emotional reactions of students in field education: …

EMOTIONAL REACTIONS OF STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION:AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Andrea LitvacicUniversity of Toronto

Marion BogoUniversity of Toronto

Faye MishnaUniversity of Toronto

An exploratory study using qualitative methodology was undertaken withrecent MSW graduates (N=12) from 2 graduate social work programs to identi-fy and describe the students' emotional reactions to experiences in field educa-tion. Significant and interrelated themes emerged including the subjective andunique definitions of emotionally charged events; the considerable effect of thestudent-field instructor relationship and the organizational environment,whereby both act as major risk and major protective factors; and participantsseeking help from sources in their family and social networks and not necessar-ily from those in formal social work education roles. Implications for field edu-cation are provided.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORK literature has tradi-tionally acknowledged that practitioners'emotional reactions to practice situations arean important dynamic in understanding andintervening effectively with clients. Morerecently, all helping professions have increas-ingly recognized the significant impact onpractitioners of exposure to their clients'accounts of trauma and of witnessing disturb-ing situations. Indeed, an extensive body oftheory and research elucidates phenomenasuch as vicarious trauma (Bride, 2007; Bride &Figley, 2007; Uiffe & Steed, 2000; McCann &

Pearlman, 1990; Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995),secondary trauma (Figley, 1995; Pearlman &Saakvitne, 1995; Stamm, 1995), and compas-sion fatigue and burnout (Figley, 1995).

This article examines the emotional reac-tions of social work students to their experi-ences in the field placement. Social work fieldeducation is credited by alumni and em-ployers as having the most significant impacton the preparation of social workers for prac-tice (Fortune & Abramson, 1993; Kadushin,1991; Toison & Kopp, 1988) and is character-ized as the signature pedagogy of social work

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2010).(S>2010, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.517S/JSWE.2010.200900007 227

228 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

education in Educational Policy and Accredita-tion Standards (EPAS) by the Council on SocialWork Education (CSWE, 2008; Shulman,2005). In field education students are able tointegrate theory and practice, gain mastery ofintervention skills, and learn to deal with eth-ically challenging situations.

In addition, it is in the practicum wherestudents experience and explore how person-al and professional aspects of self come to -gether. Social work field education literaturehas traditionally emphasized developing,rather than obliterating, the identity of thelearner (Towle, 1954) and helping students toface emotions and personal value judgmentselicited in their practice (Younghusband,1967). The aim is to develop self-awareness touse in understanding and working with clientdynamics (Deal, 2000; Hensley 2002; Saari,1989). In this context, students' reactions toclients and practicum experiences are under-stood as by-products of the students' internaland subjective meanings and responses. Fieldeducation literature proposes the trusting andsupportive field instructor-student relation-ship as the context for conscious and system-atic reflection about how personal reactionsand professional interventions merge in prac-tice (Bogo, 1993; Bogo & Vayda, 1998; Walter& Young, 1999), with attention to maintainingboundaries between "treating and teaching"(Hendricks, Finch, & Franks, 2005, p. 7).

Although professional growth and self-awareness developed in field education is gen-erally lauded, theorists such as Poison andNida (1998) caution that disciplines such associal work, psychology, and family therapy,which require both a classroom and field train-ing component, can be more stressful than

other more traditional graduate programs. Inacademic courses and the field, learning newconcepts and values can challenge core per-sonal and familial worldviews and beliefs,leading to a sense of confusion and even dis-orientation. Self-concept is often challenged asstudents struggle to master new skills.Teaching methods that expect active partici-pation through discussion, role-play, and pro-vision of service in the practicum can engen-der performance anxiety and can differ fromthe experience of many students who weresocialized in an educational system thatemphasized the student as passive recipient ofknowledge. Furthermore, Kamya (2000) notesthat the social work educational experience isfraught with role ambiguity, conflict, stress,and strain, brought on by such factors as stu-dents' own expectations of themselves, theirperceptions of faculty and school expecta-tions, field instruction demands, and oftenconflicting familial roles and work schedules.

