it. Go in there. You can do it. And whatever you can't do, you'll come back and talk to me and we'll figure out how you'll do it in the next session.

Participants shared that these meaningful conversations aid in development. There is this safety in the relationship knowing that you have support to figure things out together if anything goes wrong.

78 Sub theme – Use of metaphor.

Many participants related stories from prior supervisors that used a metaphor to describe a situation they were experiencing to accentuate a point in their learning. A participant states, It was my field instructor, an instructor in graduate school, who told me I wasn't a bull in a China shop. I'm incredibly direct. I’m incredibly passionate. And to know that the work I was doing brought deep healing, joy, resilience, and it was worthy. That's really important because then I was like, “Okay, well, let me see myself in a different way.”

This participant may then use a metaphor with a student, “I like to say, "There are no bleeding arteries here." You can screw up, but how badly. And what do we need to do to fix it.”

Another participant shared a past supervisor’s feedback, You know what, I really like you and I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you need to understand that you are just a cog in the wheel here. You are not the whole wheel. The world isn't going to stop revolving without you. You know, when you're young, brave and the grandiosity that you have, that was one of the most important things anyone ever told me…to understand the scope of my importance because I was thinking I was too important and that was messing up my clinical work.

Participants shared how the use of metaphors stays with them figuratively and literally as a reminder of the strength in the supervisory relationship many years to decades later.

79 Sub theme – Diversity.

Participants also shared that meaningful conservations around race and difference were pivotal in their learning and those with students who shaped them.

A participant shares, ...as a black woman, [my supervisor] was like, ‘Don't kill yourself with all the things you're doing. You're doing enough. You're doing a good job. Where is your self-care? When do you stop?’ So, it was somebody actually reflecting back to me about my worthiness, that I had skills, that I knew something.

Another participant expands this to the student experience with being in a supervisory role, …to be a woman of color teaching or supervising largely white students. That it's really interesting almost not like giving them access but being able to talk about race and being able to talk about identity, and talking about oppression, all of these things from a first-person perspective in a supervisory relationship rather than as a theoretical or rather from the perspective of our imagined clients with the assumption that they are part of those groups. Yeah, the kind of many layers of identity that is a part of my supervisory relationship with them. It's been pretty powerful.

Participant expands how the students, “watch people interact with me versus interacting with others and they're like, ‘it's different, I see how they treat you differently or whatever.’ It's such a topsy-turvy power dynamic.” Thus, bringing an opportunity for further discussion on race in the here and now with the students.

80 Another participant reported a story of witnessing her black supervisor being treated poorly, she recalls as a student, I didn't know how to respond to [the racism] and [the teacher at school] said, ‘I'd tell [the black supervisor] the same thing you just told me,’ so I did and it was a really good outcome. And I think it helped me learn how to talk about those kinds of difficult things in way I don't think I ever could have. So, that was something that really stood out for me. Through social work, how do you talk about tough stuff.

Participants touch on the value of talking about the difficult things especially in the area of diversity and inclusion. As one of the participants shared how today our “ability to be authentic, it is [so much] more liberating this day and age to be a supervisor then it was before.” An opportunity to have these really hard conservations and have it be meaningful for all.

Table 1 summarizes the themes that were derived from the interviews organized by the research questions. As can be seen in Table 1, the answers to the fourth research question generated the most sub themes. This is consistent with Sarnat’s (2016) relational supervision model that will be explored in detail in Chapter 5. The following section will present the quantitative results.

Quantitative Results What follows is a review of the quantitative survey responses. As stated previously, a survey was created for the purpose of recruiting the participants in the study.

A total of 36 potential participants completed the survey. Out of those 36 survey

81 respondents, 10 were eventually selected to be interviewed for this study as they met the criteria for selection of having over 3 years of field instruction experience and they were willing to be interviewed two times and to be audio recorded.

Table 1 Results Summarized Through the Research Questions Sub-Themes

Research Questions

Theme

1. How do master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

Facilitate professional • identity through demonstrating the CSWE competencies

Wrestle with

2. How do master's level field instructors understand their role with their students?

Facilitate supervision and • modeling.

Boundaries

3. How do these master's level field instructors build relationships with their students?

Differs from yet parallels • the therapeutic relationship•

Supervision Telling stories

4. How do master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

Foster learning skills and • the use of self • • • •

Internalization Stay in touch Meaningful conversations Use of metaphor Diversity

The responses to the survey were consistent with the responses to the interview questions. In the following section, the responses to the survey will be analyzed in greater detail. The discussion will begin with the total survey results then an analysis of the outlier data. Next, the survey responses of the 10 interviewees will be compared to the 26 surveys completed by those who were not interviewed. The chapter ends with a

82 comparison between the survey responses provided by the interviewees with the overall qualitative findings.

Figure 1 summarizes all the responses to the demographic questions to the survey (N=36).

Summary of Total Quantitative Survey Demographics (N=36) Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise 35 30 25 20 15 10

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

5

Figure 1. Summary of total quantitative survey demographics.

In reviewing all survey participants (N=36) most were “white” females (n=28), most were in the age range of “31 to 45” years old (n=20), and most were employed in a “non-profit” agency (n=21), with most having at least 3 years of supervision experience (n=28).

In the following section, the survey responses are broken down by the questions.

83

How do Social Workers Learn How to be a Social Worker?

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Coursework

Direct clinical Council on S ocia l Rela tionship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 2. How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?

For the question, “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?” two things that stand out is that most respondents chose “all of the above” (n=24). This means that 24 respondents chose “coursework,”, “direct clinical field placements,” “CSWE competencies,” and the “relationship with the field instructor” as all being integral in learning how to be a social worker. The second thing that stands out is that only 5 participants chose “CSWE competencies” as being important in how we learn how to be a social worker. However, these results are misleading. The responses to this question were complicated by the fact that some of the participants checked off all of the options, or checked off “all of the above,” and others checked off all of the options and checked off “all of the above”. None of the participants checked “CSWE competencies” alone.

Thus, if we group together all of the respondents that chose all of the options whether by checking them individually or choosing “all of the above,” then the number of participants who chose all of the options rises to 26. Allowing participants to “select all that apply” will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

84

What do You Find to be Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Coursework

Direct cinical Council on S ocia l Rela tionship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 3. What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?

Over 80% (n=30) of the survey participants responded “direct clinical field placements” was most valuable for ones’ learning as a professional social worker. Again, “CSWE competencies” was the lowest response.

How do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Provide super vision in a practice setting

Teach concrete Modeling how to skills be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

Figure 4. “How do you understand your role with your student?”

All of the above

85 Over 90% (n=33) of the survey participants reported “all of the above,” meaning that providing “supervision,” “teaching concrete skills,” “modeling,” and “mentoring” all played a role in ones’ professional development as a social worker. However, with participants being allowed to select all that apply, 4 participants selected all options additionally to choosing “all of the above.” Beyond this, participants were fairly even in choosing the various options.

What Conceptual Framework do You Most Align Within Your Clinical Work?

30 25 20 15 10

ul tip le …

Ec le c

tic o

rm

ic o od yn am

Ps yc h

io lo gy eu ro b N

r…

of …

,…

Pt se d,

-F oc u Ct

Co

gn iti ve

Be

-F oc u

se d

ha vi or al

Be ha vi or al

5 0

Figure 5. “What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?”

Parallel to the qualitative participant responses to the various conceptual frameworks clinicians can hold, survey participants had a mix of responses. However, 66.67% (n=24) responded “eclectic or multi-frameworks depending on the situation,” 55.56% (n=20) responded “Client Focused, Patient Centered or Humanistic,” and 41.67% (n=15) responded “psychodynamic or psychoanalytic.”

Now that the total survey responses were broken down, the outlier data for the respondents will be discussed.

86 Outliers In reviewing the overall results, what was most telling were the outliers. Only 3 men completed the survey, only 6 respondents noted “behavioral” as a conceptual framework, only 5 respondents identified as “transgender/non-binary,” and only 8 respondents had “less than 3 years” of field instructor experience; thus, they were excluded from meeting the criteria for the interviews. The following are the results for these outlier groups of participants.

Male Survey Participants' Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise N=3 4 3 2

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

1

Figure 6. Male survey participants’ demographics.

There were only 3 males who completed the survey. In looking closer at the men’s responses, they were all in the “31 to 45” age range. Two identified as “white” and another as “Latino or Hispanic.” Two of the respondents had over 10 years of experience as a field instructor with the other male having 1 to 2 years.

87

Male Survey Participants' Response to "What Conceptual Framework do You Most Align Within Your Clinical Work?"

N=3 3 2 1 0

al i or v ha Be

C

e… itiv n og

cu -Fo Ct

d, se

-…

Pt o ur Ne

f… yo g o l bio

h yc Ps

o

m na dy

ic…

co cti e l Ec

r…

Figure 7. Male respondents’ response to “What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?”

When it came to choosing a conceptual framework, only one male chose all the options. Only one male respondent noted “psychodynamic or psychoanalytic.”

Furthermore, overall the male survey participants, only 1 participant chose behavioral specifically as a conceptual framework.

Behavioral as a Conceptual Framework Survey Participants' Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise N=6 6 5

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

2 1 0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

4 3

Figure 8. Behavioral as a conceptual framework survey participants’ demographics.

88 Six respondents, male (n=1) and female (n=5), chose behavioral as one of their conceptual frameworks. None of the participants chose behavioral as their only conceptual framework. What was most interesting is half of the respondents (n=3) had only 1 to 2 years of experience as a field instructor thus were excluded from participating in the interviews. In addition, all were in an age range of “31 to 45.” This age range corresponds with when behavioral techniques would have been a focus of training with manualized treatment approaches. This can explain the greater response to the behavioral conceptual framework among this age group. The other 2 respondents had only noted 3 to 5 years of experience as a field instructor. Only 1 respondent had over 10 years of field instructor experience.

Behavioral Respondents' Answer to "How do You Understand Your Role With Your Student?"

N=6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Provide super vision in a practice setting

Teach concrete Modeling how to skills be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

All of the above

Figure 9. Behavioral Respondents Answer to “How Do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?”

From among the 6 respondents who chose the behavioral conceptual framework, all except one noted “all of the above” in their role with a student in providing

89 “supervision,” “teach concrete skills,” “modeling,” and “mentoring.” That same participant did not choose “teach concrete skills.”

The majority of the five “transgender/non-binary” participants were “white” (n=4), in the age range of “31 to 45” (n=4), and worked in a “non-profit” agency (n=4).

Interestingly, 3 respondents only had 1 to 2 years of experience in supervising students, thus were excluded in not meeting the study criteria.

Transgender/Non-Binary Survey participants' Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Year Supervise N=5 6 5 4 3 2

Figure 10. Transgender/non-binary survey respondents demographics.

1 to 2 3 ro 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Practice Government Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/African White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

1

90

Transgender/Non-Binary Survey Participants Response to "What do You Find to be Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?"

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Coursework

Direct clinical Council on S ocia l Rela tionship with All of the above field placmeents Work Ediucation the field (CSWE) instructor competences

Figure 11. Transgender/non-binary survey respondents to “What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?”

All of the 5 “transgender/non-binary” participants chose “direct clinical field placements,” with 2 also choosing the “relationship with the field instructor” as most valuable for a student’s learning how to be a professional social worker. None of the 5 “transgender/non-binary” participants choose “coursework” or the “CSWE competencies.”

Transgender/Non-Binary Survey Participants Response to "How do Social Workers Learn How to be a Social Worker?"

N=5 5 4 3 2 1 0 Coursework

Direct clinical Council on S ocia l Rela tionship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

91 Figure 12. Transgender/non-binary survey participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?”

Four out of five “transgender/non-binary” participants responded “all of the above.” Learning comes from “coursework,” “direct clinical field placements,” the “CSWE competencies” and the “relationship with the field instructor.” However, 1 participant chose all except “CSWE competencies” and “all of the above.”

One hundred percent of the five “transgender/non-binary” survey participants responded “all of the above” in understanding their role for the student is to “provide supervision in a practice setting,” “teach concrete skills,” “modeling,” and “provide mentoring.”

Transgender/Non-Binary Survey Participants Responses to "How do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?"

N=5 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Provide super vison in a practice setting

Teach concrete skills

Modeling how to be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

All of the above

Figure 13. Transgender/non-binary participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?”

92 The majority of the 8 excluded participants from the interview group were “white” (n=6), in the age range of “31 to 45” (n=5), worked in a “non-profit” agency (n=5), and “female” (n=4).

