Field Supervision Discussions Featuring Religion and Spirituality

Background and Purpose: Social workers are expected to consider all aspects of client diversity in social work treatment, including religion and spirituality (RS). Field placement is considered the signature pedagogy of social work education, yet very few studies examine the training field students receive. This presentation explores whether students encounter RS in their field placement, what conversations (if any) occur between field supervisors and their students regarding RS, and how students prefer to discuss RS with supervisors.

Methods: BSW and MSW students were recruited via purposive sampling of programs across the state of Pennsylvania. Students were eligible to participate in a survey and additional follow-up interview if they completed at least one field placement. Students were primarily recruited through email advertisements with survey links sent by school administrators. Students were directed to a separate survey if they were interested in a follow-up interview.

Results: Ninety-one respondents were included in the final survey. Approximately half of respondents stated they never or almost never discuss religion (n=47) or spirituality (n=48) with their supervisors. 41.7% (n=38) of respondents either discuss religion or spirituality rarely or sometimes. Less than 7% of students indicate they discuss religion (n=6) and spirituality (n=4) either “often” or “always.” Students have various preferences: 23% (n=20) prefer the field instructor initiate RS conversations, 45% (n=39) prefer to initiate the conversations themselves, 21% (n=18) want to bring up concerns or issues via reflective journaling and 10.5% (n=9) typed individualized responses. Respondent demographics and information about the types of field placements represented in this survey will also be reported in the presentation.

Thirty respondents were recruited for follow-up interviews. Respondents worked in various areas of the field including child welfare, drug and alcohol, clinical mental health, medical, community organizing and multi-service community agencies. Approximately one third of participants mentioned RS emerged in client assessments (n=11). Some respondents also noted that RS integration was integrated as part of treatment or was part of resource referrals. RS emerged as part of agency or client culture in both faith-based and non-faith-based settings. Depending on the situation, RS could be either a client strength or a contributing factor to the presenting issue: 53% of participants (n=16) mentioned RS came up in discussions with field supervisors related to client issues, 33% (n=10) of the participants mentioned it was related to specific client issues whereas 20% (n=6) mentioned RS came up regarding service to clients more broadly. Six participants (20%) mentioned that RS conversations were linked to ethical social work practice. Only five participants (17%) mentioned that their field supervisor initiated conversations about RS in supervision whereas 16 participants (53%) indicated they brought up topics related to RS. Three participants (10%) indicated the subject came up interchangeably between students and field instructors. Representative quotes will be presented.

Conclusion and Implications: Students have varied experiences with both with RS in field placement and in supervision discussions. Considering student preferences, research and policy will be proposed to address disparities in RS field placement instruction and facilitate RS conversations in supervision.