Research on the relationship between supervisor and social work interns in China: A Shanghai case study

Abstract

This study examines the supervisor–intern relationship within social work practices in Shanghai. Recorded conversations between interns and field supervisors were analyzed using qualitative research methods to determine the key characteristics of the supervisory relationship and the factors that shape them. In a supervisory relationship, both parties co-establish a ‘win-win’, ‘casual’, and ‘tactful’ connection that not only has profound cultural effects, but is also affected by the current professional development of social work in China. Since social work supervision is a newly emerging practice in China, the findings of this analysis are pioneering and are discussed in relation to the future development of supervision in China.

Keywords

China practice field social work supervision relationship

Introduction

Social work supervisors are responsible for monitoring and guiding interns to become effective professional practitioners. Supervision is a key feature of professional social work that distinguishes it from being simply an avocation. The training of professional social work interns involves assignment of a professional supervisor who is responsible for creating a distinct supervisory relationship with their interns. These relationships are important to identify professional values, social work knowledge, and ethical action for social work practice (Ding, 2012; Tsui, 2005).

The dominant paradigm influencing social work education in China¹ over the last 30 years has come from Western countries. This influence has sparked the rapid development of social work in China, as well as the need for an indigenous model of supervision. The accumulation of varied local experiences is thus critical as an emergent indigenous form of social work knowledge. In this rapid development, social work supervisors hold primary responsibility for guiding student interns. The supervisors also represent the first generation of senior social workers in China. Despite their lack of formal academic training and professional degrees, these supervisors have practical wisdom gained from years of serving clients (An, 2009; An and Chapman, 2014). At the same time, the number of students in China majoring in social work has been rapidly increasing. In 2000, China had 27 Bachelor-level social work programs (BSW). This number had increased to 326 by the end of 2015. In 2009, China had 33 Masters-level programs (MSW), which had increased to 104 by the end of 2015. And in 2016, five universities offered PhD programs (Canadian Association for Social Work Education [CASWE], 2016; Pan, 2013; Wu et al., 2016; Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2008).

Over 5000 students were admitted to the 104 universities offering the MSW degree in 2015. The students were assigned Western-published textbooks to gain knowledge and insight into social work. As with most social work students, they lacked any real practical experience of working with clients and the hope was to supplement the textbook learning with internships, or field education (Liu, 2010). Supervision – between a seasoned social work professional and an intern – is critical to social work education. The supervisory relationship thus begins the moment the supervisor and intern meet. The relationship is important for both parties to communicate their understanding of practice, as well as personal perspectives they bring to the relationship. The purpose of this study is to investigate how this relationship develops within the context of social work in China, to understand the dynamics and characteristics shaping its development, and to articulate a foundation of practice for future professional development.

The study was conducted in Shanghai between February and December of 2013. The study was a research collaboration between South University and Heart Social Welfare Agency for the Elderly (both pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of participants). The selection of Shanghai is significant because it is considered China’s premier city in terms of finance, trade, and social development. Since the economic reforms of the 1980s, China’s central government has invested heavily in Shanghai with significant social welfare benefits. Shanghai offers unique and ample resources for social welfare experimentation and innovation with regard to social work. It was also one of the first cities in China to provide social work education, agencies, and practitioners.

Summary of the literature on the supervisory relationship

The literature on social work supervision in China is scant due to its brief history. Despite its brevity, supervision is an essential ingredient of professional development, which underscores the importance of this study. Supervision and social work practice share similar histories (Wieringa, 1990). In the West, social work practice grew out of the need for charity relief workers to receive formal and systemic training, including the transfer of knowledge and skills through professional supervision acquired in structured field experience (Burns, 1958; Harkness, 1995). The concept of field supervision is for supervisors and supervisees to work and explore resources collaboratively, with the goal of making decisions involving the best interests of their service targets (Munson, 2002; Shulman, 2005). The idea is that through mutual communication, supervisors provide their supervisees guided learning opportunities to improve their service delivery skills (Caras and Sandu, 2014). Field supervision offers supervisees the incentive to learn and refine new professional skills from their supervisor (Caras and Sandu, 2014; Fox, 1989).