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

Participants Excluded From the Study Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise N=8

Figure 14. Participants excluded from the study demographics.

Excluded Participants' Responses to "How do Social Workers Learn How to be a Social Worker?"

N=8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Coursework

Direct clinical Council on S ocial Relationship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 15. Excluded participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?”

93

Six out of the eight excluded participants with 1 to 2 years of field experience, responded “all of the above” to the question “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?” The “all of the above” response included the CSWE competencies.

Remarkably, only 2 respondents out of the 8 noted only “coursework”, “direct clinical field placements” or the “relationship with the field instructor,” excluding “CSWE competencies.”

Excluded Participants' Responses to "How do You Understand Your Role With Your Student?"

N=8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Provide super vision in a practice setting

Teach concrete Modeling how to skills be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

All of the above

Figure 16. Excluded Participants’ Responses to “How do You Understand Your Role With Your Student?”

For the question, how do you understand your role with your student, 7 out of the excluded 8 participants noted “all of the above” with “providing supervision,” “teach concrete skills,” “modeling,” and “mentoring” all being a part of the role. One participant put all options except “teach concrete skills” or “all of the above.” Of note, all of the

94 interviewed participants replied “all of the above” to this question which will be reviewed in the next section.

Summary of Interviewed Participant Responses Sixty percent of the 10 interviewed participants had over 10 years of experience as a field instructor, followed by 20% for both “3 to 5” years and “6 to 10” years. Eighty percent of the interviewed participants were “white,” and 20% bi/multiracial. Ninety percent of the participants identified as “female,” with one as “transgender/non-binary.”

Those interviewed were a mix of ages, with most in the “46 to 64” age range at 40%, “31 to 45” and 65 or older age ranges at 30% each.

Figure 17. Interviewed participants’ demographics.

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

Interviewed Participants' Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise N=10

95

Interviewed Participants' Responses to "How do Social Workers Learn How to be a Social Worker?"

N=10 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Coursework

Direct clinical Council on S ocial Relationship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 18. Interviewed participants’ responses to “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?”

One hundred percent of the 10 interviewed participants responded “all of the above.” Learning comes from “coursework,” “direct clinical field placements,” the “CSWE competencies” and the “relationship with the field instructor.”

Interviewed Participants' Responses to "What do You Find Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?"

N=10 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Coursework

Direct cinical field Council on S ocia l Rela tionship with All of the above placem ents Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 19. Interviewed participants’ responses to “What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?”

96 Thirty percent of the 10 interviewed participants noted only “coursework,” “direct clinical field placements,” and the “relationship with the field instructor” as most valuable in learning how to be a social worker. Thirty percent responded with “direct clinical field placement.” CSWE competencies was only chosen when a part of the “all of the above” response.

Interviewed Participants' Responses to "How do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?"

N=10 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Provide super vision in a practice setting

Teach concrete Modeling how to skills be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

All of the above

Figure 20. Interviewed participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?”

One hundred percent of the 10 interviewed participants responded “all of the above” in understanding their role for the student is to “provide supervision in a practice setting,” “teach concrete skills,” “modeling” and “provide mentoring.”

Parallel to the various conceptual frameworks clinicians can hold overall with all the respondents, the interviewed participants had a mix of responses and chose a variety of options. Sixty percent noted “psychodynamic or psychoanalytic,” 50% noted “neurobiology of attachment and trauma,” and 80% noted “eclectic or multi-frameworks

97 depending on the situation.” None of the interviewed participants specifically chose “behavioral.”

Interviewed Participants' Responses to "What Conceptual Framework do You Most Align Within Your Clinical Work?"

N=10 10

r… tic o Ec le c

ic… od yn am Ps yc h

of … eu ro b N

Ct

-F oc u

se d,

io lo gy

Pt -…

gn iti ve …

Co

Be ha vi or al

8 6 4 2 0

Figure 21. Interview participants’ responses to “What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work?”

Having reviewed the quantitative data of the overall participants, outliers, excluded and those interviewed, next is a review of the survey response of the participants who were not interviewed.

98 Summary of Non-Interviewed Participant Responses

Non-Interviewed Survey Participants' Demographics Age - Gender - Race - Employment - Years Supervise N=26 25 20 15 10

1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 10+

Private Ptractice Governmental Non-profit Academia

Asian Native American Black/Africa American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi Racial

18-30 31-45 46-64 65+

0

Female Male Transgender/Non-…

5

Figure 22. Non-interviewed survey participant demographics.

Of the non-interviewed survey participants, most were “white” (n=21), “female” (n=19), in age range of “31-45” (n=20), and employed in a “non-profit” agency (n=15).

Of the non-interviewed survey participants, 22 of the 26 reported the most valuable in learning how to be a social worker was “direct clinical field placements.”

Only 1 non-interviewed survey participants chose specifically “CSWE competencies” along with other options where others only chose “CSWE competencies” when part of “all of the above.”

99

Non-Interviewed Survey Participants' Responses to "What do you Find to be Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?"

N=26 25 20 15 10 5 0 Coursework

Direct cinical Council on S ocial Relationship with All of the above field placements Work Education the field (CSWE) instructor competencies

Figure 23. Non-interviewed survey participants' Responses to “What do You Find to be Most Valuable for Your Learning in Becoming a Professional Social Worker?”

Non-Interviewed Survey Participants' Responses to "How do You Understand Your Role with Your Student?"

N=26 25 20 15 10 5 0 Provide super vision in a practice setting

Teach concrete Modeling how to skills be a professi onal social worker

Provide mentoring

All of the above

Figure 24. Non-interviewed survey participants’ responses to “How do you understand your role with your student?”

Lastly, 88.46% of the non-interviewed survey participants’ (23 of the 26) replied “all of the above” in understanding their role for the student was to “provide supervision in a practice setting,” “teach concrete skills,” “modeling,” and “provide mentoring.”

100 Interestingly, 4 of the non-interviewed participants chose all of the options in addition to then choosing “all for the above.” Again, providing survey participants with a “select all that apply” option along with an “all of the above” option will be discussed more in Chapter 5.

Summary of the Insights from the Survey and Interview Responses Comparing the quantitative and the qualitative data reveals similar trends. All participants felt that social workers learn how to be a social worker through various means primarily through direct clinical field placement, but also through coursework, the supervisory relationship, and the CSWE competencies. Overall, what is most valuable in learning how to be a social worker is the direct clinical field placement which came through in both the quantitative survey and in the qualitative interviews. However, when we look at the role the field instructor plays in the development of a social worker, both quantitatively and qualitatively, there are multiple factors involved in providing supervision, teaching skills, modeling, and mentoring. Similarly, for conceptual framework, both quantitatively and qualitatively, participants mostly responded eclectic or multiple frameworks.

The nuances that came from the qualitative results are discussed in Chapter 5 through the lens of Sarnat’s (2016) relational supervision model. The overall meaning from the qualitative results in the use of the supervisory relationship parallels the use of forming a secure base (Bowlby, 1988), the potential space (Winnicott, 1971), internalization (Buechler, 2017; Casement, 1985, 2002, 2006, 2019; McWilliams, 2021; Schafer, 1968), and theory of learning through relationships by the zone of proximal

101 development and scaffolding (Coles et al., 1978; Wood et al., 1976). These theoretical considerations will be discussed further in depth in Chapter 5.

102

Chapter V

Findings

In this chapter, the findings as related to the research questions are discussed.

Consistent with Thematic Analysis (TA), the participants’ narratives were analyzed related to the four research questions and various themes and sub-themes were derived.

Table 2 summarizes those themes and sub-themes. The themes and sub-themes from the interviews allow us to examine the lived experiences of field instructors in order to understand their shared social constructed reality. Using this mixed method approach allowed for a comparison between how these field instructors conceptualize their role (per their responses to the quantitative survey questions), and what they actually do in their work with their students (as heard through their narrative stories of their relationships with their students). A mixed method data analysis allowed for an integration of both data sets.

103

Table 2 Results Summarized Through the Research Questions

Research Questions 1. How do master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

2. How do master's level field instructors understand their role with their students?

3. How do these master's level field instructors build relationships with their students?

4. How do master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

Theme

Sub-themes

Facilitate professional • identity through demonstrating the CSWE competencies Facilitate supervision and • modeling.

Differs yet parallels the therapeutic relationship

• •

Foster learning skills and • the use of self • • • •

Wrestle with

Boundaries Supervision Telling stories Internalization Stay in touch Meaningful conversations Use of metaphor Diversity

This chapter will focus on the main overarching themes from the structure of the four research questions. For ease in reading this chapter, overlapping themes or sub themes were merged under the best suitable research question with a notation. Each section will be structured around one of the four research questions with the best theme and sub theme(s) to then follow. Then, the participants’ own words will be intertwined into the discussion to provide meaning to the findings. Throughout the chapter, theory and theoretical concepts will also be weaved in.

104

The Four Research Questions

Research question #1: How do Master’s level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

Participants all shared that the CSWE competencies were integral in how students learn how to be a professional social worker. Modeled after our code of ethics, the CSWE competencies are a cornerstone in forming their social work professional identity. CSWE competencies are reviewed throughout the year with the student initially, at the middle, and at the end of the year evaluations. Many participants make a point to review them weekly during weekly supervision.

Theme: Facilitate professional identity through demonstrating the CSWE competencies.

Participants explained they teach students about the CSWE competencies through helping the student apply their classroom learning to direct clinical practice in the field.

Participants spoke specifically to the CSWE competencies in directly discussing and teaching them. Students are learning the CSWE nine core competencies through direct clinical field work with their field instructors all in developing their professional self.

The CSWE’s nine core competencies (CSWE, 2022) are as follows: 1. Demonstrates ethical and professional behavior.

2. Engage anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in practice.

3. Advance human rights and social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

105 4. Engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice.

5. Engage in policy practice.

6. Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

7. Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

8. Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

9. Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

A participant demonstrates how she teaches students these CSWE competencies through modeling and teaching that are interwoven. The participant explains she is “a role model of those competencies and test boundaries, diversities, social justice, some matters [she is] politically active... [she also] live[s] those things.” Another participant shares this interweaving of teaching the student about professional identity, then focusing on the specific competency of social justice and how it interplays in our daily work as a professional social worker. “We're talking about how you present yourself, and then sort of the equity piece and competency, and then how you're interfacing with adults, families, kids, or different modalities of service.” The field instructor often models the competencies in not only how they present as a professional social worker but also how they demonstrate and interpret the CSWE competencies in their work with clients.

Modeling and teaching these CSWE competencies are a part of how we become a professional social worker.

Through both the teaching and modeling, the students can see their future self being modeled by the supervisor as Grosz (2013) states, “the future is not some place we’re going to, but an idea in our mind now. It is something we’re creating, that in turn

106 creates us. The future is a fantasy that shares our present.” In many ways, the student is envisioning their future selves through their work with their field instructor. The student in many ways envisions their future self that will occur upon their graduation.

Sub-theme: Wrestle with.

Many of the participants mentioned struggling or ‘wrestling with’ how best to assist the student in applying all of CSWE competencies to not only their direct field work, but also to the school mandated student evaluations. Evaluations are a review of all the CSWE competencies demonstrating the students’ exposure to all of the CSWE competencies as part of applying them to their direct clinical practice. Participants also talked about the challenges with the CSWE competencies due to the complexity of the language, in the amount of time to review them and the difficulty in weaving them into direct clinical work.

A participant shares the difficulty for a student to have experience in the field that would cover all nine core competencies in addition to the struggle with the language and complexity of the CSWE competencies. The participant states, “every time I have to do their evaluation, I feel like they're lofty and a little hard to translate some of them into practical experiences.” The participant continues “I don't feel like I can give them all the experiences that would lead them towards those competencies and I think that the way they are written, it's confusing.” The participant then clarifies, “I do find that you have to be flexible, they’re aspirational, the competencies in a way that any student would have all of them in their field placement experience.”

107 This joint undertaking is between the student and the field instructor who are both struggling in applying the CSWE competencies to the direct clinical work. Being more experienced, the field instructor models to the student this wrestling with the CSWE competencies; how professional social workers are problem-solvers, creative and determined to ensure our values, beliefs and ethics are a focus in the work we perform with clients, families, agencies, organizations, and communities.

Overlapping Sub-Theme: Foster learning skills and the use of self.

