Abstract
Professional training in Psychology in South Africa is focussed extensively on developing the knowledge and skills required for professional practice. However, although attaining the required levels of knowledge and skills is a necessary condition for professionalism, it is not sufficient. Professionalism requires agential action beyond knowledgeable and skilful behaviour. The aim of this study was to explore how and to what extent the practical placements of student psychometrists contributed to the development of professionalism. Using purposive sampling, the portfolios and supervisor reports of 12 students were selected for analysis. A hybrid model of analysis was employed using thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and positioning theory. Thematic analysis confirmed the discursive context as one of knowledge and skill development, which manifested as an expert–novice discourse within the texts. The discourse offered four subject positions, hierarchically related in mentor–mentee and insider–outsider configurations, supporting an apprenticeship model of increased socialisation into professional practice. However, the outsider position warranted a student–client positioning in a democratic relationship that resisted and disrupted the hierarchical relationships of the expert–novice discourse, demonstrating the presence of agential actions characteristic of professionalism. In conclusion, it is argued that such disruptions of mentor–mentee and insider–outsider positioning should be tolerated and accommodated in practical training settings.
Keywords
In South Africa, professional practice in psychology refers to psychologists and, at a second tier, registered counsellors and psychometrists (Pretorius, 2012). The South African socio-cultural context poses challenges in terms of models of professional training, the content of training programmes, and the delivery of equitable services to a diverse population. Various authors have explored the extent to which professional training ensures that relevant services are provided in the case of clinical psychologists (e.g., Pillay et al., 2013), registered counsellors (e.g., Rouillard et al., 2016), and psychometrists (e.g., Van Eeden et al., 2016). Concerns that were identified include the lack of representation in terms of the demographic profile of students and professionals, the lack of availability of services to meet the needs of diverse sectors of the community, and insufficient provision for the relationship between culture and mental health.
A core recommendation from these studies referred to the need to further explore the efficacy of various training models. The efficacy of training models is often operationalised in terms of outcome measures (e.g., successful completion of the training programme, registration with the Board, finding related employment and employment in high-need contexts), which are external determinants of efficacy. Internal determinants of efficacy concern the nature of training processes and their psychological impact on trainees. Understanding such processes is important, especially if training involves the professionalisation of trainees. However, real understanding of these processes is not sought if the nature and impact of training processes are operationalised in terms of trainee competence (i.e., knowledge and skills) without considering trainee psychology (i.e., the development of a professional identity). Professionalism cannot be fully understood in terms of competence.
This research study was based on the premises that the development of professional identity is an active and constructive process, which requires agency (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). This study focussed on the development of professionalism of student psychometrists (a second-tier registration category) in practical training contexts in South Africa. There is limited research regarding training in this registration category (Van Eeden et al., 2016), and none of the published studies have addressed the identity–agency relationship in professional development. The aim of this study was to explore how student psychometrists managed professional development in practical training. Discourses of personal development in terms of knowledge and skills were anticipated, but it was not clear how the development of professional identity would tie into such discourses.
Competence, identity, and agency as elements of professionalism
At South African universities, training in the field of psychological practice involves a combination of input and output models of professional competence. According to Roe (2002), input models are about the academic criteria that should be met to qualify and register as a professional, whereas output models emphasise requirements associated with the roles and functions of psychological practice. Competence with regard to curriculum content is an important aspect of input models. As per the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA; 2019) in the case of psychometrists, these competencies include adequate knowledge and understanding of psychological assessment, and professional and ethical testing practices. The knowledge, skills, and attitudes attained during academic training (the ‘input’) have to be complemented by the development of the competencies required in practice through exposure to a work situation (the ‘output’) (Roe, 2002). During their practical training, student psychometrists are expected to develop instrumental knowledge and skills, communication and interpersonal skills, contingency management skills, and practice management and referral skills (HPCSA, 2019).