Many Western studies have proposed different definitions of the supervisory relationship. Shulman (1991, 1993) defined the supervisory relationship as the core shaping the mutual interaction between supervisors and supervisees. He considered a positive working relationship to be the medium that influenced the impact of supervision. Tebes et al. (2010) perceived supervision as a supportive professional relationship in which an individual is responsible for guiding the work and life of another individual. They also emphasized the special authority of a supervisory relationship, in which one individual has the authority and responsibility for the professional development of another. Kadushin (1976) identified control as the most fundamental element of supervision, meaning it involves delivering clear expectations to supervisees, evaluating their performance, and helping them satisfy the standards of various institutions. According to Holloway (1994), the supervisory relationship is a learning union that provides individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge for their major area of interest. And finally, Williams (1997) considered study, individual growth, and sympathy to be the basis for establishing the supervisory relationship. Researchers have focused on the supervisory relationship because of its positive and negative influences on supervisees. For example, the relationship affects the happiness and vocational career of supervisees, as well as their feelings toward specific events (Chiller and Crisp, 2012) such as career planning and individual development (Caras and Sandu, 2014; Heckman-Stone, 2003; Kadushin, 1976). These Western perspectives on supervision are important, but are culture-bound and not necessarily universal, especially in relation to Chinese society and cultural context.

The history of social work in China is relatively short compared to Western countries. Social work was first introduced into China by Western academics in the 1920s. The foreign practice gained traction at Chinese universities in their sociology departments; however, a solid foundation did not emerge until the late 1980s (Chau and Liu, 2001). At this time, serious and extensive social problems challenged the central government, forcing social policy planners to reconsider the role of professional social work as a viable solution. Since the 1980s, the central government has promoted social work to address the nation’s problems. The result has been rapid development and expansion of social work education throughout China. By 2004, the central government had proposed to ‘build the great social work talent team’, and in 2008, a national examination for licensing social workers was introduced into law. In 2010, the ‘national medium and long-term talent development plan outline (2010–2020)’ stated as an objective the training of two million professional social workers by 2015, and three million by 2020. For the first time, social work knowledge and skills were valued in China, as well as viewing social work as a profession in positive terms (Zeng et al., 2015).

China’s rapid development of social work education unintentionally created uneven growth in professional social work practice, and in particular, field supervision. Supervision is a basic area of social work practice that demands special qualities and competencies. For China, supervision raises foundational questions on the role of culture in shaping indigenous practice: How is supervision in China different from that in other countries? What does supervision look like in China? How might Chinese social and cultural norms influence supervision? Is there a unique Chinese style of supervision? To address these questions, and others, researchers have focused on several supervisors’ training models, namely the Disciple Model, the Apprentice Model, and the Empowerment Model. Analysis of these models includes the use of self-reflection, identification of social work values, and other paths, in order to become a qualified social work supervisor (Liu and Shen, 2006; Qi and Shen, 2012; Yan, 2013; Yao, 2010; Zhang and Wei, 2011).

As mentioned earlier, the supervisory relationship commences when the supervisee and the supervisor first meet. Establishing rapport and developing a positive working alliance are keys to any successful relationship. Some researchers have proposed developing this type of supervisory relationship as indigenous to China. For example, Tong (2006) argues that the function of supervisors in China is fundamentally different than in developed countries. The reason is that clients are culturally unfamiliar with the notion of professional service and are not motivated to accept services. Supervisors are thus placed in the unexpected position of needing to explain to supervisees how to transform clients’ daily needs into professional services. This involves designing services that are personal, culturally appropriate, and highly effective.

The supervisor–supervisee relationship is indeed important, but not the only factor to consider for an indigenous supervisory model for China. The unique bond that matches local practices with task completion is also important to consider. Yao (2010) proposed including theories of critical pedagogy and empowerment, of the rights of supervisees, and of a democratic supervisory relationship for China. Gu (2012) proposed classifying the rights and obligations of both parties and argued that the supervisory relationship could be divided into four phases, each with distinct characteristics: first, both parties form their expectations and reach an agreement during the establishment of a supervisory relationship; second, social workers rely on their supervisors, adjust their focus, and input their resources; third, both parties cooperate and agree with one another and then initiate development; and fourth, the supervisees work independently, evaluate their influence, and then end the supervisory relationship.