Teaching the CSWE competencies is an actual skill building exercise for both the field instructor and the student and central to learning how to be a professional social worker. The CSWE competencies provide a structure of evaluation throughout the student’s school year that is completed and reviewed by both the student and the field instructor. Inadvertently through the CSWE competencies, field instructors also assist in teaching the students’ use of self with a client in developing their self-awareness, selfreflection, self-care and professional self. What came to mind when the participants were discussing these issues was Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of human learning (Cole et al., 1978). According to Vygotsky, human intelligence stems from a society or culture and learning is a social process. In other words, learning occurs socially between people then internally within the student. The field instructor and student are socially interacting to assist the student in learning the CSWE competencies and with skills in how to be a professional social worker.

There is a process of learning that is a social interaction between the learner and the expert and this is clearly seen in the learning process between the field instructor and

108 the social work student. However, the expert, in this case the field instructor, must be mindful of the student's learning needs. Vygotsky (as cited in Cole et al., 1978) also had insights around this aspect of the learning process, which he called the zone of proximal development: “the distance between the actual development level is determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance in collaboration with more capable peers” (pg. 86). Learning occurs through problem-solving often in the guidance and supervision by someone more experienced whether a teacher, peer or parent. This also came up with the participants discussion in their teaching social work students’ clinical skills.

We can see how Vygotsky’s (Cole et al., 1978) theory applies in an actual situation between the field instructor and a student. Participant states in teaching a student how to do a suicidal risk assessment, “It’s that balance of ‘I want to help, but I also want you to do this. Let’s talk about what to say and what you are thinking, what you noticed, and where this level of risk is.’” When the participant is telling the student “I want to help, but how much”, this is a clear example of how the field instructor is using Vygotsky zone of proximal development. The field instructor has to be supportive and provide guidance yet still allow the student to ‘wrestle with’ or problem solve with the concepts.

The scenario can be further explained through a scaffolding process (Maybin et al., 1992; Wood et al., 1976) where the student is supported through guidance or collaboration. The more expert or advanced learner or peer assists the student in filling in gaps where needed to assist in the learning, accentuating the positive aspects with the correction when and where needed (Wood, et al., 1976).

109 A participant explains this scaffolding process in “teach[ing] by seeing what they are doing and correcting if there’s an error and also giving them not too much at the beginning…give them what they can as they can learn. Don’t overwhelm them initially.”

This demonstrates both scaffolding and zone of proximal development. The field instructor is supportive and there for the student when needed to aid in their learning when ready and where their learning needs are at.

Participants facilitate professional identity through teaching and demonstrating the CSWE competencies even though they struggle or ‘wrestle with’ the learning at times; overall, the CSWE competencies provide a “grounding,” “a pillar in the sand,” a “guidepost” or an “anchor” to assist in students learning the skills needed to be professional social workers and develop their use of self.

Research question #2: How do Master’s level field instructors use their role with their Students?

Participants understand their role in providing the frame and modeling through consistent, reliable and dependable supervision with appropriate boundaries that included the importance for self-care. The field instructors’ approach emphasizes consistent supervision, but also having an understanding that the supervision is not therapy. This perspective applies to Sarnat (2016) relational supervision model that has three dimensions; the supervisor’s view of authority, nature of the material discussed, and the mode of participation in supervision.For this theme, Sarnat’s first dimension, the view of the supervisor’s authority applies. Next will be more details on how this dimension

110 applies to the field instructor’s role with their students. (The other two dimensions will be discussed in more detail with later themes.)

Sarnat’s (2016) first dimension of her relational supervision model, the supervisor’s view of authority, is explained by Aron’s (1996) concept of mutuality with asymmetry. Aron explains how clinically there is a mutuality with asymmetry that is beneficial in holding our psychoanalytical frame in the therapeutic relationship between the therapist and the client dyad. An optimal balance or tension must occur, and the therapist chooses to either participate or not participate in what emerges or is co-created in the work together. The result is unique to the particular therapist and the client, can change moment to moment in the work created together, and is different from any other therapist with the client. The therapist has a fiduciary relationship in the therapy dyad.

In parallel, in the supervision dyad, the supervisor has a responsibility to ensure learning for the supervisee.

Sarnat (2016) applies this concept of mutuality with asymmetry to the supervisory dyad; the supervisor is responsible for holding the structure, expectation, and focus on the supervisory task of learning for the supervisee. Yet, there is an understanding that both bring "subjectivities to the work and to participate mutually in unconscious resistance and enactment, that is, the acting out of material that is too painful to be consciously known" (p. 20). Through trust, the supervisee and supervisor value what is co-created between them. What is co-created acts as an influence in addition the supervisor's expertise (Sarnat, 2016). For the field instructor, the supervisory frame is held through the use of their authority as an expert in teaching and modeling skills to the

111 student. In addition, the field instructor uses boundaries in holding the frame of supervision.

Theme: Facilitate supervision and modeling.

All participants noted their role is to provide supportive supervision along with teaching and skill building through modeling applying coursework to field work. A student learns how to be a social worker through fieldwork, applying what they are learning in the classroom with this supervision. This supervision parallels holding a frame where the field instructor ensures the students' learning and can use modeling to assist with this learning. A participant sums up what all the participants noted in applying fieldwork to the coursework: I think that it's so nice to know that you're doing this work in a combination of coursework. I really see my role as, number one, providing access and opportunity for students to be in vivo and have these opportunities that are in their coursework. So, making it come alive for them…the content and the process, I think, are the big pieces. Hopefully, there's an element of modeling, being able to see someone in practice doing things at times well and making mistakes and figuring all those things out.

This participant understands the importance of applying coursework to the field work “making it come alive for them” and by noting the benefit of the mistakes as a learning tool for the student to then figure it out together the next steps. The field instructor is holding the frame for the students’ learning. Participants understand their role in providing experiences for the students to learn not only from their coursework but

112 actually in practice in the field via the skill building and modeling. The field instructor has the responsibility in the supervisory relationship to hold the frame with this mutuality with asymmetry (Aron, 1996; Atlas, 2021; McWilliams, 2021; Sarnat, 2016). Similar to the holding of the frame for the client to ensure the therapy is occurring in benefit to the client, similarly the field instructor holds the frame to ensure the student is learning the skills needed to be a professional social worker.

Sub-Theme: Boundaries.

In exploring their role with students, participants emphasized the role to educate students about their boundaries at future places of employment to ensure self-care. There is a parallel occurring where the field instructor holds the frame of supervision and teaches the student how to set boundaries in their work with clients and future employers to prevent burnout. One participant states, I like to talk a lot about the professional self and professional boundaries. Because the social work students, in general, are very like, "I want to do it all. I want to help people." That works in all different places…I do feel a responsibility to bring that up.

This participant points out the danger for students to set themselves up for burnout if they do not learn about the need to set boundaries and limits. Because social work is a helping profession, professional boundaries are crucial for a successful long-term career. There is a parallel process of holding the frame between the field instructor and student, therapist and client and social worker and employer. The frame ensures learning, therapy, and work are all provided within a boundary to safe guard the individuals’ interests.

113 Participants hold the frame with professional boundaries not only between the supervisor and supervisee, therapist and client but also demonstrate the importance in the future employer and employee relationships for the student to prevent burnout. The concept of self-care was prevalent in the recent amendment to our NASW code of ethics where “social workers should take measures to care for themselves professionally and personally” (NASW, 2021). With our continued coronavirus pandemic, the concept of self-care is on the forefront of all professions in healthcare. This was likely on the minds of the participants during their interviews which were at the height of the Omicron coronavirus surge in the winter of 2022.

The holding of the frame with professional boundaries also addresses Sarnat’s (2016) second dimension of relational supervision in managing the material discussed in supervision specially related to any enactments or strong emotions. Per Maroda (2020), enactments are those negative reactions from a supervisor that may resonate with the supervisee’s early experiences that then plays out with the supervisee. Often our early experiences may play a role in our interactions with others in the present which may at times be highly emotionally charged. One participant shared an experience with her student where an intense interchange occurred when the student was overwhelmed with multiple demands occurring all at the same time. This led to a discussion of “whoa, what just happened here” where both talked about what happened and learned from the experience. The student explained the challenges she was having with managing multiple demands from family, work, school and field placement. Through processing of this event with the field instructor, the student was able to gain self-awareness on her limits and what came up from her early childhood the need to be “good enough.” The field

114 instructor was able to use this awareness from the student to help her set professional boundaries and limits. The experience highlighted the importance of self-care. As Maroda (2022), states “boundaries remain a cornerstone to the therapeutic environment.”

Similarly, the participant held the frame of professional boundaries with the student first by noticing the event to address it. However, the participant acknowledging the event allowed for the processing of the event within the frame of learning how to be a professional social worker in keeping the frame this then models boundaries for self-care.

Research question #3: How do these Master’s level field instructors build relationships with their students?

Relationships are built at first contact or interview with the student. Like any relationship, it stems from building rapport, trust, making time, being fully present and available. Having a commitment to weekly supervision allows for the relationship to build. This relationship is different from a therapeutic relationship as the mutuality with asymmetry is held (Sarnat, 2016; Aron, 1996). However, the relationship is still built not only through teaching and modeling skills but through the consistency of supervision, telling stories, staying in touch and in having meaningful conversations.

Theme: Differs yet parallels the therapeutic relationship.

Participants discussed how the supervisory relationship is similar yet different from the therapeutic relationship. However, like any other relationship one builds it through establishing a rapport, listening, making time, being fully present and available to build trust.

115 All the participants discussed concepts that linked to attachment theory. In particular, Bowlby’s (1988) concept of a “secure base,” in which the parents are available to assist the child when needed. Bowlby (1988) defines attachment behavior as a bond that results in the “person attaining or retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual, who is usually conceived as stronger and/or wiser” (Bowlby, 1979; p. 154). Bowlby (1979, 1988) discusses the proximity of the parent or caregiver as significant in forming an attachment bond with the child. A participant shares, “I try to spend some time right from the get-go, spending some time developing a relationship. I consider it a big responsibility to have a student.” Here, the field instructor is taking the responsibility to provide this “secure base” through being near the student and provides the time to build the relationship.

Sub-Theme: Supervision.

As discussed in an earlier research question related to the field instructor’s role, a field instructor is imperative in holding the professional frame and boundaries in learning how to be a professional social worker. Supervision solidifies the supervisory relationship when it is provided often, consistently and reliably to ensure a solid connection and a “secure base.”

A participant states that “consistency and that routine and that predictability…I think that helps that grounding, knowing that I will be there when I say I'm going to be there.” Another participant agrees, “doing what you say you're going to do and be reliable.” Quotes demonstrate this need for reliability, consistency and being there when promised as integral to forming a trusting attachment. This idea of being there for the

116 student can be seen in Winnicott’s (1971) concept of the “potential space.” According to Winnicott, a child can be playing in another part of the house away from the parent or caregiver, but is aware of the presence of the parents or caregiver and feels safe enough to play on their own. Similarly, the student with this trust in the relationship with the field instructor is able to go out and practice how to be a professional social worker, knowing there is support and guidance available when needed.

Sub-Theme: Telling stories.

All participants mentioned either semantically or latently the use of their own experience via telling stories in supervision as a teaching tool in forming the relationship with the student and helping them normalize experiences. Participants point out how we all make mistakes, are human and learn through mistakes to strengthen the relationship.

A participant shares, I'll share anecdotes from when I was an intern. I think I mostly I use it to normalize their experiences or occasionally help them think differently about a client…Normaliz[ing] it, also creates a little bit more of that feeling of comfort of like, "Okay. So, this person who's my supervisor is not perfect.”

Participants use stories to normalize the idea that we are all figuring out how to best serve the client together. Stories are used to note this similar connection, lessen the students’ anxiety and assist the students in gaining confidence. Also, students are more likely to demonstrate their own mistakes knowing that the field instructors have made their own mistakes when learning how to be a social worker. This recalls Sullivan’s (as cited in Perry & Gawel, 1953) idea that “everyone is much more simply human than otherwise”

117 (p. 32). Sullivan, by reminding us of our humanity points out we are more similar than different in our being a part of the human condition; we all make mistakes and learn from them. By telling stories, the participant can point out to the student in being human we all make mistakes and learn from them. Participants were also aware of the difference in the supervisory relationship compared to a therapeutic relationship in that telling stories can be used as a tool to aid in the student’s learning which differs in the therapeutic relationship where personal stories would not be shared by the analyst or therapist. The mutuality with asymmetry of keeping the frame of supervisor and supervisee relationship is still held, but there is also a competent of a mentor and mentee relationship; thus, different from a therapeutic relationship with a client. This idea also comes up with the next overlapping sub-theme, staying in touch.

