Social Science - Sociology assignment

https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2017.1400956

In-depth learning in field education: evaluating the effectiveness of process recording

George Karpetis 

college of education, Psychology and Social Work, flinders university, adelaide, australia

ABSTRACT Process recording is the anamnestic recollection of narratives and behaviours of the participants in client interviews. Through critical incidents of teaching, this study explores how the process recording teaching and learning activity was operationalised in a field education seminar for postgraduate social work students, at an Australian University. Further, the study evaluates the student satisfaction aspect of the effectiveness of the activity. Assuming the practitioner/lecturer- researcher role, the author adopted a psychodynamic theoretical framework to identify relational roots in client problems, support students to carry out holistic bio-psychosocial assessments, correct practice mistakes and separate facts from thoughts—conceptualised as theories of practice—and emotions. An anonymous mixed-method questionnaire evaluated the satisfaction of students with the activity. The clear majority evaluated process recording as very beneficial for their learning and rated the reflections of the lecturer on the process recorded material as highly satisfactory.

Introduction

Background

In the social work literature, process recording is regarded an authentic learning activity that helps students to connect theory with practice, promote reflection on-action (Herrington, Parker, & Boase-Jelinek, 2014) and separate case facts from emotions (Mumm, 2006). Process recording has been additionally defined as the written recollection of the interac- tions between students and clients; a first-person narrative that involves verbal and non-ver- bal communications as well as affect. Through process recordings, the students are expected to internalise learning over time and apply the insights they gained from their work with clients (Urdang, 2010). However, due to the multiplicity of the theoretical perspectives underlying social work practice (Karpetis, 2017a), different social work authors concep- tualised in different ways the process recording teaching and learning activity. Richmond (1917) invited practitioners to record the process of their recent interviews with clients to construct a ‘social diagnosis’. Neuman and Friedman (1997) argued that process recordings

KEYWORDS Process recording; field education; effectiveness; social work; clinical supervision

© 2017 GaPS

CONTACT George karpetis [email protected]

Journal of Social Work Practice 2019, Vol. 33, No. 1, 95–107

include the actual words of the dialogue between students and clients, the ‘gut-level reac- tions’ of students and, also, their thoughts about the interaction. Walsh (2002) suggested that process recordings should include client strengths, the relationship aspects of the inter- view and the suitability of the chosen treatment modality. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) acknowledged that process recordings may be consciously or unconsciously inaccurate, but such omissions constitute learning about the students’ self. Urdang (2010) added that process recordings must include the practitioner’s thoughts about their reactions or the observations of interviews as well as their feelings about the strengths and weaknesses of these interviews. Medina (2010) argued that process recordings examine the process of the interviews with clients, including the how, what and when and also the practice setting that involves the practitioner’s self. Papell (2015) finally proposed that feelings, values, thoughts and ideas should be included in process recordings. She further added that students should worry less about the details of cases, but mostly about beginnings and endings as well as about what seems significant in between.

Process recording has also been described as an accessible and inexpensive training tool that develops the students’ recalling capacity, offers immediate feedback, facilitates learn- ing, enhances self-awareness and reflection, integrates social work theory with practice, promotes student satisfaction from learning (Medina, 2010) and increases self-competence (Mumm, 2006). Bronstein and Kelly (2001) argued that when process recording is used for an entire academic year, students grow and change, develop greater role clarity and expand the use of their professional self. Critiques of process recording describe it as labour-in- tensive, time consuming (Le Riche, 2006) and anxiety provoking due to exclusively relying on the perceptions of students (Medina, 2010). Perhaps, these critiques are the reason why young social work supervisors prefer anecdotal summaries instead (Brandell, 2013). Process recording is used for systematic observations of practice, critical reflection, self-awareness (Urdang, 2010), separation of facts from emotions, client assessment, concentration on practice with full attention, avoidance of direct involvement (McMahon & Farnfield, 2004) and realisation of one’s inevitable subjectivity (Fawcett, 2009). Despite the acknowledgement of the contribution of observational methods in social work education (Le Riche, 2006), there is a shortage of studies on observational learning through process recording in social work education (Westhues, Barsen, Freymond, & Train, 2014) where the majority of stud- ies seem a theoretical mixture of the psychodynamic, critical and humanistic theoretical perspectives (Tanner, 1999). In Australia, although the educational accreditation standards (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2012) anticipate students to become skilled in distinguishing between what is observed in practice from what is described as an opinion, there is a shortage of theory informed studies on process-recorded learning.