The populations with whom studentswork are frequently vulnerable and over-whelmed. Researchers have noted that clientspresent with greater acuity and that govern-mental and managed care fiscal restraintshave led to fewer resources and services forclients (Bocage, Homonoff, & Riley, 1995;Raskin & Bloome, 1998). Interaction withthese populations may place further stress onstudents and affect their learning as well astheir personal and professional development.Other situations in the field can also adverse-ly affect students' learning. Settings mayinvolve students working with clients who areexperiencing intense emotional pain. Studentsmay be exposed to sights and smells they finddisagreeable. They may be involved with

EMOTIONAL REACTIONS OF STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION 229

clients who are dying, witness clients' death,or experience the distress of bereaved fami-lies. Intervention with clients' traumatic stressoften involves assisting clients in workingthrough the traumatic experience, thus expos-ing the helper to the traumatic event throughvivid imagery (Bride, 2004). Students areexpected to engage in these situations throughactive listening and to remain empathicallyattuned to the client, so they may feel over-whelmed. Moreover, exposure to such suffer-ing may trigger students' own personal, pain-ful memories.

In the literature on practitioners' reactionsto clients' trauma, the terms vicarious trauma,secondary trauma, compassion fatigue, and burn-out are often used interchangeably. Vicarioustrauma, first described by McCarm and Pearl-man (1990), refers to a transformation or dis-ruption in cognitive schema and belief sys-tems resulting from engagement with clienttrauma. Secondary trauma refers to symp-toms that mirror those experienced by peopleexperiencing posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD). These symptoms may include a rangeof adverse sequelae such as intrusive imagery,hypervigilance, sleep disturbance, irritability,relational difficulties, and difticulty concen-trating (American Psychiatric Association,2000). Compassion fatigue develops as aresult of helpers' exposure to the experiencesof clients in tandem with the empathy theyfeel (Collins & Long, 2003). Although theredoes not seem to be a standard definition ofburnout, there is agreement that it refers to asyndrome of exhaustion, depersonalization,and feelings of reduced personal accomplish-ment (Collins & Long, 2003; Maslach, Schau -fell, & Leiter, 2001).

Novice practitioners may have not yetacquired mature coping strategies to deal witha range of client situations that evoke strongemotions, and they may have yet to learn howto negotiate organizational demands that cre-ate stress. Similarly, practicum students areoften expected to become familiar with andnegotiate complex organizational structures,some aspects of which can be highly disturb-ing. In a review of the empirical literature.Bride (2004) comments that younger profes-sionals may be at increased risk due to the lackof opportunity to develop protective strate-gies. In a conceptual analysis of PTSD and thestresses related to working with patients whohave AIDS, Wade, Beckerman, and Stein (1996)point out that young and inexperienced socialworkers are highly susceptible to PTSD due totheir novice status. In fact, in 2007 the ClinicalSocial Work Journal dedicated an issue to thetopic of compassion fatigue. Bride and Figley(2007) argue that it is incumbent on socialwork educators to prepare students to work inhighly stressful environments.

Although the previously noted researchapplies to novice professionals, these observa-tions may also apply to many social work stu-dents who, in addition to sharing some charac-teristics of beginning workers, must also copewith a range of Stressors related to students'role conflicts, expectations of field and aca-demic learning, the nature of the field setting,and the population served. Although attentionhas been paid in the literature to the impact onpractitioners' exposure to trauma, there is agap in the literature regarding the impact onstudents who are exposed to these types ofStressors in the field practicum. Attention tothe emotional impact of field experiences has


potential to strengthen the pedagogy of fieldeducation (Barlow & Hall, 2007).