The supervisory relationship in China differs significantly from Western countries because of its unique history and cultural context. Most studies on supervision are theoretical and emphasize a macro-level explanation of the supervisory relationship. In addition, the few micro-level studies only answer narrow questions on the definition and formation of the supervisory relationship. Alternatively, Xie (2015) provides a qualitative approach to describe the correspondence between supervisor and supervisee. This approach is significant because it takes into account the different time periods of supervision and the effect of correspondence on supervision. Xie points out that the relationship denotes mutual effect and influence under specific conditions. For example, if the supervisory relationship does not involve any background practice experiences, then such a relationship cannot reflect the specialty and authenticity of social work.

This study responds to the paucity of research on social work supervision in China by offering a ground-breaking exploratory analysis of the experience of social work interns. It is a unique study in highlighting the interns’ perspective on supervision, with particular attention given to cultural and professional factors.

Research questions

This study examines the relationship between social work supervisors and supervisees in Shanghai by asking three questions: (1) How did the supervisor–supervisee relation form and develop over time? (2) What factors influenced this relationship? (3) What are the implications for future development of supervisory relationships in China? These questions are important to understand indigenous practice of supervision in China in that they recognize the role culture plays in the supervisor–supervisee relationship. Although a Western framework was instrumental when professional social work was re-introduced in the 1990s, the view taken here is that the Western style of supervision was facilitative rather than normative. An exploratory study is thus critical to identify relevant factors and features to validate an indigenous Chinese model of supervision.

In this study, the research questions and selection of participants were designed by and for the Chinese context. The goal is to produce valid evidence and reliable claims regarding Chinese supervision. A small case study was used to start a discussion on supervision. The intent here is not to assert claims for generalized inferences to the whole of China.

Research method

This study was part of a larger scale project to improve the disciplinary competence of MSW students. The project spanned more than 3 years, focusing on the cognition, emotions, and learning outcomes of social work interns. Data were collected from individual interviews, video recordings, and relevant documents. This particular study was conducted in Shanghai at the Heart Social Welfare Agency for the Elderly, between February and December 2013. The agency was selected because it had employed social workers for approximately 10 years – a historical novelty given the recent re-introduction of social work into China. Research participants included supervisor ‘O’, a social work professional with a Master’s degree in Public Administration, who majored in social work at a specialist college. ‘O’ has also been engaged in social work for over 10 years. Other participants included three interns: ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’, each pursuing the MSW at South University in Shanghai. The interns received their field training at the Heart agency during their second and third semesters. The supervisory relationship between ‘O’ and the three interns was tracked and analyzed with the full consent of all parties involved.

In 2013, China did not have policies on the protection of human subjects involved in social science research. Despite the lack of a policy, informed consent was still obtained from all participants. The consent included a clear articulation regarding the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary, and the assurance that they could withdraw at any time during the research. All participants signed the informed consent form, agreed to share their journals for review, and gave permission to be audio-recorded during meetings and interviews. Subjects did not receive any monetary compensation for their participation.

The study spanned over 10 months with audio-recorded conversations between the supervisor and the interns. In addition, data were collected on the following activities: (1) group and individual supervisory meetings (15 meetings for a total of 20 hours), (2) audio-recordings of conversations among the interns (15 conversations for a total of 7.5 hours), (3) written records of the interns’ daily agency activities (a total of 80 pages), (4) written records of the seven interns in other agencies in 2013 (a total of 14 pages), and (5) written records of six interns in the same agency in 2016 (a total of eight pages). Data were also collected on university supervisors and interns, although the findings are discussed in another paper (An et al., 2017). The conversations recorded for this study explored the unequal relationships among the agency, university, and students regarding an institutional perspective. All audio-recordings were transcribed by a student intern, a native Chinese speaker who was not affiliated with this study. Non-verbal behaviors of participants were also noted, for example tone of voice and conversation mood. All transcripts were analyzed by the author and a social work student.

