SOCW 6200 Discussion 1 and 2

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Clinical Social Work Journal https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00714-2

O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Navigating Student Self‑Disclosure Through a Relational Lens: Examples of Increased Self‑Awareness from a Social Work Classroom

Pamela Szczygiel1

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract Self-disclosure is a nuanced practice issue that often generates complex questions for even the most seasoned clinicians. While the social work literature has grappled with this intricate topic as it pertains to clinicians, field supervisors and social work instructors, there is little discussion about student self-disclosure within the classroom. Despite the focus on self- awareness within social work education, there is a gap in the literature regarding how to best prepare students for appropriate engagement in self-disclosure. This paper offers a relational perspective for navigating student self-disclosure in the classroom and posits that carefully attending to students’ disclosures offers profound opportunities for grasping concepts pivotal to the process of social work practice: transference-countertransference responses, self-other boundaries, and relational vulner- ability. Such a perspective also informs the manner in which instructors respond to and work with students’ disclosures. Case examples from a social work classroom are offered to illustrate the value of a relationally-informed approach to student self-disclosure.

Keywords Self-disclosure · Relational theory · Self-awareness · Countertransference

Introduction

In the realm of clinical practice self-disclosure is typically framed as complex and controversial (Dewane 2006; Gib- son 2012; Goldstein 1994; Knight 2012, 2014; Urdang 2010). While existing literature provides rich inquiry into this intricate topic as it relates to clinicians, field supervi- sors and social work instructors (Gibson 2012; Goldstein 1994; Knight 2014; Newman et al. 2008; Rasmussen and Mishna 2008), there is limited conversation about student self-disclosure (SSD) in the classroom. To this point, Knight (2014) has pointed to a notable gap in the literature devoted to helping students understand how to appropriately engage in self-disclosure. Such a gap is curious given that the typi- cal social work curriculum often includes assignments and activities that implicitly or explicitly encourage students to self-disclose (i.e. self-reflection papers, personal statements, journal entries, classroom sharing and discussion). While there exists a general notion that drawing upon personal

experiences can support students in developing the self- awareness and insight necessary for professional growth (Booth 2012; Fook and Askeland 2007) a nuanced discus- sion regarding the professional value of carefully punctuat- ing and attending to SSD in the classroom setting is often missing.

Given the intricacies involved in deciding when and how to self-disclose in the context of everyday social work prac- tice it is incumbent upon social work instructors to attend to students’ self-disclosures in the classroom setting. What occurs in the relational milieu of the classroom may run parallel to practice situations between social workers and clients (Ganzer and Ornstein 1999). As such, when carefully attended to, classroom disclosures offer opportunities for profound learning, for both the disclosing student and the rest of the class (Booth 2012). They are often meaningful entry points into discussions about everyday practice quan- daries relating to when and how to self-disclose, what’s at stake for both the client and the practitioner in a disclosure, as well as how to professionally navigate the range of rela- tional issues resulting from revelations about oneself.

This paper argues for the close investigation and care- ful navigation of SSD when it occurs in the classroom set- ting and posits that disclosures provide both students and

* Pamela Szczygiel [email protected]

1 School of Social Work, Bridgewater State University, Burrill Office Complex, Bridgewater, MA 02325, USA

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

the instructor with opportunities for exploring relational concepts pivotal to the process of practice and the develop- ment of self-awareness: transference-countertransference responses, self-other boundaries, and relational vulnerability (Urdang 2010). This paper also calls for a relational response to SSDs, one that is empathetic, validating, and encourages students’ curiosity about relationships. Case vignettes are offered to demonstrate the utility and value of a relational method for navigating classroom disclosures.

The Case for Carefully Attending to Student Self‑Disclosure (SSD): A Relational Perspective

Even the most seasoned practitioners raise questions and concerns about the use of self-disclosure in their work: In what context is self-disclosure appropriate and to what degree? How do I know if my disclosure is helpful or in the best interest of the client? What if my disclosure goes too far and I burden the client or ‘turn the tables’ in the treat- ment relationship? How do I work through disjunctions that occur as a result of a disclosure? How much are my clients perceiving about me, just being in my presence?