Responding to the theoretical confusion and practice uncertainty surrounding both definition and content of the process recording learning activity, this study defines process recording as the written recollection of verbal and non-verbal interactions (behaviours) in the encounter between students and clients. Therefore, the study explores the operationalisa- tion process and evaluates the effectiveness of process recording under an explicit theoretical perspective: the psychodynamic. Process recording is the main tool for the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic clinical supervision of practitioners (including social workers) and, also, the main tool for the psychoanalytic infant observation developed by Bick (1964) at the Tavistock Clinic (Reid, 2013). This clinical supervision model adopts psychoanalytic object relations (Bick, 1964; Bion, 1962; Klein, 2002) and systems theories to increase learning in

96 G. KARPETIS

child development and helps trainees to become reflective practitioners (Briggs, 1999). The psychoanalytic observation model is currently adopted at the University of East London, where social work students conduct 12 process-recorded observations of an infant or young child and discuss these observations in reflective small group seminars, in class.

The teaching and learning setting

The field placement topic is a component part of a two-year postgraduate social work course, offered by an Australian University. The respective professional association accredited the degree and the topic was taught in the final semester of the course. Half of the enrolled students attended the internal education mode (as opposed to the online) of the topic, while a quarter was international. Most students held an undergraduate degree in social sciences, most were in their middle age, and most held either full- or part-time employment. The students successfully passed the topic (received a non-graded pass) after completing a 500-h supervised practice in a field placement organisation (such as a child welfare agency, men- tal health centre, domestic violence prevention service, homelessness service, community correction centre, school setting, hospital, bereavement counselling service or employment assistance service) and, also, participated in ten integration of theory and practice seminars, in class. The indented learning outcomes of the integration seminars required students to (1) develop direct links between theory and practice, (2) develop ability for critical and analytical reflection and (3) prepare students for direct entry into the workforce. Both field educators and the author ran seminars with separate groups of students. My background experience involved training in social work and psychoanalytic psychotherapy, 20-year clinical practice (Karpetis, 2010b, 2012, 2015, 2016a, 2016b) and experience in social work teaching (Karpetis, 2010a, 2011, 2013; Karpetis & Athanasiou, 2017).

For each weekly seminar, two students presented in class (each, within a 10-min time frame) a process-recorded part of an interview (or an observation of an interview) they conducted with a client in their field placement, while the remaining students made com- ments on the process-recorded material. Following each presentation, the students’ thoughts about the process-recorded part of interviews were discussed within the 20-min time frame. Throughout the seminar, the students were encouraged to connect their thoughts about the case facts (narratives and behaviours of the participants in interviews) with theories underlying their assessment and intervention choices and, also, to support these theoretical choices with empirical studies from the latest (10 years) peer-reviewed literature. Following the comments of students, I systematically highlighted the theoretical perspective/s under- lying these comments and contributed my psychodynamic understanding on the process recordings material about either assessments or interventions with clients.

Relying on psychoanalytic theories, psychodynamics or ‘dynamics’ refer to the systematic study of mental forces (i.e. unconscious, defenses) affecting behaviour and the functional primacy of emotions (Rustin, 2003). Human behaviour is conceptualised as the outcome of past experiences, genetic constitutional factors and the current environment (Mizrahi & Davis, 2008). At the core of the psychodynamic understanding of practice lies the sig- nificance of primary relationships for the later well-being of the person, a perspective sub- sequently supported by attachment research. It is specifically argued that the psychosocial problems of clients develop out of anxieties (unconscious fears/phantasies) generated by either active or passive (neglect) aggression they experienced in their primary relationships

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 97

and within specific social environments (Gilligan, 2016). The therapeutic relationship is regarded the means through which clients realise how their anxieties are actualised in their current behaviours, problems and relationships. This healing process is called ‘containment’ (Bion, 1962).

My reflections on the students’ process recordings communicated my understanding of the active- or passive-aggressive (or supportive) narratives and behaviours exchanged between clients and students and, also, the aggressive and/or supportive exchanges between clients and their environments (including organisations and policies). I defined as ‘prac- tice mistakes’ the neglect of the assessment of the effects of interpersonal or environmen- tal aggressive ‘exchanges’ in the clients’ well-being. Accordingly, I encouraged students to explore how their emotions on the process-recorded facts (narratives and behaviours) either promoted or impeded their ability to assess and intervene effectively. To assist students to conduct holistic client assessments, I encouraged them to separate facts from their thoughts and emotions. I defined as facts the supportive or aggressive narratives and behaviours exchanged in their relationships with clients. To differentiate professional thoughts from (non-professional) opinions, I identified as thoughts the theories of practice that aim to explain the facts. Aiming to integrate theory with practice, this study uses critical incidents of learning to explore how the process recording activity was applied in a field education seminar for postgraduate social work students, for the time frame of an academic semester. Further, the study evaluates the student satisfaction aspect of the effectiveness of the activity.