However, competence is a necessary but insufficient condition for professionalism. Professionalism entails more than competent action. Elman et al. (2005, p. 368) regard professionalism as ‘the crystallization of a professional identity [as a psychologist]’. They emphasise the need for a training context that supports self-exploration that allows trainees to ‘engage in the reflection, disclosure, and experimentation that presumably foster . . . professionalism’ (p. 371). But actions of experimentation, reflection, and disclosure exceed the narrower definition of competent action, which concerns the ability to perform in terms of given structures and rules. Nkadimeng et al. (2016, p. 407) illustrate the process of transition in their exploration of the experiences of a group of research psychology interns. The interns expressed uncertainty and anxiety in reaction to a perceived lack of sufficient structure and direction at the internship placement. Simultaneously, this situation allowed them the opportunity to act ‘as agents who actively and independently navigated the complex transition to the world of work’. Roe (2002) supports the standardisation of input criteria but indicates that standardising outputs to evaluate the acquired level of expertise potentially impacts ‘the autonomy that is a defining characteristic of a professional’ (p. 194).
To act autonomously is not to act without limits. Autonomy is a characteristic of the professional and as such contained by professionalism. Insofar as professionalism is conceived as a crystallisation of a professional identity (Elman et al., 2005), one has to accept that the facility of acting successfully as a professional (Roe, 2002) is contained by identity. In short, professional identity contains professional agency. But agency also affects identity. Eteläpelto et al. (2013) view the enactment of agency and identity as complementary processes, embedded in the socio-cultural and material conditions of professional practice. The South African context poses unique challenges in terms of the latter. Carolissen et al. (2015) refer to students’ perception that psychology at present lacks relevance in terms of the needs of the majority of the population. Applied training should provide for the educational, social, racial, and gender issues specific to the local context (Bantjes et al., 2016).
Engaging professional practice
Becoming a professional necessarily entails becoming a member of a community of professional practice – moving from non-participation on the outside of the community to full participation in the community. The outsider position is imparted upon students by their institutions of study and governing bodies (in this case the HPCSA). From the time that they enrol for the practicum at the university right up until professional registration with the HPCSA, students are essentially outsiders seeking to fulfil the requirements of the university and the HPCSA to be allowed into the psychometric community of practice and to call themselves and practice as psychometrists.
The process of becoming a member of a community of practice is commonly understood as an exercise in being socialised into the community. Socialisation is ‘the process through which an individual learns to adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms and knowledge needed for membership in a given society, group or organisation’ (Mendoza & Gardner, 2010, p. 19). Socialisation occurs through the observation of established community members in their roles in the community of practice and through the newcomer’s formal and informal experiences with the processes, practices, and values associated with the community. Central to the socialisation of students into any community of practice is the notion of apprenticeship (Duff, 2010). Lave and Wenger (1991) provide a model of apprenticeship that moves beyond linear conceptualisations of socialisation. Learning the ways of a community of practice occurs through co-participation in that community. Learning through apprenticeship locates learning not in the mind of the learner but rather in ‘the evolving relationships between people and the settings in which they conduct their activities’ (Haneda, 2006, p. 808). Hendricks and Cartwright (2018) caution that the effects of contextual variables such as race and culture should be provided for, especially in terms of the supervisor–intern dyad. Learning through peripheral participation suggests that newcomers to a community initially participate on the periphery of the community’s practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Mastery of the knowledge, skills, and practices occurs as newcomers move, centripetally, from the periphery of the community’s activities towards full participation. Throughout this process newcomers become increasingly competent in the ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ in the community.