The research took a qualitative approach to defining and analyzing the supervisory relationship. Categorization analysis was used to identify repetitive phenomenon and relevant concepts (Chen, 2000). The first step of categorization analysis involved an open-coding approach to identify the meaning of concepts and their local application. The second step involved a constant comparative procedure to identify any emergent themes. And third, the data were re-analyzed in relation to the emergent themes. The analytical process allows new category relationships to emerge, namely identification and establishment of situational connections. Finally, after all the categories were systematically analyzed, the key category of the supervisory relationship was identified (see Table 1).

Table 1.

The coding scheme.

Situation		Content analysis				Deduction
Situation		Raw data Local concept	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Relationship development	Character	Theory
Social work practice	Beginning of practice	Win–win Together Interest-sharing Co-operation One team Both beneficial	Program and dissertation	Initial connection Resource-sharing	Win–win	Positioning	High professionality and strong relationship	Have professionality in mind but not taking action Culture dominates the relationship
	Middle of practice	Initiative Autonomy Thoughtful (You xinre) Mindful Conscientious Action-taking	Practice assignment	Active Subject to arrangements	Democracy and authority	Defining	Uncertain professionality and strong relationship
				However you do it	Casual	Feeling
		Casual (Suiyi) Whatever (Suibian) Just ok It doesn’t matter
	End of practice	Tactful (Shixiang)SensibleDon’t make troubleDon’t get stuckNot too seriousDon’t careNot necessary	Close and evaluation	Don’t be a troublemakerComplaining in private	Tactful	Maintaining	Low professionality and strong relationship

Results

Four themes emerged from the categorization analysis on the current state of relationships between supervisors and interns. The themes are discussed in the following and also included are verbatim comments from the transcripts.

Theme 1 – Positioning the supervisory relationship: ‘Win–win’ (Shuangying)

Upon entering the field agency for the first time, the interns met with their supervisor and agreed to follow internship procedures. In this meeting, and subsequent communications, the supervisor emphasized that the relationship between supervisor and supervisee required full cooperation, that is, ‘learning from each other’, ‘shared interests’, and a ‘win–win’ cooperation:

Transcript: C’s topic (social work administration), I also have a research project on volunteers, using surveys, and according to the results from surveys I can forward some suggestions on management.

MSW candidates in China are required to write a 30,000-word final paper to obtain their degree. Social work supervisors were also required to complete a research program that was assigned by the institution, the aim of which was to encourage the practical aspect of social work professionalization. By working together to achieve these requirements, supervisors and interns established a cooperative relationship with shared benefits. In a ‘win–win’ cooperation, the supervisor expects the interns to demonstrate a high level of professionalism and appropriate personality traits. The supervisor might typically make assignments that include administrative and writing tasks beyond the competency level of interns. The interns also have their own expectations of the supervisor, a somewhat ideal expectation that originates from textbooks. If and when significant differences existed between expectations and reality, both parties would feel disappointed.

Theme 2 – Defining the supervisory relationship: Uncertainty between democracy and authority

Given the intention of interns is to learn from their internship, they generally regard their supervisors as teachers. However, supervisors emphasize that interns should be treated as equals. For example, interns called their supervisor ‘teacher’ during their first meeting and the supervisor corrected them immediately: ‘Please call me by my name without adding the word “teacher”’. The interns complied, explaining that ‘if not, then we would seem like strangers’ and ‘others call the supervisor by his name, so I do it as well’.

Shared responsibilities were stressed by the supervisors with their interns: ‘aside from finishing your internship tasks, you should act as the principal speaker during our meetings instead of expecting me to do the talking’. Students were expected to improve their ‘subjectivity’ and ‘initiative’ to establish a democratic relationship between themselves and their supervisors. However, if they wanted to hold democratic discussions, then the supervisor controlled the entire conversation with absolute authority. For example, during one supervisory meeting involving a free medical consultation, the interns designed an assessment tool and discussed these tasks with them:

Transcript:

Supervisor:

If we carry out some activity later, you need to know what the expectations of the seniors are. It could be divided into a few parts for evaluation to see which part met their expectation, and which part should be improved. All these themes will need to be assessed. It’s not good to cut corners. The survey you did was not detailed enough, all you wrote were just key words . . .

