217 Chapter 7: Implications for Social Work and Conclusions 7.1 Introduction Having considered the findings of the research in light of the series of tensi ns which currently exist in the profession, this chapter draws the thesis to its conclusion. ‘This thesis reported on research into the question of how Field Educators assist students to integrate theory and practice, as required by the AASW, by outlining a study which analysed a series of individual supervision sessions as these occurred between six Field Educators and their students. The report covered the methodology, data analysis, findings and discussion, together with a review of the literature pertinent to the topic. ‘This final chapter summarises the findings from the research and discusses the implications for social work education and some final thoughts. 7.2 Research and Findings While a review of literature reveals the ‘teaching’ of theory for practice has a long and contentious history in the social work profession (Femandez, 1998; Lewis & Bolzan, 2007), educating students to integrate theory and practice as required by the AASW has continued to be a central goal in field education (AASW, 20124). Yet this, task, while building on the work of the universities, is handed to Field Educators, who volunteer for the task, and takes place in numerous sites across the field of practice at a distance from the primary educators in the universities. Much has been written on how to achieve this inte gration—asually by academies—but there is limited published on how Field Educators actually do it. This research sought to explore this questi ‘The thesis was influenced and shaped by the ‘postmodern turn”. It adopted a critical postmodern perspective, considering that while theories are held to guide actions (Payne, 2014), they are but one form of knowledge, a conceptual standpoint used to understand and talk about social behaviour. In keeping with a postmodern perspective,218 theories and their connections to practices were not regarded as self-evident, fixed, unitary, total or acontextual ; rather than having an objective reality, theories were regarded as socially constructed and co-produced between peoples in a particular context. Theories vary with those engaged in developing them. Along with this view of theories, and in contrast to a modernist understanding of theories and practices as a binary construction (Morley, 2004), practices and theories were viewed as inherently linked. Such a position was derived from this assumption of the social construction of contextualised theory (Fook & Gardner, 2007). Theory-less practice cannot exist, making the concept of integrating or applying theory to practice illogical ( 1993), Consequently, linking theories and practices is regarded not a di solved but a social phenomenon to be explored, giving rise to new understandings. In keeping with the espoused theoretical perspective, the research incorporated a qualitative method ology, using a series of six case studies to explore with the Field Educators what they actually taping a supervision session as it occurred, and then amplified by reviewing the session. ‘The supervision session was considered in discussion between the Field Educator and the researcher, to develop a further understanding of what had taken place and why. As a result, three groups of data were collected—videotaped data, obtained directly from the videotaped session; review data, obtained as audit taped material in the discussion about the videotaped session; and observational data, which comprised the researcher's reflections on what occurred. The data were analysed using thematic analysis, both jin each case study and across the six case studies, Six case studies were completed with supervisors from government and not ‘government agencies—institutionally based and in the community. The participants, were a diverse group of experienced student supervisors, working in a range of2012-13. 7.3 Context Content and Strategies ‘The research showed that Field Educators did link theory and practice, althou gh they might not necessarily have recognised mediately, as it was but one of a series of tasks each addressed in the supervision session with the student. However, they ddid not integrate theory and practice into a new whole, but rather, developed theoretical concepts from the practice undertaken by the student. They used an approach in which context, content and strategies were clasely interwoven in the supervision session. The findings further revealed that cach Field Educator had developed a general approach to supervision, which they then modified according to the characteristics and needs of the indi lual student with whom they were working. This general approach was seen in the theoretical perspective each Field Educator took to supe 'sion—a perspective built over time and revealed through the use of such phrases as ‘I always...’ of *T usually ...” Context was central 10 the supervision sessions studied. In each instance, the discussion centred on the activities undertaken by the student in the organisation. They were sourced immediately from the material the student raised at the time, and reflected some of the broader influences of the agency, particul arly in the information added by the Field Educators. The data showed a range of concepts being used, from person- based practice, research concepts, policy concepts, social justice, human rights and, in one instance, consideration of the social construction of knowledges. This theoretical 220 content reflected the broader orientation of the agency in which the student was based, for example, community development or mental health research. However, these were also drawn from the perspective the Field Educator brought to supervision. As Charlotte (Field Educator) said in reference to her general approach to working with students, she would bring up the subject of theory if the student did not. Field Educators used strategies which focused on the agenda provided by the student, to which the Field Educators added items as necessary. The concepts which were co-constructed were derived from the context of practice and the activities actually being undertaken at the time. The strategies comprised a fluid process of discussion and reflection with the student, as together they co-produced theoretical concepts. The Field Educators did this in a relationship-based manner, adopting a student-centred, adult learning approach to education, which in turn engaged the student in the learning activity and in which context, content and strategies informed each other. Overall, the Field Educators used a wide range of strategies ding both facilitative and didactic input, with the latter being left until needed rather than used routinely.7.4 Differences ‘The findings showed a series of differences between the work of Field Educators and the literature, the partnership approach of the universities and the discussion of the professional association about integrating theory and practice. Regarding the literature, the Field Educators did not use models, competencies or EBP, although much has been written about these. Significantly, they spoke of critical reflection, in light of a particular understan ding—one which involved reflection and an evaluative element as commonly understood by * ical’, but in all but one case study, this use of the concept of critical reflection lacked any consideration of the assumptions on which knowledge 24 was based or of issues of power. This again echoes the many different understandings of a commonly used term on which much has been written (Brookfield, 2009). Field Educators said that they had little knowledge of what the universities were teaching. They had not found the seminar run by the universities to be useful, seeing them as only helpful initially. They also seemed to have little opportunity to talk about their supervision, although some discussed it occasionally in their own supervision. And perhaps most significantly, notwithstanding the title given to their role by the universities and the professional association, they did not regard themselves as ‘educators and made no mention of partnerships. Rather, they identified as practitioners, who chose to contribute to the development of the profession by supervising students. ‘The findings showed that with one exception, Field Educators did not refer to the standards of practice drawn up by the AASW. However. they followed the requirements of the universities closely. They appeared to rely on the universities to funnel any such requirements throu gh their documentation. They had crafted their own approaches to supervision, apart from and disconnected from others, which yet showed a number of common themes across the participants. This begs the question: from. where did Field Educators derive their approaches?7.5 Implications and Further Research One of the most significant im plications arising from the research findings was that rather than theory and practice being viewed as disconnected, and needing to be integrated. It was Field Educators themselves who were significantly disconnected from others involved in the education of social work students, including the professional association, the university staff, service users and employing organisations. This, disconnection raises a number of implications for social work education, m2 It points to a need for greater dialogue and exchange between Field Educators and university educators around the shared experiences as co-educators, to supplement ‘what appears to be a largely one-way process at present. In addition, there appears to be a need to extend the universities’ education role beyond the current si urs for Field Educators, as these are perceived as largely introductory in nature. Such education might well include education about critical reflection, and by circulating these findings to other and new Field Educators, fostering discussion among Field Educators about how they address the question of linking theories and practices ‘There appears to be a need to raise with the AASW the gap between their understanding of the connection between theories and practices and how Field Educators address this. The AASW might benefit from further discussion with practitioners on this question, since it holds responsibility for accrediting the degrees. It is also in a position to foster more discussion among Field Educators and to facilitate further education for more experienced Field Educators, Students need to be made aware that Field Educators do not know the content of what they are learning at university, and hence, the importance of sharing this information with their Field Educator. It could be a useful learning exercise for students to prepare the content of the curriculum pertinent to the placement. Finally, the university liaison visitors, who assess the students* work at mid-placement, need to be made aware of the isolation of Field Educators, since they represent a very important connection between the Field Educators and the universities.