Perhaps one reason why the issue of self-disclosure raises so many questions is that it’s a process-oriented rather than an outcome-based practice issue (Urdang 2010). Disclosures take place within the highly contextual-relational space between a client and a clinician. What feels validating to one client may feel dismissive to the next, depending on the unique relational history of the individual and his/her pat- terns of connection and disconnection with others (Jordan 2010; Knight 2014). The complexity and controversy sur- rounding self-disclosure in practice situations is a compel- ling reason to attend to the issue when it occurs within a social work learning environment that, ideally, strives toward critical self-reflection and awareness (Fook and Askeland 2007; Urdang 2010). Students should have ample opportu- nities to explore the topic of self-disclosure (Knight 2014). One way to do this is to hone in on self-disclosures when they occur in the ‘here-and-now’ classroom setting. By intentionally and explicitly attending to self-disclosure in the learning environment students can become better prepared to recognize and address it in practice.

Another reason to carefully punctuate SSD is captured by Rasmussen and Mishna (2003): “Far more than an intel- lectual exercise, the teaching and learning of clinical social work is a relational experience” (p. 44). This is not to say that social work education is neither academic nor cerebral but rather that an integral aspect of learning how to be a social worker is understanding, through experience with others, what certain practice terminology actually looks like in the context of human relationships. To this point, the

Council for Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015) con- siders self- reflection and emotional regulation as pivotal to demonstrating ethical and professional behavior. Fur- ther, CSWE is also explicit about the importance of class- room instruction that engages both cognitive and affective processes.

Defining Student Self‑Disclosure

In the practice world self-disclosure is often framed as either self-involving or self-revealing (Knight 2014). Self-involving disclosures consist of the clinician sharing her or his life experiences “outside of the session as well as her or his per- sonal beliefs and feelings” while self-revealing disclosures “reflect the clinician’s thoughts and reactions to the client and what is occurring in the session” (Knight 2014, p. 164). An example of a self-involving disclosure is a clinician shar- ing with a client going through cancer treatments that she, too, is a cancer survivor. In this same scenario, a self-reveal- ing disclosure may consist of the clinician sharing with the client, “I feel deeply moved by your account of what it feels like to learn that your follow up cancer screening is nega- tive. It seems that you’ve been on an emotional roller coaster over the past several weeks.” While theoretical lenses vary in terms of how they value and approach self-disclosure, many agree that self-disclosure is, at least to some extent, unavoid- able and also quite common among clinicians (Gibson 2012; Goldstein 1994; Knight 2014; Raines 1996).

Drawing from the practice definitions of self-disclosure, this author defines SSD as authentically sharing information about one’s personal history, cultural experiences, and/or emotional-visceral responses to clients in practice situations as well as to other students and instructors in the classroom setting. While SSD potentially carries with it many of the same questions and concerns as practitioner-to-client self- disclosure (i.e. concerns about boundaries, concerns about being led astray from class themes/work, questions about whether or not the information revealed is helpful, etc.), it is also unique in that students are positioned as learners. To this point, punctuating and closely examining SSD is poten- tially beneficial in a few ways: (1) Through self-disclosing in the classroom environment, the instructor and other students in the class may respond and react, providing the disclos- ing student with important feedback in the form of alternate points of view and/or emotional validation. Such feedback is critical to expanding one’s self-awareness, a key aspect of developing a professional self (Urdang 2010). Further, as noted in Rasmussen and Mishna (2008), self-disclosure may generally impact the quality of relationships and perhaps the feeling of safety within a classroom context. For instance, when one student discloses that her client’s work feels over- whelming and sometimes unmanageable, another student with a similar experience may feel less alone. (2) When

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

students discuss their field experiences, personal histories, and reactions to practice situations, the instructor is made aware of students’ level of professional growth and knowl- edge and can make adjustments to capitalize on the learn- ing process (i.e. deciding to spend more time on a specific practice concept that some may be struggling to understand). (3) When other students are privy to the thoughts, emotions, and experiences of their fellow classmates, they are learning valuable information about how the process of social work practice impacts various practitioners, each having his/her own unique personal history, set of cultural beliefs and val- ues, and emotional responses. This may lead to important insights that run parallel to practitioner-client encounters (Ganzer and Ornstein 1999). Therefore, it behooves the pro- fession to conceptualize SSD as a significant component of critical self-reflection and therefore as a potentially trans- formative component of the learning process (Booth 2012; Fook and Askeland 2007).

