I would suggest that this article, and the responses to it, highlight a huge problem that exists not only within Social Work training practice placements, but within actual Social Work itself as a job. Indeed, within ANY health and care profession, including Nursing, Medicine, Occupational Therapy, etc…

The heart of the problem appears to be this – that some people upon qualifying as workers appear to throw out of the metaphorical window all that they learned whilst training. They abandon all the theory they learned, they forget all the models of practice, they no longer situate a service-user’s problems within the relevant socio-econo-political context. Indeed, it is hard to understand exactly what they DO do! I would liken it to those many people who take their driving test and behave perfectly whilst under training, but once they have a licence to drive, they appear to forget all they were taught and become careless, maybe even reckless. Is this a trait in some humans? Or maybe even all humans?

Personally, I feel that it has a lot to do with the individual in question; their values, their intellectual level and interests, their attitude to life. Sadly, whole workplaces can develop this “throw everything you learned out of the window” attitude, and perhaps this is why some practice placements are good and some rubbish. Perhaps this is why some Social Workers, Nurses, Doctors etc. feel comfortable and valued at work, whilst others do not. Stagnation in a workplace is something that stifles intellectualism, stifles creativity, stifles imagination, stifles new thoughts and ingenuity… What we ought to be asking is why this attitude occurs.

If, as is suggested, some trainee Social Workers are finding placements dissatisfying because a “you won’t need any of that theory nonsense” exists in some workplaces, then this clearly demonstrates that for some actual, on-the-job, qualified Social Workers this same problem exists. Clearly, some are working in deeply unsatisfying, stifling, unsupportive environments, wit managers and colleagues who encourage ignorance and ignorant practice. These same ignorant individuals are likely to be the ones giving students rotten placements. Alas, it appears that students are very good at picking up on this appalling experience – BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE LISTENING TO THEM.

Why do we have this “same old same old” nonsense? Why are Public Sector jobs ones in which those people who highlight deficiencies or suggest improvements are rarely listened to? Strikes me that we are seeing that age old “sack the whistleblower” problem rearing its ugly head again! Or, something very similar.

If students are noting that some placements are lacking, and that there is a crass attitude towards theory and practice within some placements, then it makes sense to understand that these same placements for students represent workplaces for actual Social Workers that may be failing. One student’s terrible placement is another qualified Social Worker’s terrible workplace! Surely if a student is picking up on problems, and bad attitudes in a placement, then these exist within that environment as a workplace too. So, we should be asking just what it is that leads to such problems in workplaces – that leads to the “throw the learning out of the window” attitude.

My personal experience of working as a Social Worker may shed light on this. I went from working in one job where my manager was excellent, the team I worked in were very coherent and supportive of each-other, you were encouraged to regularly discuss matters of theory and practice, supervision was regular and effective… to working in a job where there was NO supervision (I eventually had to demand it!), colleagues were grumpy and unsupportive, there was workplace bullying and high staff turnover, and my manager was both physically and emotionally inaccessible (he just locked himself away in an office). I have no doubt whatsoever that team dynamics and the overall feel of the workplace can affect how people end up working. Staff in the latter workplace were extremely mechanistic, and I had a sense that they were there for the money, and that was all.

So, here’s my list of reasons why workers may de-intellectualise work, and thus “stagnate”:

1. Because their training was so long ago, and they are so set in their “old school” ways that they fear change and anything new, seeing it as a threat – thus they reject new ideas and new people!

2. Because their training was so long ago they have forgotten much, if not all, of it!

3. Because they are only in the job for the money.

4. Because they are only in the job due to nepotism (e.g. a doctor from a family of doctors who see being a doctor as “tradition”), or cronyism (e.g. their manager is their best drinking buddy, and a friend of a friend got them the job) – they are not really interested in the work, but know that even if they do it badly, nobody dares say anything, because THEY “know all the right people”!

5. They are simply not very academic, and struggle to wrap their heads around even the simplest of tasks, let alone relating theory to practice – goodness alone knows how they ever passed their training!

6. The workplace/placement is short-staffed, under-funded, lacking resources and morale amongst workers reflects this – the last thing a Practice Teacher here wants to have to deal with is a student asking questions about some bizarre theory they last heard of eight years ago!

7. They are “burned out” – working under austerity measures, with little support, funding, resources, time, etc. has worn the worker down to a point close to giving up.