Methodology

Case studies explore ‘bounded systems’ over time in real-life contexts (Yin, 2003) and provide a basis for readers to compare their personal experiences (Stake, 2013). The cur- rent study explores the operationalisation process (how) and, also, evaluates the student satisfaction aspect of the effectiveness of the process recording activity through the Student Evaluation of the Process-recording questionnaire. The questionnaire included both Likert- type quantitative (Very much, A lot, Moderate, A little, Not at all) and qualitative items (Table 1). The first three quantitative items of the questionnaire explored the students’ perspectives about the extent to which their learning in class was transferred in their field practice, while the remaining three evaluated their satisfaction from their learning experience. Finally, two open-ended questions explored the students’ most enjoyable experiences in class and their ideas for further improvements in the topic. During data analysis, frequencies were identified in the quantitative data, and a thematic analysis highlighted similarities (themes) and differences in the students’ perspectives in the qualitative questions.

In terms of research ethics, because the aim of the study was the evaluation of my teach- ing rather than of the students, a formal institutional approval process was not required. Therefore, the research data consisted of the anamnestic recollection of my teaching narra- tives throughout the seminars, but no verbatim comments of the students. Still, the students were informed in advance that the completion of the questionnaire indicated their consent to participate in the study, that the questionnaire was anonymous and voluntary, and that my aim would be to publish the results and contribute knowledge in the literature. To pre- vent coercion, the questionnaire was administered in class by field educators at the end of the academic semester. The anonymity of the participants was further protected through de-identification of the educational institution and the year the study took place.

98 G. KARPETIS

Results

Exploring the teaching process

A theme that emerged in the seminars was the resistance of a small number of students to conduct interviews with clients in the process recording format (‘The client said: …’, ‘I replied: …’). When, despite the field supervisor’s permission, the students did not ask for the client’s consent for a part of the interview to be process recorded, rationalising that this would be embarrassing for the client, I commented that such a hesitance was possibly rooted in a fear that they will harm the client and that this fear was possibly the outcome of uncer- tainty about their practice skills. I further noted that this fear seemed to have overridden their trust in the skills of their field supervisor and, ultimately, in the University and me.

Another prominent theme in the seminar was the inclination of most students to present observations of interviews between their supervisors and clients, rather than between clients and themselves. In my reflections, I invited students to think about the possibility that this choice was the outcome of their limited confidence in their practice skills or, in a deeper level, of their (unconscious) need to avoid me witnessing their difficulty to deal with the clients’ emotional pain or else, their practice mistakes. I defined as ‘practice experience’ the learning resulting from one’s mistakes but, also, stressed their right to receive high quality teaching and supervision to protect them from serious mistakes. Adopting the interpreta- tion of the transference to the setting technique (Karpetis, 2015), my reflections highlighted the counter-transferential elements of the here and now relationship between students and clients and, also, the transferential elements of the relationship between the students, the University and me. Still, I systematically avoided to link these transferential elements with the students’ primary experiences (interpretation of the transference), because the teaching and learning setting significantly differs from the therapeutic; mainly because the students request education; not therapy.

My reflections were largely met with consent but, also, with disagreement by a limited number of students who seemed ‘emotionally guarded’ against the new learning experience,

Table 1. Student evaluation of teaching.

(1) How much useful did you find the first hour of the Seminar?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 6 8 2 2 –

(2) How much useful did you find ‘process recording’?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 2 8 4 4 –

(3) How much did you apply in your field practice the knowledge you acquired in the Seminar?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 2 4 10 1 1

(4) How much satisfied are you with the lecturer’s comments?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 3 11 3 1 –

(5) overall, how much satisfied are you with the Seminar?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 2 11 4 – 1

(6) How much willing would you be to attend a similar Seminar in the future?

Very much a lot Moderate a little not at all 3 6 7 1 1

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 99

which they seemed to experience as ‘threatening’ for their internal idealised professional relationships and self. In my response, I argued that social work is an applied discipline requiring practitioners to be able to substantiate their professional opinions, particularly in multidisciplinary settings, with empirical studies from the peer-reviewed literature (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2014). This comment aimed to contain defen- sive omniscience, promote the students’ evidence-based mentality, and encourage deep learning about the effects of the students’ professional self (Karpetis, 2014a, 2014b) in their work with clients.