Disjunctions and Repair in the Classroom: Learning about Transference and Countertransference Responses

A basic intersubjective definition of transference-coun- tertransference is “an ongoing transactional exchange of feelings between a clinician and client” (Urdang 2010, p. 53). Some note the reciprocal nature of transference-coun- tertransference, wherein both the client and practitioner experience transference and countertransference toward one another (Dewane 2006). Orange (1995) explores how interaction with another aids the individual in grasping the entirety of a situation, as the individual’s perspective is often limited by one’s own unique organizing experiences. A critical reason to shine a light on students’ disclosures in the classroom is that significant learning about transference and countertransference responses can result from students grappling with whether and how to reveal information about oneself to the others (i.e. a client, a teacher, and/or a class- room of people). Further, revealing information about one’s feelings, thoughts, perceptions, personal history, and/or shared experiences impacts relational attunement and there- fore influences transference-countertransference responses (Gibson 2012; Goldstein 1994). This is why some psycho- dynamic theorists posit that teaching and learning about transference-countertransference responses is essential to developing a rich understanding of client behavior (Dean 2010; Urdang 2010). It is near impossible to teach about such process concepts without real-world case examples, role plays and/or here-and-now classroom interactions that encourage students to be attentive to their own emotional responses and the impact that these responses may have on their interactions with clients (Rasmussen and Mishna

2003). Student self-disclosures provide material for explor- ing such complex concepts, as indicated by the following classroom example:

Following a viewing of a movie clip depicting a marine veteran with classic PTSD symptoms, many in the class revealed their sadness at the character’s sullen, depressed mood and his inability to engage with his family. Some commented about his risk for suicide and others reported their strong desire to work on policies to make the VA more responsive to the collective suffering of combat veterans. One student who disclosed having marine and army veterans in his family, voiced his irritation with others’ emotional responses saying, “You can’t forget that they sign up for this…it’s not like others who have PTSD because they are beaten or starved as children.” In response, some in the class appeared uncomfortable, averting their eyes. Others appeared frustrated and voiced their dismay and concern about the student’s comment. In turn, the student abruptly explained that it’s tough to be in a military family knowing that your loved one is choosing a life where he/she may die, be severely injured, or come home with symptoms that make liv- ing with him/her very difficult.

Classroom Insights

In response to the disclosing student’s description of being in a military family, a couple others nodded. Some verbally agreed that it must be hard not knowing if your loved one will make it home safe. In turn, the disclosing student’s demeanor softened. Some began to explore whether they should avoid areas of practice that ‘bring up’ their own per- sonal histories. Others pointed out that this would be unfair to clients, “we can’t pick and choose.” In response to this exchange, the instructor explained how impactful one’s personal history, beliefs, values and emotions are in client- social worker interactions. This led to a rich discussion about why a practitioner may experience more empathy for some clients than others and the importance of maintaining self- awareness about one’s level of empathy and general emo- tional-visceral responses to various clients and practice situ- ations. The classroom discussion shifted from identifying a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question of whether or not to avoid areas of practice that may be triggering to the individual practitioner to exploring the importance of self-awareness when making practice decisions. When self-aware, the prac- titioner can then make use of his/her emotional responses within the therapeutic relationship. Contemporary views of transference-countertransference suggest that they can be used to “facilitate the therapeutic progress” (Dewane 2006, p. 552).

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

This discussion proved illuminating for both the stu- dents and the instructor. While the instructor, having worked with veterans in a clinical context, also experi- enced a repulsion to the student’s comments, she remained calm and continued to facilitate the classroom discussion, modeling how to handle an emotionally charged session with a client. The instructor’s response engenders what Mishna and Rasmussen (2001) refer to as the “utilization of mutuality, collaboration, and intersubjective aware- ness,” which is necessary for a deep and productive social work learning environment (p. 393). She then tied this into a general discussion about transference and counter- transference responses, which provided a foundation for future discussions about the role of transference-counter- transference in the relational process between clients and practitioners. She asked the class, “How will you manage and use such emotional responses in your work?”