Overlapping sub-theme: Stay in touch.

Participants all mentioned some form of contact after the field experience ended, whether for a reference, or for a check-in. This building of the relationship forms a solid attachment where the relationship continues after the student graduates. The field instructor role may change to a colleague, consultant, clinical supervisor, or mentor. A participant gives an example of maintaining the connection in the relationship, “I just heard from another [past student] yesterday…that feels really nice to know that they still value our connection.” The field instructor also values the maintenance of the relationship and in the student valuing this connection. This continued contact is a testament to the strong relationship between the field instructor and the student. Again, keeping the mutuality with asymmetry (Aron, 1996; Atlas, 2021; McWilliams, 2021;

118 Sarnat, 2016) exists even after the student graduates in this new role or context. Again, the frame of the supervisor and supervisee relationship is still held but there is also a component of a mentor and mentee relationship that is different from a therapeutic relationship with a client.

Overlapping sub-theme: Meaningful conversations.

All participants shared meaningful conversations that had a powerful impact on the field instructor and/or the student. A participant states, “I was avoiding some things that were becoming challenging and was hoping they would just go away and realizing that ‘Nope, we got to address these things.’ Again, it turns out to be meaningful conversations that deepened our connection.” A participant states in working through a challenging time with a student, “Let's talk about what's getting in the way. So, we do that. Just like you would in any kind of a relationship.” These discussions had some emotionally charged interactions that paralleled emotionally charged situations that would occur in other relationships. The field instructor and student needed to clear the air or address an issue straight on instead of avoiding it. These difficult conversations about the supervisory relationship were meaningful for field instructors and their students.

There is safety in the relationship knowing that you have support to figure things out together if anything goes wrong. What also came to mind during the interviews were these “now moment[s]” where there is a “moment of meeting” (Stern et al., 1998), where something is both realized by the field instructor and the student that later can be processed and found to be meaningful for both. This also addresses Sarnat’s (2016) third

119 dimension in relational supervision, the mode of participation. The mode of participation is where the relational supervisor maintains the frame to ‘teach and treat’ the supervisee.

This mode of participation is a complex, integrated and challenging part of the supervisee’s training and learning. The supervisor has to keep the frame in not providing therapy to a supervisee yet still use what is co-created between the supervisor and the supervisee to assist in the supervisee’s learning (Frawley-O’Dea, 1998). A very delicate boundary needs to be maintained.

A participant shares an interchange with a student where there were intense emotions. These intense emotions had to be held by the field instructor for them to be later processed with the student to aid in learning about self-awareness, self-reflection and the use of self for the student. The field instructor had to hold the intense emotions for the student to be able process them. The field instructor was the container of the students’ emotions to allow for them to be processed together yet holding the supervisory frame. According to Bion’s (1962/1984) concept of the “container and contained” in therapy, the therapist holds the intense emotions for the client to allow processing within the therapeutic frame. Here the field instructor contains the intense affects from the student during supervision to allow a safe space to process the emotions yet maintain the frame. Often this happens where the student is overwhelmed in not knowing what to do in an intense clinical situation or in managing the multiple demands on them. The field instructor contains these high emotions to allow for processing, learning and growth through these meaningful conversations.

120 Research question #4: How do Master’s level field Instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

As discussed earlier, participants shared how field experiences play a role in the development of a social worker both professionally and personally. Field instructors support the student’s learning by ensuring they are not the scaffolding process (Wood et al., 1976) where the student is supported through guidance or collaboration. The more expert or advanced learner or peer assists the student in filling in gaps where needed to assist in the learning, accentuating the positive aspects with corrections when and where needed (Wood et al, 1976). Participants also facilitate the use of self for the development of the student’s self-awareness, self-reflection, self-care and professional self.

Theme - Foster learning skills and the use of self (Overlapping sub-theme with question #1).

For participants, field experience is important to learn developmentally the skills needed to be a social worker with safety in the relationship the student will try new things with support. Supervisors also allow for discussion on use of self through self-reflection, self-awareness, self-care and professional self, teaching through modeling, and disclosure through story telling. In this section, how the field instructor is internalized by the student is explored along with the meaningful conversations with particular use of metaphor and diversity to support the student’s development.

Sub-theme: Internalization.

121 As touched on earlier, participants share that part of development stems from memories of teachable moments in their own learning that they often bring up via stories with their own current students. This internalization or identification with a past supervisor also occurs within the current supervisory relationship.

A participant shares we “imprint upon someone as the supervisor whether good, bad or indifferent and one of the ways which we can truly show up to be the most authentic, and healing and grounding way for these individuals.” Here the field instructor is keenly aware of the impact she has on a student which can have an ongoing effect on how the student becomes a social worker. The participant is pointing out the intention of being aware of the impact the field instructor has on the student and the importance of being authentic, healing and grounding for the student. Schafer (1979) also notices this “imprinting effect” where all who have impacted your growth as a clinician become internalized. Field instructors provide an impact to the student that the student will also carry with them just as the field instructor has carried past field instructors or supervisors’ experiences with them.

Schafer (1968) defines internalization as “all those processes by which the subject transforms real or imagined regulatory interactions with his environment, and real or imagined characteristics of his environment, into inner regulations and characteristics.” (p. 9). The subject, in this case the student, takes in the real or imagined regulatory interactions with their environment, in this case the relationship with the field instructor, into their inner regulations or characteristics. Similar to the concept of internalization is Casement’s (2019, 2006) concept of ‘holding in mind the patient’. Casement (2019, 2006) discusses how the therapist will often ‘hold in mind the patient’ when the client is

122 not in session. The therapist will think about the client between sessions. Similarly, the student is thinking about the interactions with their field instructor when the field instructor is not immediately available. This effectively carries the supervision even when the field instructor is not present. Casement (1985, 2002, 2006, & 2019) addresses this point when he expands on the concept of internalization with his concept of “internal supervision.” For Casement (2019), internal supervision represents “the student’s own thinking as distinct from that of the internalized supervisor. Both are important, what the actual supervisor might say and what the student is thinking in the session” (p. 25).

There is a processing of both, what a supervisor might suggest, and then what the student may do with the information obtained from the client. Both influences are important, the field instructor and what the student may see as a benefit to the client. Buechler (2017) also has a concept of “the clinician’s internal chorus” these internalizations or voices of students, teachers, field instructors, supervisors, mentors and other individuals who have impacted their learning or work with clients. A participant states, “I had different supervisors with lots of different strengths. There are things that I still remember about those supervisors, years ago said to me [sic].” These internal dialogues from past field instructors, supervisors, teachers, parents or other figures in our lives we carry in our minds as a memory to be used or reflected upon.

Students take so much from the supervisory relationship in their development as a social worker both professionally and personally that is carried internally. These memories can then be used as examples throughout their career.

Sub-theme: Use of metaphor.

123 Many participants related stories from prior supervisors that used a metaphor to describe a situation they were experiencing to accentuate a point in their learning or professional and personal development. The use of metaphor is a powerful teaching tool in the supervisory relationship; it assists the student in their professional and personal development. A participant states a field instructor said, I wasn't a bull in a China shop. I'm incredibly direct. I’m incredibly passionate.

And to know that the work I was doing brought deep healing, joy, resilience, and it was worthy. That's really important because then I was like, ‘Okay, well, let me see myself in a different way.’

The participant took the “bull in the China shop” metaphor as not being an uncontrollable or destructive force like a bull. The participant feared she may be like a bull in being overly direct. However, her field instructor reassured her that she was not a bull but that she was actually direct in a powerful, passionate and caring way. This new view of herself, let her see herself in a new way as a professional social worker. Her field instructor pointed out her strengths through this visual and powerful metaphor and it had an impact on her professional and personal development. For a metaphor to be meaningful or internalized, Buechler (2017) discusses how the relationship is critical, some mentors became especially meaningful, partially because they resonated enough with who I already was as a person. To resonate they had to have integrity, that is how they treated me had to be consonant with what they advocated doing with patients. The medium had to match the message. (p. 304).

124 According to Buechler (2017) metaphors resonate and are meaningful if they came from a person who has integrity in their advocacy not only for the clients but also for themselves and others. The integrity of the field instructor resonates for the student not only in advocating for the student but for themselves, clients and others. This strength in the relationship allows for the metaphor to be meaningful. Participants shared how these uses of metaphors stay with them figuratively and literally as a reminder of the strength in the supervisory relationship many years to decades later as a developmental function.

Sub-theme: Diversity.

Participants shared meaningful conservations around race and difference that were pivotal in their learning and those with their students. One participant shares the student experience with being in a supervisory role, to be a woman of color teaching or supervising largely white students. That it's really interesting almost not like giving them access but being able to talk about race and being able to talk about identity, and talking about oppression, all of these things from a first-person perspective in a supervisory relationship rather than as a theoretical or rather from the perspective of our imagined clients with the assumption that they are part of those groups. Yeah, the kind of many layers of identity that is a part of my supervisory relationship with them. It's been pretty powerful.

125 The field instructor is tasked to teach about the importance diversity and inclusion.

However, being a woman of color, she is the diversity that the students are learning about in the classroom. This participant is not only a field instructor, but also someone who is a part of the marginalized group. The participant notices the fact in being a person of color supervising all white social work students is a reversal in typical power dynamics.

She is acknowledging all these different identities and complexities in being a woman of color in a position of power.

The participant expands how the students, “watch people interact with me versus interacting with others and they're like, ‘it's different, I see how they treat you differently or whatever.’ It's such a topsy-turvy power dynamic.” Not only is she physically manifesting what the students are learning in the classroom but the students are actually witnessing it. Students are getting real time evidence of what they are taught in school.

Thus, she is bringing an opportunity for further discussion on race in the here and now with the students. This participant demonstrates the learning opportunities in bringing in difference, diversity, and inclusion into the room for discussion. This discussion assists in the development of the student both personally in the relationship between the student and the field instructor, and professionally in how to address difference, diversity and inclusion with clients.

McWilliams (2020) discusses the concept of othering and a way to lessen it through bringing in respect. Where we “can learn from the other, that the other has something of value to teach. It foregoes dominance and embraces an element of submission. It includes a readiness to be surprised.” (p. 192). McWilliams’s (2020) ideas around othering apply to the participant’s quote. Participant taught about diversity,

126 valuing others through a surrender, where the white students expressed learning from her, were not dominated by her and were surprised in how she was being treated. At the same time, the participant was not dominated by the white students through a racial power dynamic. Field instructors can create a context where they can have respectful conversations around difference, diversity, and inclusion in a meaningful way which is an opportunity for both the student and the field instructor.

Summary of Findings Next is a summary of the findings with themes, sub-themes, overlapping themes and corresponding theory to be reviewed before we move on to the next section. The next section will address implications, suggestions for the CSWE and the schools of social work and limitations. The chapter will end with suggestions for future research.

Table 3 Overview of Findings with Themes, Sub-themes, and Corresponding Theory or Concept Research Questions 1. How do master's level field instructors teach CSWE competencies through the supervisory relationship?

2. How do master's level field instructors understand their role with their students?

3. How do these master's level field instructors build relation-ships with their students?

Theme Facilitate professional identity through demonstrating the CSWE Competencies

Sub-themes Wrestle with Foster learning skills and the use of self overlapping theme #4

Theory -Future self (Grosz, 2013) -Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Cole et al., 1978) -Scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976)

Facilitate supervision and modeling.

Boundaries

Differs yet parallels the therapeutic relationship

Supervision Telling stories Stay in touchoverlapping #4 Meaningful conversationsoverlapping #4

-Relational Supervision (Sarnat, 2016) -Mutuality with asymmetry (Aron, 1996) -Enactment (Maroda, 2020) -Boundaries (Maroda, 2022) -Secure base (Bowlby, 1979, 1988) -The potential space (Winnicott, 1971) - Being human (Perry & Gawel, 1953) -Mutuality with asymmetry’ (Aron, 1996) -Now moment (The Process of Change Study Group, 1993) -Teach and treat (Sarnat, 2016) -Container and contained (Bion, 1962/1984)

4. How do master's level field instructors use the supervisory relationship as a developmental function?

Foster learning skills and the use of self-over-lapping subtheme #1

Internalization Use of metaphor Diversity

-Internalization (Schafer, 1968) -Internal supervision (Casement, 2006, 2019) -Internal chorus (Buechler, 2017) -Respect and othering (McWilliams, 2020)

127 Implications for Master’s Level Field Instruction The findings suggest the relationship between the field instructor and the master’s level social work student is crucial in teaching the CSWE competencies and in helping the students develop professionally and personally. Participants shared how the CSWE competencies are important in how we identify as a professional social worker.