Process recordings also revealed that some students provided interventions before con- ducting holistic bio-psychosocial assessments of their clients. This defensive attitude was frequently connected to a strict theoretical adherence to the critical social perspective, explicated in the non-evidenced-based reasoning (phantasy) ‘all client problems are exclu- sively the outcome of oppressive policies and this is where our interventions should aim for’. In my response, I cited the research findings from neurodevelopment, developmental psychology and genetics stressing the significance of the first years of a person’s life for their later mental, social and emotional development (Sullivan, Perry, Sloan, Kleinhaus, & Burtchen, 2011). Further, I referred to research findings about the effects of the wider (social, political and cultural) environment in the well-being of clients (Gilligan, 2016). Finally, I defined as defensive avoidance of the empirical literature the prioritisation of the students’ (unconscious) need to confirm the correctness of their theoretical perspectives over the client’s need for their problems to be thoroughly assessed and effectively treated.

The neglect of the assessment of the clients’ mental state was another theme that emerged from the process recordings. Examples include the exclusive attention of students to social policy issues while working with homeless clients with serious substance abuse issues or the neglect of the assessment of the mental state of clients involved in domestic violence. My reflections stressed the need for practitioners to be aware of the associated depressive symptoms and personality features of the clients suffering from substance abuse disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) to be able to acknowledge their emotional pain. Likewise, when students replaced the need for bio-psychosocial assessments of clients with the theoretically ambiguous term ‘trauma’, I referred to the diverse theoretical perspectives on the causation of emotional trauma per the systemic, psychodynamic, cognitive behav- ioural and humanistic theoretical perspectives. In that way, I stressed the need for practi- tioners to be aware of the ambiguities surrounding their theoretical perspectives, because these theories unavoidably guide (even without their awareness) client assessments and interventions (Karpetis, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Thus, I defined as ‘comprehensive assess- ment’ the alignment of the practitioner’s theories (thoughts) with the facts (narratives and behaviours) surrounding the clients’ problems.

Defensive use of theories was similarly apparent when students explained their interven- tions with clients exclusively via the empowerment, empathy or respect terms, but without any concurrent consideration of the theoretical frameworks guiding the application of these concepts in practice. A similar defensive attitude was evident in the erroneous utilisation of social work values as practice theories, or in the adoption of the term professional (ther- apeutic) relationship without a concurrent reference to the theoretical framework (and, accordingly, techniques) guiding the development of the therapeutic/professional relation- ships with clients. At that point, I discussed the differences in the conceptualisation of the therapeutic relationship per the psychodynamic, behavioural and systemic theoretical

100 G. KARPETIS

perspectives. Subsequently, I encouraged students to extend their knowledge about various assessment and intervention frameworks and explore the effectiveness of these frameworks in the empirical peer-reviewed literature. Nonetheless, I referred to the limitations of the so-called ‘highly-rated’ evidence-based methodologies (Gould, 2006) in the holistic assess- ment of social work clients but, also, stressed the possibility that these limitations could be defensively used by practitioners to avoid any evaluation of the effectiveness of their practice.

Another theme that emerged form process recordings was the underestimation of the effects of the organisational or state policies in the clients’ well-being. In my response, I informed students that the boundaries of the professional role are frequently determined by organisational policies, for the content of which the students need to be aware, before embarking on any client assessments or interventions. I encouraged students to read metic- ulously the organisational policies at the commencement of their field placement and, also, discuss with their supervisors any knowledge gaps they might have on these policies. Similarly, when the students minimised the role of the internal (emotional) factors in their assessments of clients, I stressed the need for practitioners to assess the possible effects of the clients’ mental state on their narratives, behaviours and, ultimately, problems. As an example, I used the risk assessment and Mental Status Examination tools. Another theme that emerged from the process recordings was the replacement of social work practice theo- ries with policies, or else, the implicit identification of state and organisational policies with social work theories of practice. To deal with this defensive attitude, I informed students that organisational policies, despite being informative of the systemic aspects of practice, do not provide detailed guidelines on the formation of the professional (therapeutic) relationship, nor they explain in detail the process of client assessments or interventions. As an example, I used the assessment of suicide risk where the final judgment about of clients’ risk relies on the clinical knowledge and skills of the practitioner (Department of Health, 2012).