Process Versus Outcome

Without the presence of such questions, conversations about practice are reduced to finding the correct answers to cli- ent problems (Urdang 2010). The problem with such an outcome-based approach to practice is that much of human experience exists below the surface. Practitioners and clients alike have an inner world of experiences and responses that run parallel to and inform what occurs on the surface. Analy- sis at both levels is essential to furthering one’s self-aware- ness, an important correlate to developing a professional self (Harris 1997; Urdang 2010). Teaching that includes careful attention to the process in the classroom captures the mean- ing of what is both “said and done,” as well as highlights underlying factors that contribute to human behavior (Apple- gate 2004). Without such analysis, the student experiencing unexamined anger toward his military clients arguably runs the risk of becoming indifferent, reactive or argumentative toward clients, which is surely counterproductive and pos- sibly harmful.

Supporting students in examining their thoughts, emo- tions, and visceral responses to client behavior also carries the benefit of bringing to the surface unconscious biases related to why some clients don’t ‘get better’ and/or why some may ‘repeat the same negative behaviors over and over again.’ Berzoff (2011) explains the importance of teaching practitioners ways to conceptualize client behaviors that cli- nicians may experience as difficult or frustrating. Acknowl- edging phenomena such as repetition compulsion helps practitioners frame their countertransferential responses as important assessment data regarding the client’s relational history, and infuses a sense of curiosity and empathy toward the client, even in the midst of intense frustration (Berzoff 2011; Borden 2000; Rasmussen and Mishna 2003).

Context is Everything: Learning About Self‑Other Boundaries

Intimately tied to transference-countertransference (and just as nuanced) learning about healthy boundaries in prac- tice arguably occurs best through here and now encounters where students can critically reflect on the impact of self- disclosure within relationships. Questions regarding what is appropriate to share, whether or not too much was revealed and/or the impact of a disclosure on the clinical relationship are, in part, highly dependent on the conditions and qual- ity of the relationship at hand (Jordan 2010). The following vignette illustrates how classroom disclosures may provide material for significant learning about boundaries, for both students and instructors:

Students in a first year MSW practice course were dis- cussing a case vignette depicting a young man who struggled to maneuver his everyday life with symptoms of psychosis. The discussion was lively and empathetic in tone. Some pointed out how difficult it must be to complete routine tasks like buying groceries or paying bills while experiencing auditory hallucinations. Oth- ers explored the difficulties of maintaining relation- ships with such symptoms. A student in the class, who had been quiet during most of the discussion, revealed that, a few years ago, she experienced psychotic symp- toms. Following this disclosure, the class mostly fell silent. One other student responded by nodding her head empathetically saying, “That must have been very challenging.” Others also nodded. Some appeared to be at a loss for words and stayed quiet. The instruc- tor made eye contact with the disclosing student and asked if she’d like to share anything else about her experience, to which the student shrugged and said, “not really…just that its hard and takes some work to get through.” The instructor replied, “Thank you for sharing your insights.”

Classroom Insights

The analysis that follows is based on the instructor’s first- hand experience of the entire class: the dynamic before, dur- ing and after the disclosure as well as reflections on possible lessons based on the content and timing of the disclosure. The instructor’s countertransference response to the disclos- ing student will be examined as a method of emphasizing the contextual nature of self-disclosure, specifically how the question of whether or not a disclosure is appropriate, healthy, and/or helpful is highly dependent upon the quality and meaning of the relationship(s) in which the disclosure takes place (Jordan 2010).

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

It is important to consider the moment of silence follow- ing this student’s disclosure. It is within this relational space that the disclosing student, other students in the class and the instructor potentially carried the increased awareness and sensitivity necessary for grasping the impact of this disclosure on boundaries within the classroom. As noted by Ganzer and Ornstein (1999), learning is both cyclical and relational in nature. Within a classroom setting, one individual’s disclosure comes into contact with another’s experience, which impacts someone else and so on and so forth. This complex process offers abundant opportunities for connection-disconnection and mutuality-asymmetry, thereby increasing the potential for self-understanding and growth (Rasmussen and Mishna 2003; Tosone 2004). Addi- tionally, the relational history within and among individuals (i.e. Have the parties established safety and trust?) will cer- tainly affect how a disclosure is received, specifically others’ subjective accounts as to whether or not a safe boundary has been crossed.

