Professional supervision and professional autonomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol31iss3id650Keywords:
supervision, social work, critical reflection, managerialism, professional autonomy and agencyAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Supervision is a well-established component of practice in the health and social care professions. In recent years, however, relentless changes in the nature of professional roles within these contexts have led to corresponding variations in how professional practice supervision is configured and delivered.
METHOD: This article examines how professional supervision and its future are seen by an international group of experts in social work supervision. The evolving perceptions of social work supervision’s role, and the relationship to professional autonomy in the social sphere are explored with reference to the authors’ earlier research.
FINDINGS: The tension between supervision as a surveillant tool of management and a practice of critical reflection is acknowledged in literature as posing a threat to one aspect of professional autonomy and agency.
IMPLICATIONS: The authors pose an alternative, theoretically grounded, approach based on the traditions of critically reflective supervision to assist the recognition and management of the balance between support and surveillance or managerial organisational dimensions. Meta- theoretical understanding of professional supervision in the frame of human agency will help both practitioners and supervisors to construct sustainable and proactive social work. Instead of despairing about the loss of autonomy, the professionals may go through significant societal and professional transformations as subjects of their own expertise and professional agency.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. An essay on the division of the expert labour. Chicago, IL: UCP.
Adamson, C. (2012). Supervision is not politically innocent. Australian Social Work, 65(2), 185–196. doi:10.1080/031 2407x.2011.618544
Beddoe, L. (2010). External supervision in social work: Power, space, risk, and the search for safety. Australian Social Work, 65(2), 197–213. doi:10.1080/0312407x.2011.591187
Beddoe, L. (2015). Supervision and developing the profession: One supervision or many? China Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 150–163. doi:10.1080/17525098.201 5.1039173
Beddoe, L., & Howard, F. (2012). Interprofessional supervision in social work and psychology: mandates and (inter) professional relationships. The Clinical Supervisor, 31(2), 178–202. doi:10.1080/07325223.201 3.730471
Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M-S. (2014). Supervision in social work: Project Blog. Retrieved from http://socialworksupervisionagenda. wordpress.com/
Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M.-s. (2016). Towards an international consensus on a research agenda for social work supervision: Report on the first survey of a Delphi study. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(6), 1568–1586. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv110
Blom, B., Evertsson, L., & Perlinski , M. (2017). (Eds.), Social and caring professions in European welfare states. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Brante, T. (2011). Professions as science-based occupations. Professions & Professionalization, 1(1), 4–20.
Chandler, J., Ellison, M., Berg, E., & Barry, J. (2017). Reconfiguring professional autonomy? The case of social work in the UK. In B. Blom, L. Evertsson, & M. Perlinski (Eds.), Social and caring professions in European welfare states (pp. 69–82). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Coburn, D. (2006). Medical dominance then and now: A critical reflection. Health Sociology Review, 15(5), 432–443.
Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2010). Best practice in professional supervision. A guide for the helping professions. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner. The relational turn in expertise. London, UK: Springer.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is professional agency? Conceptualising professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.
Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Evans, T. (2013). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 739–758.
Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–895.
Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and New Public Management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The third logic. Cambridge, UK: Wiley/Polity.
Hojer, S., & Bradley, G. (2009). Supervision reviewed: Reflections on two different social work models in England and Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 12(1), 71–85.
Houston, S. (2002). Reflecting on habitus, field and capital: Towards a culturally sensitive social work. Journal of Social Work, 2(2), 149–167.
Kam, P. K. (2014). Back to the “social” of social work: Reviving the social work profession’s contribution to the promotion of social justice. International Social Work, 57(6), 723–740. doi:10.1177/0020872812447118
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2004). Social work supervision: Contributing to innovative knowledge production and open expertise. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and the learning organisation (pp. 23–40). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2009). Promises and pressures of critical reflection for social work coping in change. European Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 333–348.
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., & Salonen, J. (2005). Spänningar inom handledningsdiskussionen [Tensions in discussing supervision]. Nordisk sosialt arbeid 3/2005.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375.
Koivu, A. (2013). Clinical supervision and well-being at
work: A four-year follow-up study on female hospital nurses. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Health Sciences. Retrieved from http://epublications.uef.fi/
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individuals in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lymbery, M. (1998). Care management and professional autonomy: The impact of community care legislation on social work with older people. British Journal of Social Work, 28(6), 863–878.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Hussein, S., Stevens, M., & Sharpe, E. (2013). Content and purpose of supervision in social work practice in England: Views of newly qualified social workers, managers and directors. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 52–68. doi:10.1093/bjsw/ bct102
Røysum, A. (2010). Nav-reformen: Sosialarbeidernes profesjon utfordres [The Na reform: A challenge to professional social work]. Fontene Forskning, 2010/1, 41–52.
Tsui, M. S. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tsui, M. S., & Cheung F. C. H. (2004). Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on human services. British Journal of Social Work, 34(3), 437–442.
Yliruka, L., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2013). How can we enhance productivity in social work? Dynamically reflective structures, dialogic leadership and development of transformative expertise. Journal of Social Work Practice, 27(2), 191–206.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