Anecdotal reports from field liaisons andclassroom teachers suggest a significant num-ber of students experience a range of emotion-al reactions to their field settings. Studentsmay feel overwhelmed and struggle withtheir reactions to some practice experiences. Itis possible that student distress is underre-ported, as students may not be willing toshare their uncertainties or distress with indi-viduals in authority, such as their fieldinstructors. The lack of attention to students'emotional reactions may reflect an unfortu-nate by-product of the current emphasis on aneducational model of field instruction, ratherthan on a personal growth model.

In an effort to better understand the emo-tional reactions of students to their field experi-ences, a qualitative exploratory study was con-ducted to identify and describe the emotionalreactions of social work students to their expe-riences in the field placement. The researcherswere interested in determining what elementsin the field setting contribute to students' emo-tional reactions, both positive and negative,and what supports or factors students identifyas helpful when they experience distress in thefield. The goal of the study was to contributeknowledge so that field instructors could moreeffectively respond to the emotional reactionsof students who are exposed to traumatized,stressed, and at-risk populations.

Method

Because there is a lack of literature on stu-dents' emotional responses to the field prac-ticum, qualitative methodology was chosen toexplore this topic in depth. The participants

were from MSW programs in two Canadianuniversities. Participants had recently suc-cessfully completed all requirements for theMSW degree. One program is located in alarge urban center, and the other is located ina rural area. One program uses regular on-siteliaison visits, whereas the other uses a trouble-shooting model (Fortune et al, 1995). Thestudy received approval from the Universityof Toronto Research Ethics Board.

Recruitment and Sample

Graduating students from master's programsin two schools of social work were invited toparticipate. Approximately 140 students ineach university received a study informationletter. Eight students volunteered from oneuniversity (one subsequently withdrew), andfive students volunteered from the seconduniversity. The letter explained the studyobjectives and detailed the potential risks andbenefits to the participants. It was clearly stat-ed that study participation was voluntary. Asthe researchers are faculty members at one ofthe participating universities and work direct-ly with students, students were informed thata research assistant, a doctoral student whowas an experienced social worker, would con-duct all the interviews and that the datawould be transcribed and made anonymousbefore the researchers could access the data.

The final sample included 12 graduatingstudents of both MSW programs. All partici-pants were female. Eight participants were inthe age range of 24-29, one was in the range of30-35, two were in the 40-45 age range, andone was in the range of 50-55. Eight partici-pants had a BA degree, two had BSW degrees,and two had degrees in other disciplines. In

EMOTIONAL REACTIONS OF STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION 2 3 1

comparison to available demographic infor-mation about the student population of bothprograms, the sample was similar in age dis-tribution. There were no men in the sample,although the student population includesapproximately 15% male students.

Data Collection and Analysis

Individual interviews lasting approximatelyone and a half hours in length were conduct-ed following a semistructured interviewguide. The interview guide was developedbased on a literature review and the re-searchers' extensive experience in field educa-tion. Questions were open-ended and focusedon participants' field experience in general,the organizational environment, their rela-tionship with their field instructor, work withclients, any events that had an emotionalimpact on them, and any supports they hadaccessed in this regard.

Thirteen interviews were conducted andwere digitally recorded. One participant with-drew from the study after her interview. Theremaining 12 interviews were professionallytranscribed, and NVivo software was used toorganize the data (Richards, 1999). In analyz-ing the interviews we identified categories andthemes (Merriam, 2002), and constant compar-ison led to groupings of similar concepts aboutparticipants' emotional responses to theirpracticum settings. The researchers developednarrative themes and moved from reading andmemo writing to describing, classifying, andinterpreting (Cresswell, 1998). Consistent andcontradictory themes were identified andcompared among the participants. Axial cod-ing procedures were used to explore the inter-connectedness among the emerging cate-

gories. Selective coding procedures were em-ployed to build a narrative that connected thethemes pertaining to participants' emotionalreactions. Finally, memo writing furthered ourunderstanding of participants' emotional reac-tions, their perceptions of educational sup-ports in their field placements, and of thenature of the practicum setting.