Following the student’s disclosure, the instructor found herself ruminating over the following questions: Did the student feel that she shared too much? Would the student continue to feel safe and supported in the class following her disclosure? Would the rest of the class begin to interact dif- ferently with the disclosing student, thereby threatening the cohesiveness of the entire class? Upon further reflection the instructor recognized that many of her concerns about the disclosing student ran parallel to worries she had in clinical experiences with clients who experienced psychotic symp- toms. That is, she often responded with an intense urge to take care of such clients and protect them from others who may not understand their symptoms and therefore interact with the person as an “other.” This urge was related to her own fears about the client decompensating, which would be alarming in and of itself, and her responsibility to act in some way to solve the problem. She carried anxiety about whether or not this specific disclosure would impact the class dynamic, which had been open and productive all semester: Would the other students become afraid and distance them- selves? She wondered whether or not she should intervene in some way (i.e. check in with the student after class, have a general discussion about boundaries and/or confidentiality with the entire class, etc.).

Classroom Dynamics, Attunement and Safety

The instructor experienced relief when, following the disclo- sure, the class appeared to engage typically with one another. Likely due to the level of attunement among members, the class had been able to integrate this disclosure into the fab- ric of complex experiences and interactions that had been shared all semester (Goldstein 1994). No obvious disruption was noted other than the one experienced, in the moment, by

the teacher in the form of anxiety and the urge to “fix” the issue in some way. The disclosing student attended class as usual, offering insightful and appropriate comments. While some in the class may have experienced internal uncertainty or discomfort similar to the instructor, the immediate, empa- thetic response of the one individual- “That must have been very challenging”- sent a powerful message to the entire group: We care about you, we can tolerate this information and we can learn from it. While it is near impossible to say how this disclosure affected the entire dynamic of the class, it potentially gave students insights into what it is like to live with psychotic symptoms and, poignantly, especially for social work practitioners, demystified who is impacted by such symptoms.

It is important to acknowledge that not all classroom environments will be experienced as safe for all students, even within a social work context where discussions about responding to vulnerable clients and maintaining self-aware- ness are commonplace and efforts may be made to increase sense of belonging among students (Harris 1997; Martin and Dowson 2009). Even so, it is important that social work instructors resist the urge to over manage the classroom dynamic and set distinct rules and regulations about what is okay and what is not okay to share within the classroom. Arguably, it is much more interesting and meaningful to have students respond to the following: What kinds of self- disclosures may support my own professional development and be useful to my classmates as they grow and develop as practitioners?

Even in the clinical practice domain guidelines around self-disclosure tend to be highly dependent upon theoreti- cal lens and focused around themes such as maintaining awareness about the impact of a therapist’s disclosure on the process of treatment (Gibson 2012; Goldstein 1994; Raines 1996). For example, Goldstein (1994) offers guide- lines around therapist self-disclosure intended to preserve the psychological and physical safety of the therapist and the client, which of course is highly dependent upon the unique individuals giving and receiving treatment. Gibson (2012) notes that discussions around clinician self-disclosure have moved from “should” clinicians self-disclose to “what, when and how” should clinicians disclose (p. 295). And, Raines (1996) points to the significance of sharing one’s self authentically with a client.

The moral of this story is that the need for firmer or looser boundaries within the matrix of self-other encoun- ters is a function of the relational context of the moment (Jordan 2010). Boundaries are fluid and cyclical, exist- ing within a dynamic contextual experience between two people (or among multiple people) (Ganzer and Ornstein 1999). Another way of saying this is that dichotomous think- ing about boundaries is neither helpful nor realistic in the realm of human experience (Ganzer and Ornstein 1999).

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

The need for firmer or looser boundaries depends on the level of empathy and affective attunement among individu- als (Goldstein 1994; Maroda 1999). In a classroom with a less cohesive dynamic, a similar self-revealing disclosure may have impacted the disclosing student’s sense of safety and/or caused immediate disjunction rather than attune- ment. This class demonstrated what Jordan (2010) refers to as “relational resiliency” (p. 61). That is, a moment that may have been jarring and fragmenting for another class, became unifying for this class.

