重新思考社会工作监管:“激进监管”模式是否可行?

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK
V. Ioakimidis, Akis Maragkozakis, Foteini Mourati, Elena Papadopoulou, Anna Papazoglou, Maria-Angeliki Psyrraki, Lefkothea Rizopoulou, Dimitra-Dora Teloni
{"title":"重新思考社会工作监管:“激进监管”模式是否可行?","authors":"V. Ioakimidis, Akis Maragkozakis, Foteini Mourati, Elena Papadopoulou, Anna Papazoglou, Maria-Angeliki Psyrraki, Lefkothea Rizopoulou, Dimitra-Dora Teloni","doi":"10.1332/204986021x16566760442407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":44175,"journal":{"name":"Critical and Radical Social Work","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking social work supervision: is a ‘radical supervision’ model possible?\",\"authors\":\"V. Ioakimidis, Akis Maragkozakis, Foteini Mourati, Elena Papadopoulou, Anna Papazoglou, Maria-Angeliki Psyrraki, Lefkothea Rizopoulou, Dimitra-Dora Teloni\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/204986021x16566760442407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical and Radical Social Work\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical and Radical Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/204986021x16566760442407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical and Radical Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/204986021x16566760442407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

专业监督被认为是有效的社会工作实践的一个关键方面。在世界上许多地方,一线社会工作从业人员优先考虑社会工作监督,以确保一个支持性的工作环境。在道德和政治上有争议的环境中工作(比如与难民一起工作),这一点尤为重要。尽管它是有效实践的核心,但获得专业有意义的监督现在被雇主视为一种“奢侈”,而不是一线实践的组成部分。在许多情况下,获得和支付监督的责任被委托给从业者。多年来,人们提出了不同的监管模式。本文提供了对“激进监督”方法的创建和功能的独特反思,该方法由希腊的从业者和学者开发,用于处理在与难民一起工作的背景下出现的复杂的专业和情感困境。通过“激进监督”,参与者和作者指的是一种非等级的、同伴支持的监督模式,这种模式也优先考虑集体行动和动员,以应对结构性挑战,从而与传统的个人主义监督方法不同。该小组由七名一线从业人员和两名学者组成。所有从业人员都在难民服务领域工作。监督小组在2020年12月至2021年7月的8个月内定期举行会议。小组遵循参与性行动研究的原则,分析和报告调查结果和思考,而分析以及监督程序本身都是基于解放卫生模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking social work supervision: is a ‘radical supervision’ model possible?
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信