Rethinking social work supervision: is a ‘radical supervision’ model possible?

Abstract

Professional supervision is considered a key aspect of effective social work practice. In much of the world, front-line social work practitioners prioritise social work supervision as essential to ensuring a supportive working environment. This is crucially the case while working in ethically and politically contentious environments (such as working with refugees). Despite its centrality to effective practice, access to professionally meaningful supervision is nowadays seen by employers as a ‘luxury’, rather than as an integral part of front-line practice. On many occasions, the responsibility for accessing and paying for supervision is delegated to practitioners. Different models of supervision have been proposed over the years. This article provides a unique reflection on the creation and function of a ‘radical supervision’ approach, developed by practitioners and academics in Greece to deal with the complex professional and emotional dilemmas that emerged in the context of working with refugees. By ‘radical supervision’, the participants and authors refer to a non-hierarchical, peer-support supervision model that also prioritises collective action and mobilisation as regards structural challenges, thus departing from than the traditional individualistic approach to supervision. The group consisted of seven front-line practitioners and two academics. All practitioners worked in the field of refugee services. The supervisory group met regularly over a period of eight months from December 2020 to July 2021. The group followed the principles of participatory action research to analyse and report findings and reflections, while the analysis, as well the procedure of the supervision per se, were based on the liberation health model.

From self‐care to compassion resilience: Extending the model of protective factors for humanitarian practitioners

“…For humanitarian practitioners, ongoing witness‐bearing places them at significant risk for reactive traumatic stress (RTS), including, but not limited to, secondary trauma such as vicarious trauma, secondary stress, compassion fatigue, and shared trauma, as well as moral injury and distress, decision fatigue, and so forth (Antares Foundation, 2012; McCormack & Lowe, 2022; Miller et al, 2022; Papadopoulos & Shea, 2018; Sansbury et al, 2015). In addition, humanitarian practitioners who are exposed to graphic and difficult testimonies and human cruelty to one another, and who are taking part in trauma recovery efforts can also experience traumatic stress as a professional hazard and negative response to their work (Ebren et al, 2022; Fernandes et al, 2022; Loakimidis et al, 2022; Pearlman & Mac Ian, 1995; Powell et al, 2020; Yuma et al, 2019). Recurring exposure to trauma narratives can significantly impact the humanitarian practitioner's mood and affect, including potentially changing their belief in the “goodness of humanity” (Epstein et al, 2020).…”

Guest editorial: The return of collective social work

“…While these two examples of 'popular social work' are inspiring and show what is possible, they also highlight the huge gap between the activities of grass-roots activists, campaigners and local service providers, on the one hand, and the often narrow, resource-driven world of statutory social work, on the other. The fourth article in this themed issue is by a group of Greek social workers and academics who are seeking to overcome that gap by exploring what radical practice in supervision might look like (Ioakimidis et al, 2022). Traditionally, social work supervision has been portrayed as a space for reflection, support and professional growth.…”