Learning About Vulnerability

Attentiveness to client vulnerability is an essential ingredi- ent to empathetic therapeutic relationships (Jordan 2010). Both mutuality and asymmetry exist in all relationships and, even in the most attuned therapeutic encounters, a client may experience a power differential with his/her clinician (Tosone 2004). Clients may experience vulnerability for any number of reasons. At the very least, insofar as a client is positioned as seeking help from another, a power imbalance exists. Attuning with a client’s vulnerability means that the clinician enters into an unpredictable relational space with the client. What happens within this relational interplay is an informant for both assessment and intervention (Mishna and Rasmussen 2001). Clients may be surprised by what they say and feel and, likewise, clinicians may be caught off guard by their emotional-visceral countertransference responses to the client’s words and actions. Even within the context of the most careful, well informed assessment, what occurs in the moment-to-moment interplay between client and clinician may elude a specific treatment trajectory, yet also be profoundly significant. It is within this space that core issues of emotional safety and trust surface (Jordan 2010). It is also within this space that disrepair and repair may occur: emotional dysregulation becomes regulated, a client’s interpersonal history of mis-attunement can begin to correct, and two individuals may share an authentic rela- tional exchange (Borden 2000; Jordan 2010; Schore and Schore 2008; Tosone 2004).

Attentiveness to student disclosures, insofar as they reveal ‘trigger’ areas and therefore expose vulnerability, increases critical teacher and student self-awareness thereby support- ing the process of personal-professional growth (Urdang 2010). The following example illustrates this process

In a first-year MSW Practice Class, students were exploring ‘skills of engagement.’ They had just com- pleted a short role play in pairs and were instructed to debrief with one another about their interactions. The class was loud with conversation. The instruc- tor walked around to gauge the topics of conversation and noticed that one pair was much quieter than the

rest. The pair consisted of a Caucasian young adult female student and an African American middle-aged male student, who regularly sat together, appeared to have a strong rapport and engaged in role-plays with one another on several occasions. The male student sat quietly, staring at the table in front of him. The expression left his face. The female student asked him if he was OK. In return, he took a deep breath, got up from his seat and walked out the door. The female student looked up at the instructor and asked whether she should go check on him, to which the instructor responded, “Do you feel that would be helpful, given your interaction?” The student quietly remarked to the instructor, “I think this is my fault, I asked him some- thing that maybe I shouldn’t have” and she nodded and abruptly left the room to find her classmate. A few minutes later, the female student returned and sat qui- etly in her seat. The male student eventually returned to class and was quiet for the remainder of class.

Classroom Insights

Both students returned for class the following week and sat next to one another, interacting as usual. During a routine class discussion about experiences in the field, the male stu- dent spontaneously interjected, “This class is challenging.” He continued, “I’m realizing some things about myself that I never saw before.” The instructor replied, “You’re having some light bulb moments, huh? That can feel very jarring, when the work reveals things to us about ourselves. Does anyone else feel the same way?” Others nodded and a few discussed how their experiences with clients have ‘triggered’ issues from their past. The instructor remarked, “Isn’t it interesting how we experience vulnerability right alongside our clients? What insights can this give us about the position they are in when they reach for help?”

The topic of vulnerability surfaced frequently in this class and the male student who left the room became an active participant in such discussions. On a few occasions he explored his experiences as a combat soldier and how his own symptoms of anxiety manifested in his life and gave him a new appreciation for his clients, many of whom were vet- erans attempting to adjust to civilian life after having served in a warzone.

A classroom environment that values openness and self- reflection is essential for grasping nuanced practice issues such as self-disclosure (Knight 2014). The fact that self- disclosures in a classroom setting give students an entry point into understanding what it’s like to feel vulnerable is no small issue. The male student experienced the powerful process of revealing details about himself, wondering if he shared too much and then needing time to reflect and digest the interaction before coming back to the room to explore

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

what happened within him. And the female student was faced with the very common practice dilemma of whether and how to reach out to a client in a vulnerable moment. This is not unlike what often occurs in professional encounters between the social worker and the client. As clients reveal themselves, they may feel unsafe and wonder whether the practitioner can accept and handle their stories. Hopefully, empathetic and attuned encounters with the practitioner will provide them with the safety net they need to bravely enter back into the treatment relationship and show up for the next session (Jordan 2010).

