The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast what is spoken about in supervision case discussions in Children’s Services with what subsequently appears in the written record on the child’s file. As an exploratory study, the authors set two research questions – how do supervision conversations and corresponding records compare? And how do social work supervisors make use of these records?
The authors sampled ten pairs of supervision audio recordings and written records from the child’s file. Using a content analysis approach, the authors compared what was spoken about (on the audio recordings) with what was subsequently written down (on the child’s file).
The complex activity of social work case supervision is not easily captured in written form. Written records did not reflect objectively the content of the audio recordings and on occasion, even contained information absent from the discussion. Supervisors seemed to engage in an interpretative process when creating the records, translating what was spoken about into a record thought (more) suitable for the file.
The sample was limited to one authority and did not compare between different models or approaches to supervision.
Supervisors understandably orient their recording behaviour towards anticipated audiences (chiefly, senior managers and Ofsted inspectors). To change recording practices, it would help to promote the role of children and families as the more important audience for written recordings of supervision case discussions.
The major strength of this study is the inclusion of audio recordings of actual supervision case discussions and real case records. This is an advantage over the more common methods of vignettes, role plays and self-reports because it allowed the authors to examine directly what happens in practice. The findings from the study are strengthened via the use of a focus group with social work managers, helping the authors to validate and test the themes the authors’ identified.