However, the relationship with the supervisor is how the student learns HOW to be a social worker through teaching and modeling. CSWE competencies are modeled after our NASW and the CSWA code of ethics. However, only focusing on the evaluation of these CSWE competencies, in teaching students how to be a social worker, schools of social work have minimized the importance of the role of the supervisory relationship.

Referring back to the research reviewed in Chapter 2, field instructor training emphasized the mastery of teaching the CSWE competencies instead of focusing on the supervisory relationship, which was more prevalent in our social work history in training master’s level students. This research study has shown that the supervisory relationship is pivotal as a developmental function for future social workers to warrant further study. In addition, this empirical research study supports a reconsideration and call to return to our historical social work foundation in the value of the supervisory relationship, where both future social work students and supervisors can benefit (Applegate, 2004; Farber & Reitmeier, 2019; Fleischer, 2019; Goldstein, 2009, 2007, 2002; Gonzalez & Gelman, 2015; Kautz & Piotrowski, 2019). In maintaining this connection or relationship, clinicians and students can enhance the work of all social workers and clients across all social work settings.

Lastly, this focusing on the development of the relationship

encourages a return to teaching psychodynamic, psychoanalytic theories and concepts

128 that value the relationship instead of solely focusing on competency-based evaluations of master’s level social work students and field instructors in supervision.

The following two sections are suggestions for CSWE and the schools of social work gained from the participant interviews as a whole.

Suggestions for the CSWE As noted in the qualitative results, participants found the CSWE competencies to be “grounding,” “a pillar in the sand,” a “guidepost,” or an “anchor” for students, but the CSWE competencies also have a “complexity,” that the student and field instructor have to “wrestle with,” “decode,” or “translate.” In addition, the CSWE competencies are “confusing,” and are “aspirational” because it is difficult for a student to have all of the experiences noted on the CSWE competencies. Participants in this study shared it would be helpful for the CSWE to provide specific expectations or understanding on how to address all the CSWE competencies. Many participants felt pressure to make the student experience fit every competency which is unrealistic. Having a clear understanding of their role and expectations would take stress and anxiety away from the evaluations for both the field instructor and the student. A potential way to help clarify the CSWE competencies would be to incorporate a CSWE competencies journal which follows a suggestion from one of the participants. One participant shared an experience in which the students were assigned a "CSWE competencies journal.” The students were to reflect daily at their field placement with specific examples of their clinical work incorporating the CSWE competencies. Another suggestion for the CSWE to require all schools of social work to incorporate this type of a “CSWE competencies journal.”

129

Suggestions for the Schools of Social Work During the interviews for this study, participants were asked to share their suggestions for the schools of social work. Specifically, they were asked if there was anything they would want the schools of social work to focus on or add to their training of both the student or field instructor that would be helpful such as any coursework or information. Comments were made on the importance to have support for the field instructor through free trainings, continuing education and consultation groups.

Additionally, some discussion was on the benefit of courses in graduate schools on how one becomes a field instructor or supervisor. Another suggestion for schools of social work was to review how students could best utilize the supervision hour. Further coursework on diversity and inclusion including foundational liberation theory, concepts on patriarchy, colonization, racism, gender, and identity were all advocated. Participants’ comments also supported the current literature on that need (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Falendar & Shafranske, 2021; Finch et al., 2019; Hensley, 2016; McNeil & Stoltenberg, 2016; McWilliams, 2021; Sarnat, 2016). Numerous current events over the timeframe of the study has led to the update of the CSWE competencies to include anti-racism, racial and equity to support the participants concerns (CSWE, 2022). In addition, currently there is an increase in trainings on diversity and inclusion available to social workers for license continuing education credits, which the participants expressed interest in the schools of social work to providing. Another participant recommended more time be spent on developmental theory in their foundation coursework and for coursework to be more sequential. All participants stressed the importance of boundaries and self-care,

130 urging the schools of social work to impress this upon their students which also supports the recent NASW code of ethics incorporating self-care (NASW, 2021). Schools of social work could provide additional counseling and support for students who experience a loss of a client or other trauma in the field placement. Participants also recommended incorporating alternative treatment approaches including the creative arts, and specific trauma treatments. In addition, exploring our country’s focus on autonomy and individualism compared to other cultures can be beneficial for social work students.

Other suggestions were to provide training on mandated state standardized clinical assessments along with basic resources for the area, instead of relying on the field placement to provide this for the students solely. Many participants encouraged schools of social work to review the ethics and legal ramifications of proper clinical charting; especially, in the use of electronic medical records. Lastly, all participants stressed having field instructors who understand that the supervisory role is an important responsibility in training our future social workers. Field instructors should only be a field instructor if they truly value, enjoy, and take seriously the role in being a field instructor. Field instructors should not take on a student for the purpose of lightening up work obligations or provide an additional workforce. Field instructors wanted the schools of social work to take more responsibility with regard to whom they choose to be field instructors.

Limitations The data for this study consisted of 10 interviewed participants and 36 completed recruitment surveys. As such, participant responses may not accurately represent the

131 thoughts or beliefs of the larger population of all master’s level social work field instructors in the United States or worldwide. Results of the study represent a particular time frame during the Omicron coronavirus variant in January 2022 through March 2022 versus a longer recruitment time. Originally, the goal was to have more potential participants complete the recruitment survey so that the pool of the potential interviewees would have been larger and it may have been possible to randomize those interviewed.

However, recruitment of participants was made more challenging because the sites for recruitment and graduate schools of social work, requested a recruitment flyer indicating IRB approval. Researcher requested an IRB seal of approval on the recruitment flyer with no response. Therefore, the researcher sought out professional contacts to assist with recruitment of interested field instructors. Another graduate school of social work recommended the researcher request a mailing list from the CSWE of all the directors of field instruction programs nationally to assist with recruitment. The researcher’s scarce resources and time led to a narrowing of the participant recruitment process with concurrence of the dissertation chair.

In addition, the recruitment survey had two flaws. First, two survey questions were very similar. One question asked “How do social workers learn how to be a social worker?” with another question asking, “What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker?” with the same options for answers.

This may have appeared to be very similar questions for the survey participants.

Secondly, the survey responses allowed for a “select all that apply” option as well as an “all of the above’’ option. In some cases, the participants selected all of the answers as well as “all of the above.” Answering the questions in this way created a measurement

132 error. The researcher's intention was to provide a range of choices, and not limit the participants’ response to one category, by allowing the participants to choose “all of the above.” However, in retrospect, formatting the questions to read "select all that apply" or rank order the options or choose the most meaningful option with a comment box to allow for elaboration may have provided clearer and more accurate responses. Lastly, another limitation was in sampling, as too few participants completed the recruitment survey for any statistical significant findings.

Recommendations for Future Research With additional resources, replicating this study with a broader reach utilizing CSWE, NASW or other national social work professional email lists or listservs could lead to results with statistical significance. Future researchers may want to examine if master’s level social work students also value the supervisory relationship as being instrumental in their development as a social worker. Future research is also warranted in the area of the impact on technology and social work training. It would be insightful to compare the use of video in clinical training, supervision and in field instruction. Future researchers could explore the benefits of a field instructor consultant group with a field instructor control group. In addition, research could examine the benefits of coursework for the master social work programs in the area of supervision whether clinical or administrative. Furthermore, researchers could conduct studies on the best ways to teach master’s level social work students on electronic medical records along with knowledge of any legal and ethical issues. Future researchers could investigate how to use the professional self with social media, branding and setting up private practice or in agency

133 work. In addition, future researchers could investigate how field instructors and students navigate the changes in the supervisory relationship from student, field instructor, mentor, colleague, consultant and peer. Lastly, future researchers can explore how psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theory can be of value in the role of strengthening the supervisory relationship for not only a positive experience for the student and field instructor or the supervisor and supervisee, but possibly play a role in the clients’ outcome. This study has demonstrated that field instructors are generous with their time, are passionate and committed to the training of master’s level social work students, and have a voice to spark even more research.

134

Appendix A Letter Request to Graduate Schools

135 Institute for Clinical Social Work 1345 W. Argyle Street Chicago, IL 60640 Institute for Clinical Social Work 1345 W. Argyle Street Chicago, IL 60640

December 4th, 2021 Dear Field Instructor Coordinator,

I am currently an advance standing Ph.D. student at the Institute for Clinical Social Work. I have obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for my dissertation research study. My study is on the relational aspects of the supervisory experience in Master of Social Work field training. I am reaching out to you to see if you would please pass on a survey monkey link to current field instructors who may be interested in participating in my dissertation study. Any questions or suggestions, please let me know:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JDL78QH

Sincerely,

Ann Costa MSW, LCSW

136

Appendix B Flyer

137

Relational Aspects of the Supervisory Experience in Master Social Work Field Training I am an Institute for Clinical Social Work Ph.D. Student.

Please consider participating in my dissertation research study.

Contact: Ann Costa acosta@icsw.edu Purpose of this study: To explore how master's level social work field instructors, use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally.

Qualifications for participation in the study: You are a field instructor for second year master-level social workers from a CSWE program with three to five years of experience.

Participants agree to attend two individual interviews ranging from 45 to 90 minutes via zoom with the researcher.

Survey Monkey Link

Thank-you!!!

138

Appendix C Survey Monkey

139

Welcome Screen: Welcome to the Supervisory Relationship in Graduate Social Work Training Survey!

This survey's purpose is to explore interest in being a part of a dissertation study on how do master's level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally.

By: Ann Costa MSW, LCSW at the Institute for Clinical Social Work Dissertation Research under Supervision of Denise Duval Tsioles Ph.D., LCSW Dissertation Chair.

Participant's rights: This survey is entirely voluntary, confidential, and with no personal questions.

[Detail instructions for participants so they understand how to fill out the survey] The survey will take at most 5 minutes of your time. The survey starts with four demographic questions then moves to six questions with options to choose from. You will have the opportunity to select the best answer for you. In the end, you will be prompted to submit the survey.

By proceeding you consent to take this survey.

Now let's begin [Demographics section] 1.

Please choose your appropriate age group?

18-30 31-45 46-64 65 and older 2.

Which gender do you most identify with?

Female Male Transgender/non-binary

140 3.

What is your race? (Select one)

Asian Native American Black/African American White Latino/Hispanic Pacific Islander Bi/Multi-Racial 4.

Please identify your current employment. (select one)

Private Practice Governmental Agencies Non-profit Agency Academia [Page Break] That was quick and easy☺ Now to the six survey questions.

[Survey Questions] 5. How many years have you supervised a Master of Social Work Student?

One to two years Three to five years Six to ten years Over ten years 6.

How do Social Workers learn how to be a Social Worker? (select all

that apply) Coursework Direct clinical field placements Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Competencies Relationship with the field instructor All of the above 7.

What do you find to be most valuable for your learning in becoming a professional social worker? (select all that apply) Coursework Direct clinical field placements

141 Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Competencies Relationship with the field instructor All of the above 8.

How do you understand your role with your student? (select all that

apply) Provide supervision in a practice setting for the student Teach concrete skills such as how to do a clinical assessment, charting, etc.

Modeling how to be a professional social worker in a practice setting Provide mentoring role to student All of the above 9.

What conceptual framework do you most align within your clinical work? (select all that apply) Behavioral Cognitive-Behavioral Client Focused, Patient-Centered, Humanistic Neurobiology of Attachment and Trauma Psychodynamic or Psychoanalytic Eclectic or multiple frameworks depending on the situation 10.

Would you be willing to participate in two audio recorded interviews for 45 to 90 minutes via ZOOM to explore these areas further? Text box Please provide you name, e mail and phone number [Page break] Thank you for supporting my research endeavors! Much appreciated, Ann Costa MSW, LCSW. Please feel free to email me at acosta@icsw.edu if you have any questions or to ensure we connect to discuss further.

Please click on the done button to submit the survey☺ [Submit button]

142

Appendix D Sample Initial Email

143

Dear

Hello, thank you for your interest in my dissertation study.