Diversity and Vulnerability

This student’s revelations provided the entire class with deep insights into the topic of vulnerability: how the practitioner or student’s experiences with vulnerability may offer insights into what it’s like to be a client reaching out for help as well as how both client and practitioner vulnerability surfaces in transference-countertransference responses and therefore becomes critical to process of treatment. A crucial issue sur- rounding the topic of vulnerability is actual or perceived power differentials based on racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, age, religious or other differences among individuals (Stam- pley and Slaght 2004). While biases based on any of the above stated differences are implicit in every encounter, it is difficult to discern to what extent they influenced the class- room scenarios explored in this paper. At this point, it is significant to identify the instructor as a white, middle class female in her forties who often wondered how her social identity influenced perceptions and interactions within this classroom context. The instructor also often wondered about the African American male student’s subjective experience of his younger, white female classmate, especially before he abruptly left the room following his classmate’s inquiry into his personal life. The instructor was curious to know whether the female student consciously considered the gender, age, and racial differences between herself and her friend when she left the classroom to find him. What did she ask? How did their cultural, age and gender differences influence this encounter? And, how did the diversity within the classroom context as a whole inform all three of the encounters dis- cussed in this paper?

To this last question, the instructor knew the obvious- this was a diverse classroom environment: two-thirds stu- dents of color, ages ranging from young adulthood to middle adulthood, several first-generation college students, vary- ing religious, cultural and political belief systems, as well as several students identifying as veterans and/or growing up in military families. This was also a seemingly cohesive group of graduate students who consistently demonstrated care and respect for one another. The instructor could only surmise that the rich diversity of this group contributed to

increased openness, self-awareness and professional growth among participants, including the instructor (Harris 1997). What the instructor will never know is how and to what degree myriad cultural differences impacted the immediate outcomes of these disclosures. It is impossible to fully grasp the influence of actual and/or perceived difference within helping relationships, leaving some to argue that awareness, naivete and curiosity may be the most fundamental stance a practitioner can take (Dyche and Zayas 1995). As is the case in social work practice, whether or not differences are explicitly discussed, they are always present and always informing the process of practice (Kurland 2008; Proctor and Davis 1994; Stampley and Slaght 2004).

Areas for Further Study

With regard to approaching SSD through a relational lens, empirical research is especially challenging given that such a lens prioritizes the highly contextual, here and now nature of interpersonal encounters. Nevertheless, due to the pau- city of research related to SSD, it is important to identify possible areas of empirical investigation into the issue. To this point, inquiry into how to most effectively teach stu- dents about self-disclosure is recommended (Knight 2014). This can be achieved by examining the components of social work education (i.e. course curriculum, classroom engage- ment/interaction, teaching methods, field seminar/supervi- sion, etc.) that most contribute to students’ knowledge and appropriate use of self-disclosure. It is also important to ascertain how new students, graduating students and new professionals define and use self-disclosure in their work. Additionally, further qualitative study focused on students’ learning experiences within relationally-informed classroom settings is key to examining the value of relational pedagogy for social work education. More specifically, the value of classroom interaction, engagement and discussion in sup- porting students’ understanding of self-disclosure can be explored through a variety of empirical methodology.

Conclusion

Self-disclosure is a highly nuanced practice issue that often perplexes even the most talented and skilled social work professionals. Yet, attention to its impact within clinical encounters is paramount to relationally-informed prac- tice. And, because social work education prioritizes self- awareness as a means to professional growth, punctuating and carefully navigating SSDs within the classroom setting is pivotal to supporting the development of relationally- informed practitioners. The classroom milieu, often plentiful with complex interactions and perceptions, is a ripe practice

Clinical Social Work Journal

1 3

ground for discovering the benefits, pitfalls, and value of practitioner self-disclosures. Classroom encounters offer ample opportunities through which to explore and under- stand transference-countertransference, self-other bounda- ries and vulnerability within client-practitioner encounters. The vignettes in this paper serve as concrete examples of using here and now classroom interactions to fuel student understanding about a complicated social work practice issue. The analysis of these interactions begin to attend to a gap in the literature regarding how to prepare students for navigating the complexities of self-disclosure, an issue that impacts both the process of social work practice and edu- cation. This exploration also further illuminates the value and meaning of relational theory as a social work teaching pedagogy. Some practice issues are always present, always impactful yet often evade didactic instruction. They must be experienced and felt within the context of relationship in order to be understood.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The author declares that the author has no conflict of interest.