The emotions of students about their interprofessional relationships were an additional theme that surfaced in the process recordings. For example, a student reported that a prac- titioner from their field placement organisation avoided them and preferred to collaborate with other students instead. Because the student was unable to substantiate their opinion with facts (narratives and behaviours of the practitioner), I replied that intense emotions in the workplace (although at times unavoidable) belong to the personal rather than the professional realm of relationships (i.e. parent, child, partner). These emotions are frequently transferential, therefore, potentially distortive of the professional role, entailing completion of certain tasks within specific time frames. Transferential feelings can also generate intense emotions about supervisors, who might be experienced as ‘parental’ figures due to the authority embedded in their role. Transferential feelings may also underlie the treatment of co-workers as competitors due to ‘unsolved’ sibling rivalry issues of the students. At that point, I argued that the more adverse the experiences of the students in their primary rela- tionships, the more anxious (unconsciously fearful) they may experience their professional relationships. Still, I stressed the need for students to value their emotions in the workplace, as emotions can highlight organisational dynamics that obstruct (mostly through passive aggression) the completion of tasks and, thus, undermine the boundaries of the roles of the practitioners (Lyth, 1988).

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 101

Evaluating the satisfaction of students

Of the 27 students enrolled, 18 completed the evaluation of the process-recording ques- tionnaire. The clear majority of the respondents found the seminar either ‘very much’ or ‘a lot’ useful (Table 1). All students evaluated process recording as a useful activity for their learning, but none as ‘not useful at all’. The clear majority were satisfied ‘a lot’ with the sem- inar and with my comments. Most students reported that they applied the knowledge they earned in the seminar in their field placement on a moderate degree (only 2 replied either ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’), and most shared their willingness to attend a similar seminar in the future. Questioned about what they enjoyed in the seminar the most, the majority reported the discussion about real client cases and the opportunity to share their field education experiences with fellow students. Finally, when the students were asked about what they would like to see changed in the seminar, one-third (n = 6) replied nothing because all was good, five proposed more discussions amongst students about their field experiences and four requested that the seminar takes place in a more convenient day and time.

Discussion

The study explored the operationalisation process as well as elements of the effectiveness of the process recording learning activity within an integration of theory and practice seminar. Process recordings supported students to identify facts in client cases and, also, the links between the clients’ narratives, emotional states and behaviours. Thus, process recordings became a fertile ground for the development of professional skills of the students. Critical elements of the activity were the concurrent assessment of internal and environmental factors in the clients’ problems, the establishment of a theory informed professional (ther- apeutic) relationship with clients, the significance of the students’ professional self for the development of their relationship with clients and the need for students to consult the empirical literature to inform their assessments and interventions. The detailed anamnestic process recordings encouraged students to acknowledge the implicit theories (Karpetis, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c) that informed their practice and, also, the way these theories guided their conceptualisation of facts (narratives, behaviours and problems) during client assess- ments and interventions.

The students were encouraged to become conscious of how their thoughts and emotions either acknowledged or obscured the reality/facts of the clients’ problems/issues. Likewise, they were supported to acknowledge the theoretical perspectives underlying their thoughts and, also, how these theories provided explanations about the causes and intervention methods of the clients’ bio-psychosocial problems. It was because of these theories that they either achieved positive outcomes with their clients or not. Moreover, process recordings promoted the practitioner-researcher mentality due to encouraging students to conceptu- alise the work with clients as case studies, through which they systematically collected and analysed data (narratives and behaviours) based on explicit theoretical perspectives. The constant emphasis on the need for practitioners to consult the evidence-based literature to substantiate their practice choices invited them to think about the limitations in their knowledge and the need to fill in their knowledge gaps through the empirical peer-reviewed literature.

102 G. KARPETIS

The satisfaction of students with the process recording activity and my reflections, in combination with their willingness to attend a similar seminar in the future, appears to be the outcome of the evidence-based psychodynamic theoretical perspective I explicitly adopted. This theoretical perspective identified the students’ practice mistakes as valuable sources of learning about the self, the clients and the wider organisational dynamics. My psychodynamic reflections on the students’ mistakes assisted them to realise unwilling (unconscious) aggressive (including neglectful) aspects in their communications with cli- ents and me. However, my choice to identify the practice mistakes of students relied on my belief in their capacity to learn from these practice mistakes and, also, in my ability to appropriately assess client problems (per the psychodynamic theoretical perspective) and, ultimately, correct the students’ mistakes. The students’ feedback that they enjoyed the discussion about real client cases, seems the outcome of an in-depth learning experience, resulting from the connection of theories with practice. Finally, the satisfaction of students from sharing their practice experiences with fellow students, validates the supportive nature of peer-learning but, also, the rich learning experience the students acquired after learning through the analysis of a significant number of process recordings from client cases, in class.