However, the focus on increased socialisation, participation, and competence ignores a fundamental difficulty, namely that becoming a member of a community of practice is inherently paradoxical. Becoming a member means mastering the ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ that define the community. But such mastering is also an enslavement into the practices of the community (Van Deventer, 2010). Agency – the potential to ‘disturb, interrupt and dislocate existing frames of reference’ (p. 172) – stems from the paradoxical interaction between mastering and enslavement. This interaction, rather than increased competence, is the true foundation of apprenticeship. As argued above, competence is a necessary yet insufficient condition for professionalism. Therefore, references to knowledge and skills development could be anticipated in professional training contexts. There may, however, be little or no talk about aspects of professionalism beyond the development of competence because such talk is less likely to appear in explicit content than to be displayed in the underlying dynamic of speech. In other words, agency is less likely to be talked about and more likely to appear as interruptions that threaten to dislocate existing talk about knowledge and skills development. There needs to be tolerance for disruptive expressions of agency if the development of professionalism beyond competence is taken seriously. It is important to note that tolerance of agential interruption and dislocation is fundamental in professional training and is not merely a function of the level of professional practice. The potential argument that the nature and complexity of professional practice determine the degree of agency required in practice is fallacious because it confuses criteria of professionalism with scope of practice. It is incorrect to suggest that a second-tier professional is less professional at a second tier than a first-tier psychologist is at first-tier practice. There is no reason to expect stricter control of agency at second-tier professional development than would be the case at first-tier level. Therefore, even at second-tier level the question remains: Is professionalism beyond competence in knowledge and skills supported in training contexts, and if so how?
Method
Participants
Participants were selected from the BPsych Equivalence programme for psychometrists offered in the Department of Psychology at a South African university. The programme comprised an academic component, which was followed by practical training in a context that was approved by the university.
Participants were selected for the study using purposive sampling. The purposive sampling of texts offered the potential for acquiring rich and in-depth data from participants capable of providing the required information (Cohen et al., 2011), thus enhancing the transferability of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researchers’ knowledge of the embedded context of psychometrist training, registration, and practice further strengthened the trustworthiness of the findings.
The majority of the 12 participants were female and White. Their placements were predominantly completed in private practice, small consultation firms, and the public sector in Gauteng and the Western Cape.
Information sources
The main sources of information for the study were student files each containing two supervisor reports and student portfolios detailing descriptions and reflections of their practical training and experience throughout the course of the practicums. Supervisors were required to submit an interim and a final report to indicate how the HPCSA (2019) criteria required for practical training in psychometry were met. The students’ portfolios reflected their perspective on the practicum and provided descriptions of the activities undertaken, supervision sessions, as well as narrative reflections about their experiences (e.g., initial vs subsequent contact with clients) and their personal and professional development.
Procedure
These files were selected randomly from the student cohort. From the selected files, supervision reports and student portfolios were drawn purposively on the basis of the comprehensiveness and coherence of their content. Comprehensiveness was defined in terms of the required core competencies and experience as stipulated by the HPCSA (2019). Thus, the degree of comprehensiveness referred to the extent to which reports and portfolios reported and reflected on instrumental knowledge and skills, communication and interpersonal skills, contingency management skills, and basic practice management and referral skills, and the experience gained in administering a range of tests for various age groups (e.g., general cognitive ability, specific cognitive functions, and personality-related functioning). The relevance and integration of the content presented in these reports and portfolios served as evidence of coherence. Further analysis (discussed below) and information saturation resulted in the inclusion of 12 student portfolios together with their accompanying supervisor reports in the study.
Ethical considerations
This study formed part of a research project on different facets of the programme for psychometrists. Ethical clearance and permission were obtained for the project in general. The aims of the project were described, the assurance was given that individuals will not be identifiable, and it was stated that the results would be published. The project conformed to the requirements stipulated in the university’s policy on research involving university staff, students, or data. Permission to conduct the research was granted by the university Senate Research and Innovation and Higher Degrees Committee (SRIHDC). Ethical clearance for research involving human participants was granted by the ethics committees of the Department of Psychology in the College of Human Sciences. No personal or identifying details are revealed in the reporting of the results, thus ensuring confidentiality and anonymity.
Data analysis
A hybrid model of analysis was employed, using thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and positioning theory. Thematic analysis was carried out to ensure a particular standard of textuality in terms of comprehensiveness and coherence of the text. Discourse analysis was performed to explore the subject positions available to participants in constructing a professional identity. Positioning theory supplemented the discourse analysis because, as argued below, discourse analysis underemphasises the role of agential enactment in the construction of subject positions.