I am Ann Costa, a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Clinical Social Work (ICSW) in Chicago. I am researching the experience of master social work field instructors. The purpose of the study is to explore how master level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally.

The study requires two audio recorded interviews, and the first is for about 60 to 90 minutes, with a follow-up interview for 30 to 60 minutes. These interviews will be video through ZOOM.

If further interested, please let me know the best days and times to set up our first interview. Then, I can email the formal ICSW informed consent for your review to sign and send back before our first interview.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, Ann

144

[If further interested, the researcher will email the ICSW Formal Consent Form see Appendix F in detailing the study, including risks and benefits, confidentiality, and the consent process. Participants will sign and send the consent back prior to first interview. The signed consent is received and researcher ensures understanding before the audio recording of the first interview.]

145

Appendix E Phase I Quantitative Informed Consent

146

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Consent for Participation in Social Behavioral Research Supervisory Relationship in Graduate Social Work Training Phase I: Quantitative Survey Supervisory Relationship in Graduate Social Work Training Survey Ann Costa MSW LCSW, will carry out this work, under the supervision of Denise Duval Tsioles, Ph.D., LCSW This work is conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; at St. Augustine College, 1345 W. Argyle St., Chicago, IL 60640; (773) 935-6500.

Purpose This study explores how master social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally.

Participant's rights: This survey is entirely voluntary, confidential, and with no personal questions.

Procedures used in the study and duration The survey will take at most 5 minutes of time. The survey starts with four demographic questions then moves to six questions with options to choose from.

Participants will have the opportunity to select the best answer then in the end be prompted to submit the survey.

Benefits There is no compensation benefit for participating in this survey. However, the primary benefit of this survey is its contribution to furthering the knowledge in the field of social work practice. There may be a secondary benefit to participating in the research or the specific population.

Costs There is no cost to you for your participation.

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects The potential risk to you by participating in this survey could be emotional distress. It is unknown whether the survey questions could trigger an emotional response from you.

147 Privacy and Confidentiality Quantitatively the survey will provide consent via participants choosing to partake in answering the survey questions or not. Primary inclusion criteria is providing consent to proceed in taking the survey. Participants are accepted into the study if they have inclusion criteria of having at least three years of field instructor experience, able to be interview twice for 45 to 90 minutes, comfortable in being audio recorded and provide contact information.

Subject Assurances The survey consent via survey monkey where the participant choses to partake or proceed in completing the survey or not. Participants have not given up any rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness in choosing to complete the survey.

Participants can choose to not take the survey at any time and/or not submit the survey answers at any time. The relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if you refuse to take part or begin the survey and then withdraw.

Any questions about the research methods, you can contact Ann Costa MSW, LCSW at 424-339-6776 or acosta@icsw.edu or Denise Duval Tsioles, Ph.D., LCSW, 773-562-6042 or dduval@icsw.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, you may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; the Institute for Clinical Social Work; At St. Augustine College, 1345 W. Argyle St., Chicago, IL 60640; (773)935-6500.; irbchair@icsw.edu.

Signatures For the Participant: Survey via survey monkey can be either anonymous where they answer the questions and not choose to be interviewed or participants upon reading the consent to partake in the survey can consent to provide contact information. Thus, no signature is needed for this survey.

For the Primary Researcher Since a survey can be either anonymous or a participant can agree to provide on the survey their name, phone number and e mail to be contact for the qualitative part of the research study. Thus, no signature is needed for this survey.

148

Appendix F Phase II Qualitative Informed Consent

149

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Consent for Participation in Social Behavioral Research Phase II: Qualitative Supervisory Relationship in Graduate Social Work Training I, _____________________________________, acting for myself, agree to take part in the research entitled Relational Aspects of the Supervisory Experience in Master of Social Work Field Training Ann Costa MSW, LCSW, will carry out this work, under the supervision of Denise Duval Tsioles, Ph.D., LCSW This work is conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; at St. Augustine College, 1345 W. Argyle St., Chicago, IL 60640; (773) 935-6500.

Purpose This study explores how master's level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally.

The study explores the role of the Field Instructor in Master of Social Work training; how your role impacts the student in teaching them how to be a social worker. In addition, this study will explore your role in this learning process for the student developmentally and the relationship as a supervisor. Little to no research is specific to this area; therefore, your involvement will contribute to the literature and clinical social work in general.

Procedures used in the study and duration Data is collected from interested participants via survey questions and interviews of participants that lasts between 45 to 90 minutes. An initial 15 to 30-minute email or phone screening to determine eligibility to participate in this study. The screening will identify any limitations, restrictions, or health conditions that might impede the interview process. It will also screen for any accommodations to ensure that you are comfortable for the duration of the interview process.

You will review and sign this Consent Form before the interview starts. You may decline to answer any questions at any point during the interviews. You may also stop the interviews at any time. The interview responses will be tape-recorded, transcribed by researcher or private secured company, and analyzed. To ensure your privacy, there will be no use of any identifying information. Information from interviews will be analyzed

150 where parts of the transcript or summary are sanitized, i.e., contain no personal or identifiable characteristics in the final write-up of the dissertation.

Benefits There is no compensation benefit to you for participating in this study. However, the primary benefit of this study is its contribution to furthering the knowledge in the field of social work practice. There may be a secondary benefit to participating in the research or the specific population.

Costs There is no cost to you for your participation.

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects The potential risk to you by participating in this study could be emotional distress.

It is unknown whether the interview questions could trigger an emotional response from you. The interview will pause or end immediately to minimize risk if you display signs of emotional distress. Help sites or therapist resources are available to help manage any distress.

Privacy and Confidentiality Quantitatively the survey will provide consent to partake in answering the questions provided to see if accepted into the study i.e. have at least three years of field instructor experience. Qualitatively, for those selected into the study, the interview is conducted in a mutually agreed-upon online video conferencing format that may include (e.g., Zoom or Facetime) or by phone. Participants' privacy and the confidentiality of the data (audio recording and/or voice) held secured by a password and accessible only by the Primary Investigator. Identifiable data will be kept separate from the rest of the research data and destroyed (e.g., shredding, deleting, or erasing) upon completion of the study. Again, any of your identifying information will not be made public in any format.

Subject Assurances By signing this consent form, you agree to take part in this study. You have not given up any of your rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness.

You may cancel my consent and refuse to continue in this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Your relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if you refuse to take part or begin the study and then withdraw.

If you have any questions about the research methods, you can contact Ann Costa MSW, LCSW at 424-339-6776 or acosta@icsw.edu or Denise Duval Tsioles, Ph.D., LCSW, 773-562-6042 or dduval@icsw.edu

151 If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, you may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; the Institute for Clinical Social Work; At St. Augustine College, 1345 W. Argyle St., Chicago, IL 60640; (773)935-6500.; irbchair@icsw.edu Signatures For the Participant I have read this consent form, and I agree to take part in this study as explained in this consent form: Participant Name (please print): ___________________________________ Participant Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _____ 1. Would you like a summary of the results of this study?

Yes: ____ No: ____ For the Primary Researcher I certify that I have explained the research to _________________________ and believe that they understand and that they have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward.

Researcher Name (please print): ___________________________________ Researcher Signature: __________________________________________ Date:

152

Appendix G Script for Informed Consent

153 When the prospective participant arrives at the first interview, the informed consent process will begin the contact. This process will involve explaining the study's purpose, the reason for and the educational benefits of the study, expectations of participants, the data collection process, possible risks and benefits of participants, and privacy and confidentiality procedures. Participants will be made clear they will not receive any financial compensation for participating. Their information will be kept strictly confidential, and they have the right to stop the interview at any time. The script below, I will read aloud and ask to state their understanding of the consent. If they communicate a proper and clear understanding and agree, researcher will sign the Informed Consent form to participate in the research. [Participants read, signed and sent back the informed consent prior to the first interview.]

"The purpose of the study is to explore how master’s level social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in teaching CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally. The study also explores the role of the Field Instructor in Master of Social Work training; how their role impacts the student in teaching them how to be a social worker. Finally, this study will explore your role in this learning process for the student developmentally and the relationship as a supervisor. The primary benefit of this study is its contribution to furthering the knowledge in social work practice. There is little to no research specific to this area; therefore, research will contribute to the literature and clinical social work in general.

154 You are to participate in two interviews, the first for about 60 to 90 minutes via ZOOM. You will have the right to stop the interview and withdraw from the study at any time. Interviews will be audio recorded via a separate handheld device and transcribed by researcher or private secured company. After the first interview, the sanitized transcript will be emailed to you securely for your review and reflection. I will take out any identifying information from the transcript. The second interview will be about 30 to 60 minutes to review your thoughts on the interview, correct any information on the transcripts, and allow any additional information you may want to share in having time to think about the initial interview. This interview will also be audio-recorded and transcribed by researcher or via private secured company for the data collection. All information qualitatively and quantitatively obtained will be secured through a passwordprotected laptop via encrypted documents and a securely locked environment with only access to the researcher.

All information shared will remain confidential, with no identifying information in the research write-up. Data analysis is finding codes and themes between the interviews of all the participants. To demonstrate a particular theme from the research quotes or sections of the transcripts may be used in the dissertation's writing. Again, with no identifying information, and a pseudonym or participant number will be assigned.

The only other individuals who have access to the raw data are me, my committee members, and my senior analyst research consultant. The final written document again will be disguised to protect your confidentiality. Audio recordings and all documents related to the study will be password protected. After the mandatory 5-year post-

155 graduation period has been met, I will personally destroy the records by shredding all paper data and deleting all electronic data."

156

Appendix H Interview Guide First Interview

157 Ask general questions to establish a relationship/connection to the person. Ensure review:

Research Question: How do master’s social work field instructors use the supervisory relationship with their students in the teaching of CSWE’s competencies and in helping students develop professionally and personally?

Introduction of yourself and the purpose of the study

Acknowledge area of study: Relational Aspects of the Supervisory Experience in Master’s Level Social Work Field Training

Demographics: (If not obtained via interest Survey Monkey.)

Current Age Gender Identity Race/Ethnicity Job Status: Student, currently working, working from home, laid off or furloughed, Lost Job, Retired

How many years have you supervised a Master Social Work student?

Tell me a little bit about the agency you work in and your experience.

158 1. Tell me what led you to decide to be a Field Instructor for a Master of Social Work student?

Probe: Describe your overall experience Describe: What keeps you continuing to be a field instructor?

2. How do you understand your role as a field instructor?

Probe: What are your thoughts about the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies?

Describe: How do you see your role in teaching these competencies to Master of Social Work students

3. What are your thoughts about how we learn to be professional social worker?

Probe: What was most helpful for you in your development?

Describe: What do you think is most helpful for your student(s)?

4. How do you build a relationship with your student?

Probe: Are there any experiences that stand out to you in your experience in being a field instructor?

Describe: A clinical situation with a client being there for a student during a challenging time for them.

[Describe Further: Any self-disclosure being used or not used in building the relationship with your student?]

159 5. How do you see your relationship with your student(s) impacting their development as a professional social worker or as a person in general?

Probe: Can you recall an experience you had as a student in field instruction that affected you with a past supervisor. Have you found similar or different situations with your student(s)?

[Describe Further: Have you ever maintained a relationship after the end of the school year? For instance, the relationship changed whether becoming a peer, colleague, mentor or consultant?]

6. Is there anything else you would like to share about your thoughts on the supervisory relationship with master social work students?

Thank you

160

Appendix I Sample Follow up Email

161

Dear

I have attached the sanitized transcript from our first interview for your review before our second interview on_____. The second interview will allow us to review the first interview and clarify or correct anything in the transcript. In addition, this second interview will allow time for reflection and further discussion. I did not use your name in the document to protect your confidentiality. The password to access the attached document is the one we discussed at the end of the interview and if you need it, let me know.

Please feel free to contact me if you have trouble retrieving the document or for any questions.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review the transcript. I look forward to seeing and talking with you again on _______.

Sincerely,

Ann

162

Appendix J Interview Guide Second Interview

163

Thank participants for doing the second interview and curious about their reflections and thoughts from the last time we met.

First of all, I want to allow you to let me know of any errors in the transcripts or anything you wish to expand on or clarify or sanitize further?

1. Having had some time since we last met, I am curious to learn if anything stood out for you from the first interview?

Probe: Was there anything you were surprised in talking about the supervisory experience as a master’s level social work field instructor.

Describe: Has any particular experience from a past student come up for you?