The study counteracts managerialist (consumeristic) teaching practices that aim to avoid the frustration of students ‘at any cost’ by treating them as consumers. Such teaching prac- tices are frequently adopted by those who defensively idealise theories and systematically avoid evaluating the effectiveness of these theories in social work practice. An unfortunate outcome of these defensive teaching practices is the identification of students with the ideal- isations of their teachers, resulting in the superficial (i.e. cognitive only) assessment of client suffering. Thus, I contemplate that ineffective social work practices (i.e. child protection practice failures) predominately stem from the ‘omniscient’ prioritisation of the ideological (narcissistic) needs of practitioners and educators over the reality needs (bio-psychosocial suffering) of clients. Process recording is a means for students to face the bare reality of clients and, also, allocate theory-specific meaning on the narratives representing client thoughts, emotions and, ultimately, behaviours. Process recording is the fertile ground for the operationalisation of theories in practice; thus, for in-depth learning in social work field education.

Although the study does not evaluate the extent to which the learning the students acquired in class was applied in their subsequent work with clients (i.e. triangulation of the students’ perspectives with those of supervisors and clients), there is still evidence that the students applied in their field practice some of the knowledge they obtained through the process recording learning activity. Responding to the question ‘how much did you apply in your practice the knowledge you acquired in the seminar’ most students reported ‘on a moderate degree’ (Table 1), whereas only two stated either ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’. Possible reasons for the limited application of the knowledge the students earned in the seminar in their field placement include the diverse expectations of different organisations about the content and extent of the students’ involvement with clients, the diversity of practice skills of different supervisors in practice placements, the ambiguities of the social work role in various organisational and policy frameworks, and the differences between the teaching of this topic and the supervision the students received in their field placement, including the teaching the students received in the other topics of the course.

The conceptual identity of the process recording activity is further circumscribed through the identification of similarities and differences between the psychodynamically informed

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 103

teaching that relies on process recording and psychodynamic clinical social work supervi- sion. Both psychodynamic supervision and teaching adopt process recording to promote authentic learning, integrate theory and practice, infuse cognitive and emotional learning, and educate trainees on effective assessments and interventions. However, the educational setting does not require direct application of knowledge in practice, the students do not act autonomously in a professional role, and the University setting circumscribes the edu- cational nature (in terms of the assessment items involved) of the activity. Still, because client well-being is the aim of both supervisors and lecturers, both are expected to correct the students’ practice mistakes to ensure the provision of quality services to clients. When practice mistakes are not openly discussed or corrected, both supervisors and lecturers become passively neglectful of the well-being of clients and, also, of the educational needs of students and practitioners.

Implications of the study

The study contributes knowledge about the operationalisation of the process recording activity in social work field education, under an explicit theoretical perspective—the psy- chodynamic. Process recordings empowered students to separate facts from their thoughts and emotions and assess the effects of these emotions on their practice behaviours. As thoughts are essentially implicit theoretical perspectives about the assessments and inter- ventions with clients, the students were enabled to integrate theory with practice through consciously applying these theories in practice. Thus, the process recording activity facil- itated learning, increased the students’ feelings of practice competence, developed greater role clarity, enhanced self-awareness and reflection and highlighted the students’ knowledge gaps. Process recordings provided the space for students to feel supported because their practice mistakes were identified and corrected. This study demonstrates that despite the frustration of a small number of students with the identification of their practice mistakes (reality), this labour-intensive activity produced satisfactory learning experiences for the great majority of the students attending the topic.

Unlike former studies suggesting that students should not worry that much about the details of client cases in process recordings (Papell, 2015), this theoretically informed study encourages students to write as many details as they can remember from their interviews with clients, because these ‘details’ reflect the clients’ thoughts and emotions, therefore, the essence of their current problems. The study counteracts the identification of process recording as an ‘anxiety provoking activity’ (Medina, 2010) because neither a theoretically informed definition of anxiety is provided by the authors of this perspective nor any empir- ical study that elaborates on the role of anxiety in the clients’ bio-psychosocial functioning. The study contemplates that high levels of student anxiety about specific process-recorded material are either exhibited by students with minimal emotional investment in social work training or by students for whom specific process-recorded material re-enacts traumatic experiences from their past (primary) relationships. The study further demonstrates that process recording is not a time consuming (Le Riche, 2006) activity because it informs client assessments and interventions and, thus, relieves the emotional pain underlying the clients’ narratives, behaviours and problems. The study finally argues that the conceptualisation of process recordings as biased due to relying on the perceptions of students is an implicit

104 G. KARPETIS

statement of the inability of educators to allocate theory-informed meaning on the client’s narratives, behaviours and problems.