The comprehensiveness and coherence of the reports and portfolios that were initially selected were considered at face value. Thematic analysis was used to refine these criteria in terms of themes embedded in the texts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Textual content was coded and sorted according to topic. Topics included, among others, the roles that students and supervisors assumed in the practicum; formal and informal interactions with stakeholders (supervisors, clients, and colleagues); academic and practical/experiential training; and the difficulties/challenges experienced during the practicum training. Coding revealed four superordinate categories, namely (1) skills development (instrumental knowledge and skills, communication and interpersonal interaction, contingency management skills, and practice management); (2) training processes (learning activities, training modalities, processes relating to mentoring and supervision); (3) personal development; and (4) contextual awareness (multicultural and multilingual contexts). A text was considered coherent if the information provided in these categories offered a relevant and integrated picture of the training experience. Texts were ranked in terms of comprehensiveness and coherence and entered into further analysis based on these ranks.
The original texts were produced in a particular context, namely the development of psychometrists. However, distinguishing between text and context created complications. The study focussed on discourses in the texts and not on those discourses that constituted the context. In other words, this study treated the social practices that constituted the context as extra-discursive. Despite contentions surrounding the status of the extra-discursive (see Macleod, 2002, for a concise summary of these), the distinction was legitimate in light of the fact that discourse analysis excludes itself from the social context of the phenomena it seeks to analyse (Zarycki, 2017). Relying on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of field, Zarycki (2017) considers contexts as socially constructed fields imbued with power relations, partly influenced and coproduced by texts, but largely independent of such texts. As such the context of the development of psychometrists was treated as a discursive domain for the discourses contained in the texts, but not a field for the enactment of a discourse analysis of these texts.
The first step in the discursive analysis of the student portfolios and their supervisor reports was to determine how the texts related to the discursive domain of the development of psychometrists and how this relationship manifested as particular discourses in the texts. Second, it was necessary to identify the subject positions afforded by these discourses. However, this analysis was not as straightforward as often portrayed in guidelines for discourse analysis because of the expectation that the texts would contain ‘professionalism beyond the development of competence’ in the form of disruptive effects rather than explicit discourse. It was anticipated that disruptive effects would be achieved in a subject positioning allowing the construction of a countering discourse. This meant that subject positions and discourses had to be viewed as enabling each other. On one hand, discourses were seen as affording certain subject positions, which the participants could occupy in subjecting themselves to these discourses, but on the other hand, these discourses were considered as constructed from subject positions negotiated intersubjectively (Hall, 1997). Thus, participants had to be viewed as products (subjects) as well as producers (agents) of discourses (Davies & Harré, 1990). The ontological implication of this approach was the introduction of a materiality which resisted a purely linguistic approach to discourse analysis, in turn moving towards discursive practice as an analytic focus (Bacchi & Bonham, 2014).
Findings and discussion
The texts were embedded in the context of the development of psychometrists. The relationship between the texts and their context was evident in a recurrent theme pertaining to the structured and sequential processes in the development of competencies. Both students and supervisors made comprehensive reference to the required skills areas (HPCSA, 2019) and the tests included as part of the training, thus reflecting the ‘output’ of the models of professional competence as defined by Roe (2002). In the texts, this relationship between text and context manifested as an expert–novice discourse. The most prominent subject positions afforded by the expert–novice discourse were those of mentor, mentee, insider, and outsider. The power differential evident in the expert–novice discourse maintained these subject positions as a mentor–mentee relationship and an insider–outsider relationship.