2. Anything else that would be helpful for me to know that you may not have shared from the first interview?

Probe: Has are your thoughts about the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) competencies changed since the last time we talked?

Describe: Has your thoughts on your role in teaching these competencies to Master of Social Work students change since we last talked?

3. Is there anything you want the schools of social work to focus on or add to the training of both social workers and the field instructor that would be helpful for the student and you?

164 Probe: Any particular coursework or information?

Describe: Anything you incorporate that you would like the school to provide?

Is there anything else you would like to add about the supervisory relationship with masters level social work students?

Thank you

165

Appendix K Sample of End of Study Thank-you Email

166

Dear I wanted to follow up and thank you again for participating in my dissertation research study. Please let me know if you would like to review any part of my finished dissertation. The dissertation, in time, will eventually appear published online via the ICSW website.

Any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Sincerely,

Ann

167

Appendix L Email Providing Findings

168

April 25th 2022, Hello [NAME OF PARTICIPANT],

As requested, here is a list of the findings from my dissertation research project.

A copy of my full dissertation will be available on Institute for Clinical Social Work website after my final defense presentation. https://www.icsw.edu

Area of Study: Relational Aspects of the Supervisory Experience in Master of Social Work Field Training

After completing interviews with 10 participants, the four main themes below were consistent across all the participant interviews. The importance of the supervisory relationship really became apparent through the research questions. The research questions examined the field instructor’s role in teaching the CSWE competencies, how we learn to be a professional social worker, how we build relationships with our students and how we see the relationship impacting the student’s development.

Interview Themes 1. Field instructors facilitate the student’s professional identity through teaching and assisting in the learning of the CSWE competencies.

169 2. Field Instructors accomplish this teaching and learning how to be a professional social worker through close supervision and by modeling.

3. The supervisory relationship is built the same way with any relationship yet differs from the therapeutic relationship.

4. Field Instructors assist in the development of the student as a professional social worker through the learning of concrete skills and in the use of self, i.e. self-awareness, self-care, self-reflection and professional self.

Overall, what came through was the importance in the supervisory relationship in the student’s learning how to be a social worker. Furthermore, instilling the importance of continuous life-long learning through continued professional relationships is key.

Thank-you again for the generosity of your insights and time.

Ann

170

References

Allphin, C. (1987). Perplexing or distressing episodes in supervision: How they can help in the teaching and learning of psychotherapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 5(3), 236-245.

Allphin, C. (1999). Complexities and paradoxes in our organization life. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 44, 249-258.

Allphin, C. (2005). An ethical attitude in the analytic relationship. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 50, 451-468.

Allphin, C. (2015). Experiences in groups: Relevance of group process to committees involved in analyst training public lecture on public domain. https://irsja.org/wpcontent/uploads Applegate, J. S. (2004). Full circle: Returning psychoanalytic theory to social work education. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 11(1), 23-35.

Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Routledge.

Atlas, G (Ed.). (2021). When minds meet: The work of Lewis Aron. Routledge.

Baudry, F. D. (1993). The personal dimension and management of the supervisory situation with a special note on the parallel process. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 588-614.

171 Benjamin, J. (2018). Beyond doer and done to: Recognition theory, intersubjectivity and the third. Routledge.

Bennett, S. (2008a). Attachment-informed supervision for social work field education.

Clinical Social Work Journal, 36, 97-107.

Bennett, S. (2008b). The interface of attachment, transference, and countertransference: Implications for the clinical supervisory relationship. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 78, 301-320.

Bennett, S., Brintzenhofeszoc, K., Mohr, J., & Saks, L.V. (2008). General and supervision-specific attachment styles: Relations to student perceptions of field supervisors. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(20), 75-94.

Bennett, S., & Deal, K.H. (2009). Beginnings and endings in social work supervision: The interaction between attachment and development processes. Journal and Teaching in Social Work, 29, 101-117.

Bennett, S., & Deal, K.H. (2012). Supervision training: What we know and what we need to know. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82(2-3), 195-215.

Bennett, S., Mohr, J., Deal, K.H., & Hwang, J. (2012). Supervisor attachment, supervisory working alliance, and affect in social work field instruction.

Research in Social Work Practice, 23(2), 199-206.

Bennett, S., & Saks, L.V. (2006). A conceptual application of attachment theory and research to the social work student-field instructor supervisory relationship.

Council on Social Work Education, 42(3), 669-682.

172 Berman, E. (2000). Psychoanalytic supervision: The intersubjective development. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 81(2), 273-290.

Berman, E. A. (2017). An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to understanding researchers’ data management practices at UVM: Integrated Findings to develop research data services. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 6(1): e1104.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. G. (2019). Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision (6th Edition). Pearson.

Berzin, S. C., Singer, J., & Chan, C. (2015). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A grand challenge for social work. Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative, Working Paper No. 12, October. https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP12with-cover.pdf Berzoff, J., & Drisko, J. (2015). What clinical social workers need to know: Bio-psychosocial knowledge and skills for the twenty-first century. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 263-273.

Bion, W. R. (1962/1984). Learning from experience. Karnac.

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end. Sage.

173 Boehm, W. W. (1956). The use of the consultant: Workshop, 1955: 3. The professional relationship between consultant and consultee. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 26(2), 241-248.

Bogo, M. (2015). Field education for clinical social work practice: Best practices and contemporary challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42, 317-324.

Bogo, M. (2016). Evaluation of student learning. In C. A. Hunter, J. K. Moen, & M. S. Raskin (Eds.), Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence (pp. 154178). Lyceum Books.

Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2006). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1-2), 49-67.

Bonner, C. E. (2002). Psychoanalytic theory and diverse populations: Reflections on old practices and new understandings. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 9(2), 61-70.

Bosch, L. (2016). Field evaluation for professional development. In M. A. Hensley (Ed.), The social work field instructor's survival guide (pp. 99-111). Springer Publishing Company.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information. Sage.

174 Brashears, F. (1993). Supervision as social work practice: A reconceptualization. Social Work, 40(5), 692-699.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.) APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol 2. research designs. (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide to understanding and doing. Sage Brody, B., & Grey, A. L. (1948). The nonmedical psychotherapist: A critique and a program. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 43(2), 179-192.

Bromberg, P.M. (1974). On psychoanalytic training – Introduction: The challenge of selfexamination. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 10, 239-241.

Bromberg, P.M. (1982). The supervisory process and parallel process: In psychoanalysis.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 18, 92-110.

Brown, L. J., & Miller, M. (2002). The triadic intersubjective matrix in supervision: The use of disclosure to work through painful affects. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 83(4), 811-823.

Buechler, S. (2017). Psychoanalytic reflections: Training and practice. International Psychoanalytic Books.

Cabaniss, D. L., Glick, R. A., & Roose, S. P. (2001). The Columbia Supervision Project: Data from the dyad. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49(1), 235-267.

175 Casement, P. (1985). Learning from the patient. The Guilford Press.

Casement, P. (2002). Learning from our mistakes: Beyond dogma in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. The Guilford Press.

Casement, P. (2006). Learning from life: Becoming a psychoanalyst. Routledge.

Casement, P. (2019). Learning along the way: Further reflections on psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. Routledge.

Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA). (2016). https://www.clinicalsocialworkassociation.org/CSWA-Ethics Coles, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.). (1978). L.S. Vygotsky: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Contrastano, C. M. (2020). Trainee's perspective of reciprocal vulnerability and boundaries in supervision. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(1), 44-51.

Coohey, C. & Landsman, M. J. (2020). The field instructor supervision scale, Journal of Social Work Education, 56(2), 273-285.

Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social research: The views of research users. University of York.

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2021). CSWE Department of Social Work accreditation response to COVID-19: FAQs & Field Guidance. www.cswe.org

176 Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work Programs. www.cswe.org Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th Ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd Ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Cucco, E. (2020). Who's afraid of the big bad unconscious: Working with countertransference in training. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(10), 52-59.

Davys, A. M., & Beddoe, L. (2009). The reflective learning model: Supervision of social work students. Social Work Education, 28(8), 919-933.

Deal, K. H. (2002). Modifying field instructors' supervisory approach to using stage model of student development. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(3/4), 121137.

Deal, K. H., Bennett, S., Mohr, J., & Hwang, J. (2011). Effects of field instructor training on student competencies and the supervisory alliance. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(60), 712-726.

177 Dowling, M. (2012). Hermeneutics: An exploration. Phenomenological Research, 11(4), 30-39 Dombo, E. A., Kays, L., & Weller, K. (2014). Clinical social work practice and technology: Personal, practical, regulatory, and ethical considerations or the twenty-first century. Social Work in Health Care, 53, 900-919.

Erickson, C. L. (2016). Maximizing the essential tool: The learning agenda. In M.A. Hensley (Ed.), The Social Work Field Instructor's Survival Guide (pp. 39-52).

Springer Publishing Company.

Errasti-Ibarrondo, B., Jordan, J. A., Diez-Del-Corral, M. P., & Arantzamendi, M. (2018).

Van Manen's phenomenology of practice: How can it contribute to nursing.

Nursing Inquiry, 26: e12259. http://dol.org/10.1111/nin.12259 Everett, J. E., Miehls, D., DuBois, C., & Garran, A. M. (2011). The developmental model of supervision as reflected in the experiences of field supervisors and graduate students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(3), 250-264.

Falender, C.A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2021). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (2nd Edition). American Psychological Association.

Farber, N., & Reitmeier, M. C. (2019). (Re) Capturing the wisdom of our tradition: The importance of Reynolds and Towle in contemporary social work education.

Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 5-16.

178 Ferguson, H. (2018). How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don't: the possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work. Social Work Education, 37(4), 415-42.

Finch, J. B., Williams, O.F., Mondros, J. B., & Franks, C.L. (2019). Learning to teach, teaching to learn: A guide for social work field education (3rd Ed.). CSWE Press.

Fleischer, L. M. (2019). Putting the social work academy on the couch: Exploring emotional resistance to psychoanalytic education. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 89(2), 132-156.

Foster, J. T., Lichtenberg, J. W. & Peyton, V. (2007). The supervisory attachment relationship as a predictor of the professional development of the supervisee.

Psychotherapy Research, 17(3), 353-361.

Frawley-O'Dea, M. G. (1998). Revisiting the "teach/treat" boundary in psychoanalytic supervision: When the supervisee is or is not in concurrent treatment. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26(4), 513–527.

Frawley-O'Dea, M. G. (2015). Everything old is new again: Reflections on a panel discussion on the supervisory relationship. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 12(2), 172-178.

Frawley-O'Dea, M. G. & Sarnat, J. E. (2001). The supervisory relationship: A contemporary psychodynamic approach. The Guilford Press.

179 Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12, pp. 97-108). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 159-215).

Hogarth Press.

Ganzer, C. & Ornstein, E. D. (1999). Beyond parallel process relational perspectives onfield instruction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27(3), 231-246.

Ganzer, C. & Ornstein, E. D. (2004). Regression, self-disclosure and the teach or treat dilemma: Implications of a relational approach for social work supervision.

Clinical Social Work Journal, 32(4), 431-449.

Gair, S. (2012). Feeling their stories: Contemplating empathy, insider/outsider positioning, and enriching qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 22(1), 134-143.

Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed). Sage.

Gizynski, M. (1978). Self-awareness of the supervisor in supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 6 (3), 202-210.

Gockel, A., & Burton, D. L. (2014). An evaluation of pre-practicum helping skills training for graduate social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 50, 101-19.

180 Goldstein, E. G. (2002). Psychoanalysis and social work: historical perspectives.

Psychoanalytic Social Work, 9(2), 33-39.

Goldstein, E. G. (2007). Social Work Education and Clinical Learning: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 15-23.

Goldstein, E. G. (2009). The relationship between social work and psychoanalysis: The future impact of social workers. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 7-13.

Gonzalez, M. J., & Gelman, C. R. (2015). Clinical social work practice in the twentyfirst century: A changing landscape. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43, 257-262.

Greenacre, P. (1954). The role of transference- Practical considerations in relation to psychoanalytic therapy. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2, 671-684.

Grosz, S. (2013). The examined life: How we lose and find ourselves. Norton.

Hafford-Letchfield, T., & Engelbrecht, L. (2018). Contemporary practices in social work supervision: Time for new paradigms? European Journal of Social Work, 21(3), 329-332.

Heimann, P. (1960). Counter-transference. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 33(9), 9-15.

Hensley, M. A. (Ed.). (2016). The social work field instructor's survival guide. Springer Publishing Company.