Intern A:

It’s only our first time . . . (interrupt)

Supervisor:

Even so, you’re the MSW!

Intern B:

We are planning to . . . (interrupt)

Supervisor B:

Don’t make excuses. You will have to do it just as the case work recording. Just go and do it!

In the above dialogue, Interns A and B do not have the opportunity to explain their ideas. The supervisor holds complete authority during this interaction, disrupts the intern during the discussion, and causes the intern to worry about being criticized by the supervisor in future phases of the internship. Consequently, the intern may keep her ideas to herself in future meetings. Vacillating between democracy and authority did not encourage the interns, nor did it help them view future assignments positively.

Theme 3 – Feelings about the supervisory relationship: ‘Casual’ ( suibian )

The rights and responsibilities of supervisors and interns are established at their first meeting. The supervisor distributes a form to be completed by the interns, and in turn, interns ask the agency supervisor, ‘How do we fill out this form? Is there an example?’. However, the supervisor shakes his head and says, ‘You can fill it in however you want’. He even said twice, ‘however you want’.

The phrase ‘however you want’ (suibian in Chinese) indicates a relaxed attitude of the supervisor toward professional authority. This phrase is frequently used among friends as an informal expression. When the supervisor says ‘however you want’, the interns view the form as only part of the procedure and change their attitude toward the internship and relationship with the supervisor. As one intern said, ‘I cannot take this internship seriously and I only have a casual relationship with my supervisor’. Such casualness can drive some interns to negotiate with their supervisors. One of the interns said, ‘If the task is arranged by school teachers, then we will strictly observe the rules and will not make any negotiation. However, if a task is arranged by the supervisor, then things will be different’ (Intern A).

Theme 4 – Maintaining the supervisory relationship: ‘Be tactful’ (shixiang)

If a disagreement emerged between interns and the supervisor, both parties were ‘tactful’ and sought to continue their harmonious relationship because of a reluctance to exacerbate the situation. When interns received a complaint from their clients about a nursing staff member, they asked their supervisor whether they needed to communicate directly with the person involved. Interestingly, the supervisor implicitly guided them not to do so by sharing information about the client, commenting, ‘she always thinks that the nursing personnel do not treat her well’. Unfortunately, the weak response and avoidance did not adequately address the dilemma of the interns. A private communication among the interns went as follows:

Intern A:

I wonder why, whenever a disagreement occurs between clients and the other personnel in the institution, we cannot solve their problems.

Intern B:

Yes! I think relationships among the departments of this institution are complicated. When the problem is related to the nursing department and the doctors, no solution will be found.

Intern C:

You are right! I frequently think that these problems should be solved urgently. However, the social work department appears to have minimal power in the institution. If we need the cooperation of other departments, we must report the problem level by level, which is highly complicated.

Intern A:

After all, we are just interns here and will leave the institution eventually. I do not want to cause conflicts between the social work department and the other departments. If the supervisor cannot solve these conflicts, then neither can we. We must be tactful and try to avoid these problems.

As a traditional Chinese code of conduct, being tactful (shixiang) refers to handling matters according to the willingness of others, instead of solving the problem based on rules or the willingness of individuals.

Discussion

A 10-month tracking method was used to provide a window into the development of social work in China. As an exploratory study, this method provided case-specific data only and is not intended as a generalized inference or representation of social work supervision in China. The case study findings described here illustrate the relationship between a supervisor and supervisee in relation to two important supervisory features: culture and professional practice. The following discussion is a reflection on the findings with the aim of deepening an indigenous understanding of the supervisory relationship in China.