8. They fear saying or doing the “wrong thing” – a combination of political correctness taken to the extreme, and fear of losing one’s job due to talking about political issues whilst employed in a Local Government setting, has effectively imposed a censorship on free speech, thus stifling innovation, creativity and reflective practice.

9. The worker has no understanding of reflective practice – they do not appreciate the need to review their own work, and to learn from past experiences, nor do they see the importance of situating this work within its relevant wider context.

10. The worker’s employer has no understanding of supervision, fails to provide supervision, or fails to provide regular good quality supervision – staff and students alike are thus left without support, with no place to reflect on their practice, with no place to discuss casework and to help effectively manage caseloads, with no place to act as a learning (i.e. through reflection and discussion) environment.

11. There is a “clique” operating within a workplace – this is problematic because people within a “clique” operate an “in-group versus out-group” styled system. They will share knowledge, experiences and support with members of their “clique”, but ostracise everyone else.

12. There is bullying in a workplace – this is disastrous because it creates a horrible workplace environment that simply destroys effective working relationships. The target of the bullying is singled out for ridicule, criticism and ultimately, career annihilation. Other workers may fear the same happening to them. Whilst there is a bully, or bullies, in any workplace NOTHING can effectively be achieved. Everyone simply concentrates on “keeping their head down” so as not to become the next target of bullying. Worst of all, bullies may well target the most talented, qualified, innovative, creative, skilled, experienced or productive members of a workplace because these people highlight a bully’s inadequacies.

13. Censorship – not merely the imagined form, or the fear of (as in point 8) but actual censorship. Some workplaces DO make it abundantly clear that staff are NOT to talk politics, must NOT discuss socio-economic theories and practices, must NOT ask too many (if any) questions about funding or resources or staffing levels or why service-users receive the service they get… Such workplaces have rigid and draconian rules about social media and internet usage (even for personal purposes). They micro-manage EVERYTHING their workers do, from arranging care packages (which they insist must have management sign-off due to financial pressures), dictating caseloads (managers will tell staff how to work with service-users and thus stifle creative working), to what workers are permitted to say. “Whistleblowers” in such workplaces are treated like “scum” for highlighting workplace problems that management demand everyone should turn a “blind eye” to. Such workplaces often suffer from rigid financial constraints, dwindling budgets, dwindling resources, poor staff morale, high staff turnover, and nervous defensive management. The problem is often that managers feel under massive pressure to make, and defend, cuts. Staff are then censored so that the effects of such cuts are hidden.

The above issues do not exist – and do not need to exist – in every workplace or student placement. Where they do exist, it is a symptom of serious problems that everyone involved would do well to explore. Problems DO NOT go away because we refuse to acknowledge and talk about them. To turn workplaces into better workplaces, and placements into better placements, takes thought, intervention, planning plus acknowledgement and correction of any deficiencies. This cannot happen if it is neither recognized, nor discussed, in the first place. Fear of intellectualism is a worrying thing, because problems in the main require some thinking about and discussion to resolve. This is an intellectual process. As Social Work is about helping solve societal problems, how can anyone not think of it as an intellectual job?

The author describes perhaps one of the key problem. Although commonly described as “anti-intellectualism”, the real issue is the deliberate “de-politicisation” of society. One cannot meaningfully engage in any subject in a de-politicised environment, and perhaps inevitably any de-politicised populace will react harshly to ideas and ways of thinking they are not trained in and that expose the inherently political nature of all work.

As the author himself/herself notes:

“To make matters worse, the constraints of working in a local authority means political discussion is a highly sensitive no-go area, which workers are formally asked to not discuss”

My guess would be that said “constraints” are a relatively new phenomenon.

Are you joking?

I often see these young people at the start full of enthusiasm and a we want to make a difference attitude. A lot of them have had good experiences with social care and belive very strongly in it.

A few years after placements and they’ve unfortunately have had all thier enthusiasm. Squeezed out of them.

Service users are keen to work with the students , to explain and help them understand, they are key in making differences to our lives.

My introduction always ends, you are the future, stick to values and beliefs you come with. One day when the old school have been replaced you will have the opertunitity to put In place your ideas and views. So hang in there you are the future.

Each placement is different – in the voluntary sector more emphasis is sometimes made on theoretical knowledge, and there may be less time constraints on face to face work with clients.
In a hospital discharge team there are strict time limits around discharging patients so it is rare to have the luxury of being able to actively apply theories when sorting out discharge plans. Only in supervision theories can be discussed and it should be both the PE/Supervisor and the student to approach these.