The process of skill attainment
The typical daily activities of the students centred largely on attaining skills related to the assessment process. These skills were developed by means of a sequence of activities aimed at increasing independence. The process commenced with the student as observer during the assessment process. Student 4 noted that ‘In the first month, [supervisor name] allowed me to observe all assessment interviews, administrations and feedback sessions’. She stated that this ‘was a cornerstone in preparing me for the transition to independent handling of psychometric assessment cases’. The students gradually moved from a position of peripheral practice towards the assumption of a more active and central role in the community. Supervisor 5 referred to the fact that the student ‘has sat in on a number of such sessions and has been granted the opportunity to lead several of these sessions, however this role will be exponentially increased in the months ahead’. Similarly, Student 3 noted that before she could start administering assessments, she ‘was taken through the administration session from beginning to end’. She added that, initially, any ‘administration was done under supervision’ and that she only started administering assessments once her supervisor believed she ‘was competent enough to do so’. Before administering a role play, Student 7 ‘had to first observe at least five or six roleplays by various trained assessors’. She maintained that she was only allowed to interpret role plays half-way through her practicum, noting that ‘we first discussed the interpretation of the roleplays . . . and received training from [the supervisor] about how to interpret a roleplay . . . and my interpretations were monitored by [the supervisor]’. When talking about the supervision sessions with her supervisor, Student 1 related that the sessions typically involved ‘the tests being looked through, discussed and recommendations evaluated and recorded. [The supervisor] spends time reviewing the administration and scoring of the tests, discussing my thoughts and recommendations and adding things I may not have considered’.
The mentor–mentee subject positioning
In the mentor–mentee relationship, the supervisor was afforded the expert position by virtue of his or her status as supervisor and practicing psychometrist/psychologist in contrast to the student mentee position as novice, lacking the required knowledge and skills. Socialisation into the community of practice (Mendoza & Gardner, 2010) implies that learning occurs through the observation of these established community members (i.e., the experts). Student 4, for example, stated that supervision sessions were often utilised for formal instruction and that ‘[The supervisor] was very informative and took the time to explain concepts in a way that I could easily comprehend’. She noted that if she had
misunderstood how to utilise certain tests [he] would calmly explain how to correctly use them . . . [he] shared insights with me about the field of psychology and psychometry thus allowing for expansion of my own knowledge base within these fields.
The expert position declared the supervisor as superior in knowledge and competence to the student, who could only speak from a position of deficiency. Throughout her account, Student 1 described how her supervisor could ‘suggest’, ‘share’, ‘guide’, ‘encourage’, ‘review’, and ‘evaluate’ while, as intern, she could merely ‘observe’ (or be observed), ‘improve’, ‘benefit from’, ‘practice’, ‘consult’, and ‘grow’.
The practicum supervisors assumed an expert position in the mentor–mentee relationship positioning the students as dependent on their supervision to successfully navigate the practicum. Student 6’s supervisor noted that
. . . at the beginning of her internship she only observed how the administration of tests was performed by a registered practitioner [. . .] After she had familiarised herself with the process she was given the opportunity to administer the assessment under strict supervision.
Students endorsed the supervisors ‘one up’ positing by assuming a position of dependency, in turn legitimising their apprentice positions. Newcomers to a community of practice essentially find themselves in a ‘one-down’ position insofar as they are dependent on the input and feedback of established members of the community to gauge their development. In the text, participants constructed their intern identities as inexperienced, lacking in knowledge and skills and thus as dependent on their supervisors for guidance and direction. After hearing that one of her supervisors was relocating to another country, Student 8 stated that ‘It’s a pity because I felt like he was the “go-to” guy if I ever needed help with something. He also has taught me a lot this month’. She further maintained that ‘It has been reassuring to know that each week I can sit down with someone who is knowledgeable in research, psychometry and [. . .] discuss anything that has been on my mind’. Student 2 noted that supervision sessions were
invaluable to me in an academic and professional way, but also in a more personal manner during times when I became discouraged or felt out of my depth. [The supervisor] was very patient with me and often went out of her way to teach me.