The impact of culture on the supervision relationship

Supervision is not only a type of professional relationship, but a type of interpersonal relationship as well. Chinese culture has many traditional rules and rituals governing interpersonal relationships, for example harmony is precious, be wise, reciprocity in relationships. Although traditional values are becoming weaker in the current generation of social work interns, values still play an important role and the traditional code of conduct remains a ‘compulsory course’ for every intern entering society. As the interaction between interns and supervisors increases, interpersonal relationships are a natural and important factor in developing a professional relationship. For example, the ‘win–win’ strategy between the supervisor and the interns is emphasized. The supervisor naturally regards the interns as ‘one of us’. Given the casual relationship between the interns and the supervisors, a win–win union can encourage interns to accept an equal relationship and be obedient under the authority of their supervisor. When a disagreement occurs between interns and supervisors, they will maintain a harmonious and stable relationship by tactfully overcoming these problems. In Chinese culture, the supervisory relationships naturally evolve into a type of human relationship based on reaching targets and profits, avoiding conflicts, and sustaining harmonious relationships. This is evident in the form of the ‘however you want’ (Suiyi in Chinese) relationship that emerged at the end of the placement when the interns did not get what they expected from the professional development. They complained in private that the supervisor was unresponsive, but did not share their feelings openly. Instead, they were passive and tactful (shixiang) in order to maintain a harmonious relationship with the supervisor.

The data suggest a relevant influence of professional development on the supervisory relationship in terms of Chinese culture.

The current developmental stage of social work in China is an important factor that affects the supervisory relationship in practice. During the initial phase of establishing a supervisory relationship, the supervisor places more emphasis on the personality and knowledge of the interns, while the interns have an expectation of the supervisor as a professional role model. In this case study, both parties expect the other party to demonstrate proficiency and professional knowledge. Since social work in China is still in its early stages, these expectations created uncertainty regarding clear roles and rules, all of which underscore the need for an indigenous understanding of professional development and supervision. Both parties hope that they can behave professionally, yet are unsure of their own performance; they expect the other party to act as professionals while assuming they are already. Interestingly, neither has agreed on a common definition of ‘professionalization’. When interns enter the field of practice, most of their knowledge has come from Western social work textbooks. Although knowledge can be applied to cross-cultural situations, social work knowledge in particular is not easily applied to Chinese service targets because such knowledge has not been contextualized or critically evaluated. By and large, Western social work has been uncritically accepted. Supervisors have also accumulated their practice knowledge based on previous work. Such knowledge is valid, although it is situational, tacit, and difficult to pass on to interns in a systematic way. Both the supervisor (practical knowledge user) and the interns (carriers of textbook knowledge) have their own types of ‘professional’ knowledge that need to be made explicit and expressed for mutual benefit. When the supervisor interacts with the intern, the practical knowledge of the former is combined with the classroom knowledge of the latter to establish an actual ‘win–win’ situation. However, the supervisor does not reflect on and improve his or her own practical knowledge, but evaluates himself or herself according to ‘professional knowledge’ from the Western-based textbooks. Supervisors worry about behaving unprofessionally in front of the interns, and interns worry about their limited work experience. Interns do not know how to apply their textbook knowledge in practice and doubt whether they have effectively acquired adequate professional knowledge. In this case study the supervisor was not able to systematically arrange his practical experience for the benefit of the intern, and the interns doubted the value of their textbook knowledge. As a result, the internship opportunity was not able to capitalize on a win–win situation because of high expectations and pressure self-imposed by both parties. These unspoken expectations created an impasse that negatively affected the relationships and the communication of professional knowledge.

Guaranteeing a professional supervisory relationship

Professional social work practice in China differs from developed countries in that China has a limited number of professional social service organizations but many quasi social service institutions (Ma, 1996). Professional practice at these institutions is unfortunately limited, making the internship experience less satisfactory for social workers. In addition, social work identity in China is young and still defining itself. Students of social work who enter the field find themselves as passive professionals (Tong, 2007). Under these circumstances, the current supervisory relationship is precarious and in need of development. For example, an awareness of practice knowledge is required to enhance professional confidence. Indigenous social work in China involves having not only an international perspective but also knowledge of local practices as the chief criterion (Wang, 2010). Practical experience is an important part of this system, and supervisors must be confident of their own practice knowledge to gauge improvement. From this framework, social work knowledge will emerge in China based on indigenous practices.

Finally, applying classroom experiences to agency practice is an important element of professional development. Interns depend on their supervisors to role-model best practices and assume they will do so (Sharlin and Chaiklin, 1998). In order to effectively develop social work in China, it will be critical for individuals to apply the lessons and experiences learned from other countries as examples for interns to analyze (Wong, 2007). Agency supervisors are also encouraged to continue to learn and to cultivate critical-thinking to improve how they communicate with their interns.