Limitations

The limitations of the study are the single student cohort researched, the shortage of similar studies in the wider social work literature to compare the results, and the limited evaluation of the effects of the students’ learning on their subsequent work with clients. Dynamics of the wider educational system (Ulrich, 2001) may have also affected the students’ per- spectives about the effectiveness of the process recording activity. Such dynamics include the admission criteria in the course, the overall content of the curriculum, the teaching methods adopted in the other topics of the course, potentially encouraging a defensive splitting of knowledge accordingly enacted by the students, and the prevalent critical social theoretical mentality implicitly underlying the teaching of social work practice skills in the wider social work literature (Karpetis, 2017b) and the educational accreditation standards. Such an example is the statement ‘all ethical decision-making occurs within the context of managing power relationships’ (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2010) that unavoidably raises the questions ‘Could the absence of clinical knowledge result in unethi- cal professional decisions, too?’ or ‘Is the neglect of the evaluation of social work practice effectiveness ethical?’

Conclusion

This study explored the operationalisation process and evaluated the student satisfaction aspect of the effectiveness of the process recording activity with postgraduate social work students. The effectiveness of the activity was evaluated through quantitative and qualitative feedback the students provided in the end of the semester. The study demonstrates that the relational psychodynamic framework that informed the process recording activity provided an in-depth learning experience for the clear majority of students due to enabling them to conduct comprehensive assessments of clients, separate case facts from their thoughts and emotions and correct practice mistakes. Further studies can evaluate the effectiveness of process recording per different theoretical perspectives and in diverse educational settings. The study stresses the need for the social work profession to embrace process recording under explicit theoretical perspectives, to ensure effective learning in field education and promote the accountability of social work practitioners and educators.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

George Karpetis is a senior lecturer in social work at Flinders University, Australia. His research interests include evaluation of the process and the effectiveness of mental health, child protection and supervision practice.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 105

ORCID

George Karpetis   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2725-6837

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM-5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Pub.

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2010). AASW: Code of ethics. New York, NY: Author. Australian Association of Social Workers. (2012). Australian social work education and accreditation

standards. Camberra: Author. Australian Association of Social Workers. (2014). Practice standards for mental health social workers

(pp. 1–27). Canberra: Author. Bick, E. (1964). Notes on infant observation in psycho-analytic training. The International journal

of psycho-analysis, 45, 558–566. Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning form experience. London: Heinemann. Brandell, J. R. (2013). Psychoanalysis in the halls of social work academe: Can this patient be saved?

Journal of Social Work Practice, 27(3), 235–248. Briggs, S. (1999). Links between infant observation and reflective social work practice. Journal of

Social Work Practice, 13(2), 147–156. doi:10.1080/026505399103377 Bronstein, L., & Kelly, T. (2001). Qualitative methods for evaluating field education: Discovering how

and what interns learn. Arete-Columbia South Carolina, 25(2), 25–34. Department of Health. (2012). Guidelines for working with the suicidal person. Adelaide:

Government of South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.countryhealthsa.sa.gov.au/LinkClick. aspx?fileticket=5CLM%2B5GPHqY%3D&tabid=36

Fawcett, M. (2009). Learning through child observation. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Gilligan, J. (2016). Can psychoanalysis help us to understand the causes and prevention of violence?

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 30(2), 125–137. Gould, N. (2006). An inclusive approach to knowledge for mental health social work practice and

policy. British Journal of Social Work, 36(1), 109–125. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch243 Herrington, J., Parker, J., & Boase-Jelinek, D. (2014). Connected authentic learning: Reflection and

intentional learning. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 23–35. doi:10.1177/0004944113517830 Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work. New York, NY: Columbia University

Press. Karpetis, G. (2010a). Field practice supervision of social work students: A psychodynamic view on

the emotional context of the process and the setting during the client assessment phase. European Journal of Social Work, 13(4), 503–522. doi:10.1080/13691451003603448

Karpetis, G. (2010b). Psychodynamic clinical social work practice with parents in child and adolescent mental health services: a case study on the role of the father. Journal of Social Work Practice, 24(2), 155–170.