The insider–outsider subject positioning
Taking up the mentee position as a dependent apprentice in skills attainment legitimised certain ways of learning while negating other possibilities, thus constraining the activities in which these students could (and could not) engage. This containment of proper practice was enabled by a powerful insider–outsider positioning afforded in the expert–novice discourse. The novice apprentice was initiated as an outsider without skills and experience, as someone who could only ‘observe all assessment interviews, administrations and feedback sessions’ [Student 4], or observe ‘how the administration of tests was performed by a registered practitioner’ [Student 6’s supervisor], or who ‘had to first observe at least five or six roleplays by various trained assessors’ [Student 7]. Observation is the act of someone on the outside looking in. A clear boundary was established between being on the inside and being on the outside of professional practice; that is of being outside the insider domain of trained/registered practitioners. Literature shows that if the process of socialisation and the related notion of apprenticeship (Duff, 2010) are accepted as the basis for professional development, learning through peripheral participation is expected practice (Lave & Wagner, 1991). The powerfulness of this positioning was succinctly captured by Student 4 in the sentiment that observation was ‘a cornerstone in preparing me for the transition to independent handling of psychometric assessment cases’. But it was the cornerstone of a position of deficiency and as such the cornerstone that justified the entire competence development discourse and the existence of apprenticeship programmes. This cornerstone was the departure point for a transition to independence, but this was a transition closely guarded by professionals, in this case supervisors, who granted opportunities for participation and who ‘under strict supervision’ [Supervisor 6] took students ‘through the administration session from beginning to end’ and decided whether the student ‘was competent enough’ [Student 3]. Saturated by competence development, the expert–novice discourse afforded little space for talk about identity and agency, the hallmarks of professionalism.
However, the positioning of an outsider beyond the boundaries of professional practice had an unintentional effect in the expert–novice discourse. The expert–novice discourse claimed the outsider as the disempowered in relation to the all-empowered insider, ignoring its own exposure in doing so. Per definition the outsider (as outsider) could not be claimed and subjected fully. Regardless of the degree of empowerment vested in the insider, some part of the outsider remained beyond the insider’s control. The outsider position afforded by the expert–novice discourse was inhabited by an agential force that the expert–novice discourse could not contain. Not only was this a locus in which the expert–novice discourse could be intersected by countering discourses, it was also a locus of the mutual enabling of discourses and subject positions (Hall, 1997).
The unaccountable surplus of the outsider position, that is, the part of the outsider subject position that could not be claimed by and subjected to the expert–novice discourse, was the position the student psychometrist used to position herself or himself in relation to the client. This was a democratic relationship of collaboration, diversity, contextual sensitivity, and usefulness. Student 4 maintained that
Learning how to establish rapport with clients was a fundamental practical lesson for me to grasp . . . I learnt how to collaborate with clients when it appeared that there was some tension regarding assessment results. . . . While the basic report feedback remained consistent across different contexts, I also became aware that the manner in which I communicated with each party differed to some extent.
Student 5 noted the importance of gaining ‘. . . an increased understanding of the client’s world of work in order to provide [a] more useful and valid interpretation of assessment results’.
The relationship was also complex, being maintained in a variety of contexts and involving multiple role players in the apprentice socialisation process. Clients came from various age groups and presented with diverse therapeutic needs. The student–client relationship was strongly influenced by awareness of multiculturalism and multilingualism and the impact thereof on the assessment process, and it was constrained by the culture, content, and processes specific to the placement settings. However, it was in the midst of these complexities that the margins of professional practice surfaced. The moments where practice was at risk of becoming non-professional showed when the student psychometrist was confronted with professional dilemmas, appealing to personal agency. For example, Student 2’s understanding that ‘The majority of the testing media relied, in some part on language skills . . . ’ and that ‘. . . it was impractical to hire an interpreter . . . ’ made her aware that: ‘. . . I found myself becoming very frustrated with the system’. Agency showed itself not as a topic in talk but as emotional positioning.