Limitations of the research

The supervisory relationship in this study only partially reflects the current state of social work in China. The research data reflect the perspective of interns. Although they are the most significant witnesses of professional development (Smith and Morrison, 2006), the field supervisor’s perspective was not considered in this study, leaving open the charge of intern bias to slant the objectivity of this research.

An advantage of the case study method applied in this research is that it enabled detailed exploration and description of this supervision as an emerging topic in China (Flyvbjerg, 2006). However, case study is also limiting in that the results cannot easily be extrapolated to other areas; the findings here are unique and particular to Shanghai. It does, however, offer a focused look at supervision in China’s rapidly developing social work sector. Without additional extensive and systematic data collection, it cannot be known more definitively to what extent this case study accurately reflects current supervision across China. Indeed, this case study demonstrates ‘what’ the supervisory relationship is and ‘how’ it forms and changes, as well as identifying the significant factors that shape this relationship. The identification of the results and the use of grounded theory guarantee its internal validity.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This project was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number 17BSH118.

Notes

Author biographies

Qiuling An, PhD, is an associate professor at Department of social work, School of Social Development, East China Normal University. Qiuling’s research interests include social work practice, and the professional development of social worker in China.

Peter Szto is a Professor of Social Work at the Grace Abbott School of Social Work (GASSW), the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He has been teaching policy analysis courses and bringing students to China at GASSW since 2004. His main research interests include social welfare development in China, documentary photography as a tool of social research, and dialogue between theology and social work.

References

Q.L.

(2009) ‘The Interview Research on Social Worker’s Practice’, Journal of East China University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition) 24: 27–32.

Q.L.

Chapman

V.M.

(2014) ‘The Early Professional Experience of a New Social Worker in China’, Journal of Social Work Education 50: 322–33.

Q.L.

Chapman

M.V.

(2017) ‘Culture and Context in Chinese Field Supervision: A Case Study from Shanghai’, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development 27: 13–27.

Burns

E.M.

(1958) ‘Priorities for Public Welfare’, Social Work 3: 38–44.

Caras

Sandu

(2014) ‘The Role of Supervision in Professional Development of Social Work Specialists’, Journal of Social Work Practice 28: 75–94.

Chua

Liu

J.T.

(2001) ‘Social Work in China:A hundred-Year Review and Action Agenda for 21st Century’: Proceedings of an International Symposium on Social Work Education in 21st Century, Beijing, China, 23 to 25 August 2001.

Chen

X.M.

(2000) Social Science and Research Method. Beijing: Education Science Press.

Chiller

Crisp

(2012) ‘Professional Supervision: A Workforce Retention Strategy for Social Work’, Australian Social Work 65: 232–42.

Ding

(2012) Critical Reflection and Experiential Learning in Social Work Field Education – Illustrated with the Sun Yat-sen Model (China Social Work Research). Beijing: Social Science Academic Press.

10.

Flyvbjerg

(2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–45.

11.

Fox

(1989) ‘Relationship: The Cornerstone of Clinical Supervision’ Social Casework, 70: 146–52.

12.

J.H.

(2012) ‘The Analysis of the Supervision Relationship in the Localization of Social Work Based on the Supervision Experience of Dongwan’, Social Welfare (Theory Edition) 8: 6–11.

13.

Harkness

(1995) ‘The Art of Helping in Supervised Practice: Skills, Relationships and Outcome’, The Clinical Supervisor 13: 63–76.

14.

Heckman-Stone

(2003) ‘Trainee Preferred for Feedback and Evaluation in Clinical Supervision’, The Clinical Supervisor 22: 21–33.

15.

Holloway

E.L.

(1994) ‘A Bridge of Knowing: The Scholar-Practitioner of Supervision’, Counselling Psychology Quarterly 7: 3–15.

16.

Kadushin

(1976) Supervision in Social Work. New York: Columbia University press.

17.

Liu

B.Z.

Shen

(2006) ‘Reflection of Social Work Supervision: Learning to Be an Effective Social Work Supervisor’, Social Work 9: 35–7.

18.

Liu

S.J.

(2010) ‘The Predicament of Social Work Practice in China and the Suggestions’, Adult Education 3: 18–19.

