Magister Artium (Social Work) - MA(SW) / Generally, studies on social work supervision, in the university setting, has focused mainly on students’ experiences. Research on the experience of the supervisor, or agency, providing guidance is scant. This study argues that the narrow focus on students’ experiences is disproportionate, and marginalises all the other stakeholders involved in fieldwork education. In addition, the existing studies create blind spots for programme evaluation, as they are not holistic. This current study proposes a broader analysis. Global and national standards for social work training involve the theory and practice component of the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) programme. The practice component requires students to conduct fieldwork training at social work organisations, under the supervision of a qualified and experienced social worker. International and local studies on the supervision of BSW students reveal that social workers often consider themselves to be underprepared to supervise students. In addition, social workers often lack post-qualifying training to undertake student supervision, specifically, which is further exacerbated by the dearth of policies, or legislation, stipulating post-qualifying training and experience for the supervision of BSW students. The purpose of this current study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of social workers, related to fieldwork supervision in the BSW degree, at a selected university in the Western Cape (WC), South Africa (SA). A qualitative research approach was used, as it is attentive to the personal experiences, from the insider’s perspective, and aims to understand multiple realities. This approach is relevant to the current study, as it focuses on exploring and describing the perceptions and experiences of the participants, which the qualitative method underscores. A case study design was utilised, as it is descriptive, and is an in-depth study of a single instance of a social phenomenon. The case, in this instance, is the BSW programme at a selected university. Purposive sampling was used, as the participants, who are most representative of the study, were selected in the sampling process. The sample for this study comprised of twenty four participants: 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted and 13 questionnaires were completed by registered social workers. The following data verification methods were used: http://etd.uwc.ac.za ii member checking (See Annexure J); triangulation; researcher reflexivity; peer debriefing and an on-going dialogue, regarding the researcher’s interpretations of the data, as this aided the accuracy of the findings. Coding was applied by the researcher to create categories within the data, and thematic analysis to further identify the emerging themes and sub-themes, which were subsequently funnelled. Typologies are interpreted and developed, and the data, finally presented. Four themes and sixteen sub-themes emerged from the data (See Chapter 4). The focus of theme four was on continuous professional development (CPD), which reiterates the importance of post-qualifying training of social workers who supervise BSW students, and the importance of this study. This study recommends CPD of all social workers who provide fieldwork supervision in the BSW programme. There is also a need for emotional support for students and essentially fieldwork supervision needs to be viewed as indispensable to academia. An implication of the lack of CPD could be detrimental to students and could lead to stagnation in the field of social work and ultimately affect the standard of the profession.

Thesis (Ph.D. (Social Work)) -- University of Limpopo, 2021 / 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 / University of Venda (UNIVEN)