Karpetis, G. (2011). A relational approach to the evaluation of the practice performance of social work students in Greece: The supervisors’ perspective. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1158–1175.

Karpetis, G. (2012). Psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy techniques in clinical social work practice with parents. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82(1), 63–89.

Karpetis, G. (2013). Employing assessment systems in social work: A practitioner-researcher approach. Social Work in Mental Health, 11(6), 542–562.

Karpetis, G. (2014a). Advocating the clinical social work professional identity: A biographical study. Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(1), 23–41.

Karpetis, G. (2014b). Clinical social work professionalization perspectives among mental health social workers. European Journal of Social Work, 17(2), 293–305.

Karpetis, G. (2015). Psychoanalytic insights and empowerment in social work practice: Evaluating the effectiveness of the ‘transference interpretation to the setting’ technique. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(4), 429–444. doi:10.1080/02650533.2015.1050653

106 G. KARPETIS

Karpetis, G. (2016a). Evaluating the effectiveness of the reframing technique in psychodynamic social work practice. Australian Social Work, 69(2), 194–205. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2015.1069865

Karpetis, G. (2016b). Identifying effective therapeutic mechanisms in psychodynamic parent work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 86(2), 118–135. doi:10.1080/00377317.2016.1151652

Karpetis, G. (2017a). Mental health knowledge gaps in the child protection work with parents: A narrative review of the social work literature. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31(3), 353–368. doi:10.1080/02650533.2016.1274965

Karpetis, G. (2017b). Social work skills: A narrative review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx066

Karpetis, G. (2017c). Theories on the child protection work with parents: A narrative review of the literature. Child Welfare, 95(2), 33–70.

Karpetis, G., & Athanasiou, E. (2017). Training fieldwork supervisors of social work students at a South European University: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a relational psychodynamic model. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31(1), 37–49. doi:10.1080/02650533.2015.1116436

Klein, M. (2002). Love, guilt and reparation: And other works 1921–1945 (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Le Riche, P. (2006). Practising observation in shadowing: Curriculum innovation and learning outcomes in the BA social work. Social Work Education, 25(8), 771–784.

Lyth, I. M. (1988). Containing anxiety in institutions: Selected essays. London: Free Association Books. McMahon, L., & Farnfield, S. (2004). Too close in or too far out – Learning to hold the role of the

observer; Tutor’s introduction to a social work student’s reflections on her experience of learning through child observation. Journal of Social Work Practice, 18(2), 239–246.

Medina, C. K. (2010). The need and use of process recording in policy practice: A learning and assessment tool for macro practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(1), 29–45.

Mizrahi, T., & Davis, L. (2008). The Encyclopedia of social work: 4 volume set: New York, NY: OUP. Mumm, A. M. (2006). Teaching social work students practice skills. Journal of Teaching in Social

Work, 26(3–4), 71–89. Neuman, K. M., & Friedman, B. D. (1997). Process recordings: Fine-tuning an old instrument. Journal

of Social Work Education, 33(2), 237–243. Papell, C. P. (2015). Process recording revisited: An essay on an educational artifact as a cognitive

exercise. Social Work with Groups, 38(3–4), 345–357. Reid, S. (2013). Developments in infant observation: The Tavistock model. London: Routledge. Richmond, M. E. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Rustin, M. (2003). Learning about emotions: The Tavistock approach. European Journal of

Psychotherapy & Counselling, 6(3), 187–208. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis: New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sullivan, R., Perry, R., Sloan, A., Kleinhaus, K., & Burtchen, N. (2011). Infant bonding and attachment

to the caregiver: Insights from basic and clinical science. Clinics in Perinatology, 38(4), 643–655. Tanner, K. (1999). Observation: A counter culture offensive observation’s contribution to the

development of reflective social work practice. Infant Observation, 2(2), 12–32. Ulrich, W. (2001). The quest for competence in systemic research and practice. Systems Research and

Behavioral Science, 18(1), 3–28. Urdang, E. (2010). Awareness of self – A critical tool. Social Work Education, 29(5), 523–538. Walsh, T. C. (2002). Structured process recording: A comprehensive model that incorporates the

strengths perspective. Social Work Education, 21(1), 23–34. Westhues, A., Barsen, C., Freymond, N., & Train, P. (2014). An outcome evaluation of a problem-

based learning approach with MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(3), 472–489. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 107

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Practice is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.