181 Hill, N., Cleak, H., Egan, R., Ervin, L. & Laughton, J. (2019). Factors that impact a social worker's capacity to supervise a student. Australian Social Work, 72(2), 152165.

Hilsenroth, M. J., Kivlighan, D.M. & Slavin-Mulford, J. (2015). Structured Supervision of graduate clinicians in psychodynamic psychotherapy: Alliance and technique.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 173-183.

Jacobs, D., David, P., & Meyer, D. J. (1995). The supervisory encounter. Yale University Press.

Junkers, G., Tuckett, D., & Zachrisson, A. (2008). To be or not to be a psychoanalystHow do we know a candidate is ready to qualify? Difficulties and controversies in evaluating psychoanalytic competence. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, (28), 288308.

Kadushin, A. (1992). What's wrong, what's right with social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 10(1), 3-19.

Karpetis, G. (2010). Field practice supervision of social work students: A psychodynamic view on the emotional context of the process and the setting during the client assessment phase. European Journal of Social Work, 13(4), 503-522.

Kautz, S. V., & Piotrowski, M. (2019). Reconsidering graduate training and clinical practice: The importance of psychodynamic thinking. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 1-36.

182 Knight, C. (2016) Training and supporting field instructors. In C. A. Hunter, J. K. Moen, & M. S. Raskin (Eds.), Social Work Field Directors: Foundations for Excellence (pp. 105-129). Lyceum Books.

Knight, C. (2019). Trauma-informed practice and care: Implications for field instruction.

Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 79-89.

Kolevzon, M. S. (1979). Evaluating the supervisory relationship in field placements.

Social Work, 24(3), 241-244.

Lane, R. C. (Ed.). (2014). Psychoanalytic approaches to supervision. Brunner/Mazel Publishers.

Lee, E., & Kealy, D. (2018). Developing a working model of cross-cultural supervision: A competence- and alliance-based framework. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 310-320.

Little, M. (1951). Counter-Transference and the patient's response to it. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 32, 32-40.

Lumma, A.L., Hackert, B., & Weger, U. (2019). Insights from the inside of empathy: Investigating the experiential dimension of empathy through introspection.

Philosophical Psychology, 33(1), 64-85.

Mammen, M.A. (2020). Attachment dynamics in the supervisory relationship: Becoming your own good supervisor. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(1), 93-101.

Maroda, K.J. (2020). Deconstructing enactment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 37(1), 817.

183 Maroda, K. J. (2022). The analyst’s vulnerability: Impact on theory and practice.

Routledge.

Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B (1992). ‘Scaffolding’ learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices (pp. 21-31). London, Hodder, & Stoughton.

McNeill, B. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (2016). Supervision essentials for the integrative developmental model. American Psychological Association.

McWilliams, N. (2020). Finding the other in the self. In D. M. Goodman, E. R. Severson & H. Macdonald (Eds.), Race, rage, and resistance: Philosophy, Psychology, and the perils of individualism. Routledge.

McWilliams, N. (2021). Psychoanalytic supervision. The Guilford Press.

Medico, D., & Santiago-Delefosse, M. (2014). From flexibility to resonances: Accounting for interpretation in qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11, 350-364.

Menefee, D. S., Day, S. X., Lopez, F. G., & McPherson, R. H. (2014). Preliminary development and validation of the supervisee attachment strategies scales (SASS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 232-240.

Miehls, D. (2014). Neuroscience insights that inform clinical supervision. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 84 (2-3), 367-384.

Mills, S. M. (2012). Unconscious sequences in child protection work: Case studies of professionals’ experiences of child removal. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(3), 301-313.

184 Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd Ed.). The Haworth Press.

National Association of Social Work (NASW). (2013). Best practice standards in social work supervision. www.socialworkers.org National Association of Social Work (NASW). (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. www.socialworkers.org Nye, C. H. (2002). Using developmental processes in supervision: A psychodynamic approach. The Clinical Supervisor, 21(2), 39-53.

O'Donoghue, K., & Tsui, M. (2015). Social work supervision research (1970-2010): The way we were and the way ahead. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 616-633.

O'Donoghue, K., Wong Yuh Ju, P., & Tsui, M. (2018). Constructing an evidenceinformed social work supervision model. European Journal of Social Work, 21(3), 348-358.

O'Neil, P., & del Mar Frina, M. (2018). Constructing critical conversations in social work supervision: Creating change. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 298-309.

Olson-Morrison, D., Radohl, T., & Dickey, G. (2019). Strengthening field education: An integrated model for signature pedagogy in social work. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 14, 55-73.

185 Pegeron, J.P. (2008). A course on the supervisory process for candidates…the supervisors: An attempt to address inconsistencies in psychoanalytic education and the fundamental paradox of psychoanalytic training. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 28, 344-360.

Perry, H. S., & Gawel, M.L. (Eds.) (1953). H.S. Sullivan: The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. W.W. Norton & Company.

Pierce, D. (2016) History, standards, and signature pedagogy. In C.A. Hunter, J. K. Moen, & M. S. Raskin (Eds.), Social Work Field Directors: Foundations for Excellence (pp. 5-22). Lyceum Books.

Poncy, G. (2020). Skillful use of developmental supervision. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(1), 102-107.

Power, R., & Bogo, M. (2002). Educating field instructors and students to deal with challenges in their teaching relationships. The Clinical Supervisor, 21(1), 39-58.

Prior, M. T. (2017). Accomplishing "rapport" in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 1-25.

Qutoshi, S. B. (2019). Phenomenology: A philosophy and method of Inquiry. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 215-222.

Rasmussen, B. & Mishna, F. (2018). The process of facilitating case formulations in relational clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 281-288.

186 Reynolds, B.C. (1942). Learning and teaching in the practice of social work. Farrar & Rinehart, Inc. Rock, M.H. (1997). Psychodynamic supervision: perspectives of the supervisor and the supervisee. Aronson.

Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30(1), 5-44.

Rosbrow, T. (1997). Chapter 10 from parallel process to developmental process: A developmental/plan formulation approach to supervision. Progress in Self Psychology, 13, 149-164.

Rosenfield, L. (2012). Web-based supervisor training: Real relationships in cyberspace.

Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82(2-3), 216-229.

Ross, L. E. (2017). An account from the inside: Examining the emotional impact of qualitative research through the lens of an "insider" researcher. Qualitative Psychology, 4(3), 326-337.

Saari, C. (2012). The process of learning in clinical social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82(2-3), 230-243.

Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (3rd Ed.). Sage.

Salvador, J. T. (2016). Integrated development model (IMD): A systematic review and reflection. European Scientific Journal, 12(19), 244-254.

187 Sarnat, J. E. (2010). Key competencies of the psychodynamic psychotherapist and how to teach them in supervision. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(1), 20-27.

Sarnat, J. E. (2011) Supervising psychoanalytic psychotherapy: Present knowledge, pressing needs, future possibilities. Journal Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42(3), 1-10.

Sarnat, J. E. (2016). Supervision essentials for psychodynamic psychotherapies.

American Psychological Association.

Sarnat, J.E. (2019). What’s new in parallel process? The evolution of supervision’s signature phenomenon. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 79, 304-328.

Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of Internalization. International Universities Press, inc.

Schafer, R. (1979). On becoming a psychoanalyst of one persuasion or another.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 15, 345-360.

Searles, H.F. (2015) The informational value of the supervisor's emotional experiences.

Psychiatry, 78, 199-211. (Original work published in 1955).

Sewell, K.M. (2018a). Social work supervision of staff: A primer and scoping review (2013-2017). Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 252-265.

Sewell, K.M. (2018b). Illuminating clinical supervision-Past, present, and future: An interview with Dr. Lawrence Shulman. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 374377.

188 Shea, S. E. (2020). Field note-engaging social work interns in reflective practice: A specialized series for field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 56(1), 193-200.

Smith-Osborne, A. & Daniel, K. (2017). Concurrent infusion of integrated behavioral health practice into social work field and classroom instruction. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(51), 517-526.

Solo, C. (2019). Supervising students in emerging adulthood: Modeling use of self in developmentally informed supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 72-78.

Stein, E. (1917/1989). On the problem of empathy (Stein, W. Trans..). ICS Publications.

Stern, D.N., Sander, L.W., Nahum, J.P., Harrison, A.M., Lyons-Ruth, K., Morgan, A.C., Bruschweiler-Stern, N. & Tronick, E.Z. (1998). Non-interpretive Mechanisms in Psychoanalytic Therapy. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 79, 903-921.

Stimmel, B. (1995). Resistance to awareness of the supervisor's transferences with special reference to the parallel process. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76, 609-618.

Sumerel, M.B. (1994). Parallel process in supervision. ERIC Digest, April: EDO-CG94-15 Symington, J. & Symington, N. (1996). The clinical thinking of Wilfred Bion.

Routledge.

Szecsody, I. (1994). Supervision a complex tool for psychoanalytic training.

Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 17, 119-129.

189 Taggart, A. D. (1934). Some basic concepts regarding fieldwork training for psychiatric social work. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 4(3), 365-373.

Tarshis, S., & Baird, S. L. (2019). Addressing the indirect trauma of social work students in intimate partner violence (IPV) field placement: A framework for supervision.

Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 90-102.

Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press.

Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). University of New York Press.

Van Manen, M. (2017). But is it phenomenology? Qualitative Health Research, 27(6), 775-779.

Vernon, R., Vakalahi, H., Pierce, D., Pittman-Munke, P. & Adkins, L.F. (2009). Distance education programs in social work: Current and emerging trends. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 263-275.

Von Knorring, Semb, O., Fahlstrom, M. & Lehti, A. (2019). "It is through the body language and looks, but it is also a feeling" – a qualitative study on medical interns' experience of empathy. BMC Medical Education, 19, 333.

Watkins, C. E. (2011a). Celebrating psychoanalytic supervision: Considering a century of seminal contribution. Psychoanalytic Review, 98(3), 402-418.

190 Watkins, C. E. (2011b). Toward a tripartite vision of supervision for psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapies: Alliance, transference-countertransference configuration and real relationship. Psychoanalytic Review, 98(4), 557-590.

Watkins, C. E. (2012). Moments of real relationship in psychoanalytic supervision. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 72(3), 251-268.

Watkins, C.E. (2013). On psychoanalytic supervision competencies, the persistent paradox without parallel in psychoanalytic education, and dreaming of an evidence-based psychoanalytic supervision. Psychoanalytic Review, 100(4), 609646.

Watkins, C. E. (2017). Reconsidering parallel process in psychotherapy supervision: On parsimony, rival hypotheses, and alternate explanations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 34(4), 508-515.

Watkins, C. E. (2020). What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 20, 190-208.

Watkins, C. E. (2021). Rupture and rupture repair in clinical supervision: Some thoughts and steps along the way. The Clinical Supervisor, DOI: 10.1080/07325223.2021.1890657 Wiener, J. (2007). The analyst's countertransference when supervising: Friend or foe?

Journal of Analytical Psychology, 52(1), 51-69.

WidloCher, D. (2004). The third in mind. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73(1), 197-213.

191 Williams, A. B. (1997). On parallel process in social work supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25(4), 425-435.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Routledge.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.

Journal of Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Wrape, E. R., Callahan, J. L., Rieck, T., & Watkins, C. E. (2017). Attachment theory within clinical supervision: Application of the conceptual to the empirical.

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 31(1), 37-54.

Yellin, J. (2014). Miles to go? Towards relational supervision. Attachment: New Directions in Psychotherapy and Relational Psychoanalysis, 8(3), 262-280.

Yuen-han Mo, K., O'Donoghue, K., Yuh-ju Wong, P. & Tsui, M. (2020). The historical development of knowledge in social work supervision: Finding new directions from the past. International Social Work, 1-14.

Zeff, R., Kaersvang, L., & Raskin, M. (2016). Placing students. In C.A. Hunter, J. K. Moen, & M. S. Raskin (Eds.), Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence (pp. 83-104). Lyceum Books.

Zetzer, H. A., Hill, C. E., Hopsicker, R. J., Krasno, A. M., Montojo, P. C., Winter Plumb, E. I., Hoffman, M. A., & Donahue, M. T. (2020). Parallel process in psychodynamic supervision: The supervisor's perspective. Psychotherapy, 57(2), 252-262.

192 Zicht, S. (2013). On the experiential and psychotherapeutic dimensions of psychoanalytic supervision: An interpersonal perspective. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73(1), 8-29.