The student–client positioning occurred from an outsider position that could not be accounted for in the expert–novice discourse of competence development. However, being referenced from within this discourse, it remained a surplus that the discourse could not escape and as such a resource for resisting and disrupting the expert–novice discourse (Van Deventer, 2010). It was the locus of the intersection between the hierarchical student–supervisor relationship and the democratic student–client relationship. The subject position of the student psychometrist as mentee was supplemented by the subject position of student psychometrist as service provider, thus disrupting the power vested in the expert–novice discourse. Furthermore, the intersection of the student–supervisor and student–client relationships in the student position established a secondary relationship between supervisor and client. In relation to the student position, both were established as guardians, the supervisor as the guardian of expertise and the client as the guardian of service quality. Both relationships established boundaries, the boundary between the expert and the novice, and the boundary between the professional and the non-professional. These boundaries differed markedly. Whereas the boundary between expert and novice served to separate and exclude the outside world from the world of practice, the boundary between the professional and the non-professional served as a conduit, linking the world of practice with the world outside, thus disrupting any attempt at separation and exclusion. Student 8 found herself in a space where the profession was challenged, compelling her to self-reflect on the quality of her interactions and the responsibilities she carried not only towards the client but also towards her peers. She stated that
The experience, although difficult, was an important lesson to learn that each group is different and not everyone is going to be positive about the process. It also served as a reminder that my time with the students is very important and can have a lasting impact and become problematic for someone else doing risk profiling later on.
This is not a space she simply fits into. It is a space she helps to shape.
In these practical training contexts student–supervisor relationships possibly incorporated at least some democratic features although this did not surface in the texts, despite evaluating their comprehensiveness and coherence for analysis. Utilising interviews rather than written reports might have revealed such information due to better opportunities for in-depth exploration offered in interviews. Should this have been the case it would have been possible to explore how supervisors managed their own positioning in accommodating the disruptive effects of trainee agency.
The characteristics of the trainees who participated in the study was a further aspect that required consideration. These participants were predominantly female and White. Although this demographic profile was similar to the national trend of students and professionals (e.g., Carolissen et al., 2015; Van Eeden et al., 2016), the lack of gender and racial variation could be considered a limitation with regard to the generalisability of the findings. However, a potential advantage of a predominantly female and White sample group related to the development of an increased awareness of the multicultural requirements of their placements, thus bringing the client into sharper focus in these participants’ texts. Although the participants came from a single university, the contexts in which they were placed were diverse and were located in different provinces. Their experience of socialisation into these settings was therefore considered representative. It should be noted that comments referring to multiculturalism and multilingualism were framed in terms of the challenges in the testing process per se (e.g., the availability of suitable tests). A more general lack of contextuality was identified in earlier studies. Inadequate preparation for diverse contexts and language-related challenges experienced by interns were mentioned (Bantjes et al., 2016; Carolissen et al., 2015).
Conclusion
The expert–novice discourse did not leave space for exploring professionalism beyond the development of knowledge and skills. In fact, it excluded all facets of the student psychometrist that could not be subsumed under knowledge and skills development, thus establishing the supervisor as the all-empowered guardian of the psychometrist’s development. However, the excluded facets of the student became a resource for resisting and disrupting the knowledge and skills development model. Agency surfaced in the democratic positioning of student and client, resisting the hierarchical organisation of student and supervisor, and also in supplementing the supervisor’s guardianship of expertise with the client’s guardianship of service quality, countering the all-empowered position of the supervisor. The findings thus illustrate how the enactment of agency enables the development of a professional identity (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Illustrating the development of professionalism at a second-tier level makes the argument even more compelling than demonstrating it at more advanced level.
The apprenticeship, with its emphasis on the development and evaluation of competence, has become accepted practice in training and registration. In the case of the student psychometrist, detailed requirements in terms of skill development are listed. This research shows the potential restrictive impact on the supervisor–student relationship and the subsequent development of professionalism. A model of supervision that allows space for the development of professionalism would require a supervisor who acknowledges and welcomes the entire personhood of the student together with the unique contributions he or she could offer in training. This would mean a truly democratic student–supervisor relationship in which the supervisor relinquishes the one-up positioning in favour of a truly mutual student–supervisor consultation, thus allowing mutual growth.
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
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
