A comparative analysis of social work fieldwork supervision at the University of Venda and University of Limpopo : implications for policy and practice guidelines

Abstract

The present study is a comparative analysis of social work fieldwork supervision at the University of Venda (UNIVEN) and the University of Limpopo (UL) and has produced a list of implications for policy and practice guidelines. The study adopted a qualitative approach to scientific enquiry. It was exploratory and descriptive in nature. The population of the study consisted of final year student social workers and fieldwork coordinators from UNIVEN and UL. Data was collected by means of semi-structured and focus group interviews. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. The study’s results demonstrated that most students from both universities had outstanding relationships with their supervisors. The study also found that most students were supervised on an individual basis. Informal and ad hoc methods of supervision sessions were also preferred by supervisors, entailing that, as soon as a supervisor felt like saying something, they would just say it. If was found further that supervision methods lacked supervision structure, whereby it would have been planned and communicated in advance, so that students could contribute to the agenda, have a designated venue, and arrive prepared. Group supervision was found to be a rarely used method. The study also found that most students reported that the frequency of supervisions was once a week, while others felt that supervision occurred every day. Fieldwork supervisors continue to deliver the three major functions of supervision, which are administrative, educational, and supportive. The study found that students had little support from university fieldwork coordinators. The researcher established that field support visits by both universities were unsystematic. The researcher has also established that UL students need financial support in the form of a stipend to cater for costs related to their fieldwork placement, such as transport and food. Furthermore, the researcher found that students from both universities need regular contacts with the university-based supervisors/ coordinators. The study revealed the need to reinforce many critical aspects of fieldwork supervision. These include regular contact, field visits, ensuring formal supervision, ensuring formal orientation of students, and making sure that students are adequately exposed to social work practice. Despite the challenges they face, coordinators continued to play a critical role in ensuring that students were properly placed. Measures must be developed to ensure compliance with policy mandates. The study also found that UL did not have fieldwork practice policies, operating instead by using a manual for practical work dated 2012. Given the fact that the university was operating on a newly accredited BSW programme, this manual is outdated. There is a need to align it for fieldwork with the current BSW curriculum. In response to these findings and loopholes in fieldwork coordination and practice in general, the study recommends that UL develop policies related to fieldwork practice that will guide the department when planning fieldwork-related activities. Although UNIVEN has fieldwork practice and supervision policies in place, their practice lacks compliance with the policies, as reflected in the presentation of study findings in Chapter 10. In response to these inadequacies, the study recommends measures the university could use to ensure compliance. Finally, the study developed a social work fieldwork practice model. It is a six-phase model that includes analysis of historical and cultural dynamics for planning purposes, drafting a concept paper placement plan, broad consultation with the stakeholders, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and post-implementation consultation and termination. Key Words: Fieldwork supervision, fieldwork supervisor, fieldwork coordinator, social work, student social workers