References

Applegate, J. S. (2004). Full circle: Returning psychoanalytic theory to social work education. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 11(1), 23–36.

Berzoff, J. (2011). Why we need a biopsychosocial perspective with vulnerable, oppressed, and at-risk clients. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 81(1), 132–166.

Booth, M. (2012). Boundaries and student self-disclosure in authentic, integrated learning activities and assignments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 131, 5–14.

Borden, W. (2000). The relational paradigm in contemporary psychoa- nalysis: Toward a psychodynamically informed social work per- spective. Social Service Review, 74(3), 352–379.

Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs. Alexandria, VA: CSWE.

Dean, R. G. (2010). Teaching contemporary psychodynamic theory for contemporary social work practice. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 73(1), 11–27.

Dewane, C. (2006). Use of self: A primer revisited. Clinical Social Work Journal, 34(4), 543–558.

Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. (1995). The value of curiosity and naivete for the cross-cultural psychotherapist. Family Practice, 34(1), 389–399.

Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of critical reflection: ‘Nothing ventured, nothing gained’. Social Work Education, 26(5), 520–533.

Ganzer, C., & Ornstein, E. D. (1999). Beyond parallel process: Rela- tional perspectives on field instruction. Clinical Social Work Jour- nal, 27(3), 231–246.

Gibson, M. (2012). Opening up: Therapist self-disclosure in theory, research, and practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40, 287–296.

Goldstein, E. (1994). Self-disclosure in treatment: What therapists do and don’t talk about. Clinical Social Work Journal, 22(4), 417–433.

Harris, M. S. (1997). Developing self-awareness/racial identity with graduate social work students. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 67(3), 587–607.

Jordan, J. (2010). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: Ameri- can Psychological Association.

Knight, C. (2012). Social workers’ attitudes towards and engagement in self-disclosure. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(1), 297–306.

Knight, C. (2014). Students’ attitudes toward engagement in self-dis- closure: Implications for supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 33(1), 163–181.

Kurland, R. (2008). Racial difference and human commonality: The worker-client relationship. Social Work with Groups, 25(1), 113–118.

Maroda, K. J. (1999). Creating an intersubjective context for self-dis- closure. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 69(2), 474–489.

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, moti- vation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.

Mishna, F., & Rasmussen, B. (2001). The learning relationship: Work- ing through disjunctions in the classroom. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29(4), 387–399.

Newman, P. A., Bogo, M., & Daley, A. (2008). Self-disclosure of sexual orientation in social work field education: Field instructor and lesbian and gay student perspectives. The Clinical Supervisor, 27(2), 215–237.

Orange, D. (1995). Emotional understanding: Studies in psychoanalytic epistemology. New York: The Guilford Press.

Proctor, E. K., & Davis, L. E. (1994). The challenge of racial differ- ence: Skills for clinical practice. Social Work, 39(3), 314–323.

Raines, J. C. (1996). Self-disclosure in clinical social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 24(4), 357–374.

Rasmussen, B., & Mishna, F. (2003). The relevance of contemporary psychodynamic theories to teaching social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(1), 31–47.

Rasmussen, B., & Mishna, F. (2008). A fine balance: Instructor self- disclosure in the classroom. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(1/2), 191–207.

Schore, J. R., & Schore, A. N. (2008). Modern attachment theory: The central role of affect regulation in development and treatment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 9–20.

Stampley, C., & Slaght, E. (2004). Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(2), 333–347.

Tosone, C. (2004). Relational social work: Honoring the tradition. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(3), 475–487.

Urdang, E. (2010). Awareness of Self: A critical tool. Social Work Education, 29(5), 523–538.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Pam Szczygiel DSW, LICSW is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Bridgewater State University where she teaches field, practice and clinical courses in the MSW program. She maintains a small private practice and serves as a Resiliency Volunteer with the American Red Cross Services to the Armed Forces Division.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Desktop/Walden University/2021/1 SOCW 6101/Week 2/SMART_goals_6.22.17.pdf