19.

F.Z.

(1996) ‘The Model of Social Work Teaching and Practice’, Higher Education Forum 1: 56–69.

20.

Munson

C.E.

(2002) Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision, 3rd edn. New York: Hawthorn Press.

21.

Pan

(2013) ‘The Dilemma of Applying Social Work Knowledge into Use: The Issue of Social Work Education and Employment’, China Social Welfare 7: 2–6.

22.

H.D.

Shen

W.W.

(2012) ‘Development Path of Social Work Organization Supervisor’, Journal of Social Work 8: 31–33.

23.

Sharlin

S.A.

Chaiklin

(1998) ‘The Social Work Education Field Experience’, The Clinical Supervisor 17: 1–16.

24.

Shulman

(1991) Interactional Social Work Practice: Toward an Empirical Theory. Bartonville, IL: FE Peacock Publisher.

25.

Shulman

(1993) Teaching the Helping Skills: A Field Instructor’s Guide. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

26.

Shulman

(2005) ‘The Clinical Supervisor-Practitioner Working Alliance: A Parallel Process’, in Shulman

L.S.

Safyer

(eds) Supervision in Counseling: Interdisciplinary Issues and Research, pp. 23–49. New York: Routledge.

27.

Smith

Morrison

(2006) ‘Clinical Clerkships: Students Can Structure their Own Learning’, Medical Education 40: 884–92.

28.

Tebes

J.K.

Matlin

MKanno

Koeske

G.F.

(2010) ‘MSW Students’ Satisfaction with their Field Placements: The Role of Preparedness and Supervision Quality’, Journal of Social Work Education 46: 23–38.

29.

Tong

(2006) ‘The General Context of Professional Social Work Practice and the Role of Social Work Supervisors in Mainland China’, Society 26: 194–204.

30.

Tong

(2007) ‘Reflection on Social Work Field Education in Mainland China: A Journey to Become a Professional Social Work Educator’, Social Work Education 26: 645–8.

31.

Tsui

M.S.

(2005) ‘Functions of Social Work Supervision in Hong Kong’, International Social Work 48: 485–93.

32.

Wang

S.B.

(2010) The China Way of Social Work. Beijing: Peking University Press.

33.

Wieringa

C.F.

(1990) ‘Supervision Development (1860–1950)’, Supervision 18: 36–44.

34.

Williams

A.B.

(1997) ‘On Parallel Process in Social Work Supervision’, Clinical Social Work Journal 25: 425–35.

35.

Wong

Y-C.H.

Pearson

(2007) ‘Mission Possible: Building Social Work Professional Identity Through Fieldwork Placements in China’, Social Work Education 26: 292–310.

36.

Huang

Sun

(2016) ‘Is Social Work Really Being Recognized? Problems with Social Work Employment Opportunities in Mainland China’, Social Work Education 35: 186–203.

37.

Xie

(2015) ‘The Correspondence Between Social Work Supervisor and Supervisee – The Qualitative Research on the Social Work Practice in Guangdong Province’, Social Welfare 3: 47–53.

38.

Yan

(2013) ‘The Research on Social Work Supervision by the En-Power Theory on the Basement of Two Program’, Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities 1: 182–6.

39.

Yao

J.Z.

(2010) ‘The Construction of Social Work Supervision Model in Mainland China – Based on Critical Pedagogy’, Journal of East China University Science and Technology (Social Science Edition) 3: 35–40.

40.

Yuen-Tsang

A.W. K.

Wang

(2008) ‘Revitalization of Social Work in China: The Significance of Human Agency in Institutional Transformation and Structural Change’, China Journal of Social Work 1(1): 5–22.

41.

Zeng

S.Z.

Cheung

Leung

X.S.

(2015) ‘Voices From Social Work Graduates in China: Reasons for Not Choosing Social Work as a Career’, Social Work 61(1): 69–78.

42.

Zhang

L.P.

Wei

X.D.

(2011) ‘A Report on Cultivating Supervision Talents: The Practice of Localization of Social Work in China – Taking Pearl River Delta Area as an Example’, Journal of East China University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition) 26(6): 8–14.