Findings

Four significant and interrelated themesemerged through analysis of the interviews.First, there was great variation in the identifi-cation and definition of emotionally chargedevents. Second, the crucial nature of the stu-dent-field instructor relationship emerged asboth a major risk and a major protective fac-tor. Third, the impact of the organizationalenvironment as a risk and as a protective fac-tor was similarly apparent. The theme of how,and from whom, participants sought help andproblem-solving support emerged as a fourthsignificant theme. The following sectionsdescribe these themes in more detail.

Subjective Definitions of EmotionallyCharged Events

A striking finding was the wide range of stu-dent responses that was elicited. Analysis of theinterviews revealed three distinct categories ofevents that precipitated a strong emotionalreaction among the participants. These includ-ed a catastrophic event, organizational and pro-fessional issues, and intra/interpersonal issues.All categories of events were perceived by theparticipants as extremely intense and as affect-ing the participants both in the field settingand in their personal lives outside the fieldsetting.


Only one student described an event thatcould objectively be considered catastrophic: aclient suicide. As would be expected, this sig-nificantly affected the student and createdconsiderable distress. Although she appreciat-ed the attempts of agency staff, faculty, andpeers to be supportive, the student felt theycould not possibly understand the devastat-ing impact of this experience. Others' at-tempts at consolation often resulted in thisparticipant feeling that her experience wasminimized. Although she recognized that thesuicide was not her fault, she struggled withfeeling that if she had done something differ-ently, she could have prevented this tragedy.She believed that nothing in the academic pro-gram had prepared her to emotionally handlethis type of event.

The category of organizational/professi-onal issues reflects some participants' distressin response to various aspects of the organiza-tion. The participants expressed negative reac-tions to factors such as the physical setting,fear for their personal safety, feeling marginal-ized and disrespected as a student, feelinghumiliated, and observing unethical staff be-havior. These situations stirred up a range offeelings, including disillusionment and disap-pointment with the social work profession.Experiencing a stressful relationship with afield instructor also had a major impact onparticipants and was identified as a signifi-cant source of emotional distress.

The category of intra/interpersonalevents refers to the participants' individualemotional triggers and to Stressors withclients. For example, a crisis of contidence orfear of causing harm created significant stressfor some participants. Some participants be -

lieved that clients were disadvantaged as aresult of being assigned to them and were con-cerned that they were potentially failing aclient who was in great need of competent pro-fessional assistance. Participants were sensi-tive to clients' reactions to them, and thosewho reported rejection by a client were strong-ly affected, imless this was mitigated by a sup-portive field instructor. The requirement toreport suspected child abuse resulted inintense emotions for some students, as this actfelt like a betrayal of the client. Several partici-pants feared particular clients. Other partici-pants recognized that their own past emotion-al issues were triggered by client experiences.For example, working with clients strugglingwith relationships triggered reactions based onsome participants' own relationship history,working with child clients triggered childhoodmemories, and working with disempoweredclients triggered memories of times when theythemselves felt powerless. A number of partic-ipants described a cognitive process throughwhich they had to bring themselves back tothe moment and remind themselves that theclient was separate from them. One student forinstance, described her experience as follows:

There were moments where I think Iwasn't present. But then I'd get intotheir story and then I'm not so con-scious of my story. So I mean I thinkit's my strategy of saying yeah there'syour story and being aware of it andnot, like empathizing with the fact thatthat's me versus them. I'd give myselfpermission to have those feelings andlet it just go. And so I'm kind to myselfinstead of struggling with it.


Some participants expressed the viewthat these experiences of countertransferenceenabled them to relate more empathically toclients. For example, one student commented,"I could relate in the sense that my grandfa-ther was in the hospital just this past winterand so like seeing my family go through thesame types of roles," and that this enabled herto have a better understanding of the client'sexperience.

The Student-Field InstructorRelationship

The student-field instructor relationshipemerged as significant, both as a crucial riskfactor and as a crucial protective factor. Partic-ipants who reported a positive relationshipwith their field instructor generally weathereddifficult challenges and setbacks well. Whenthe relationship was reported to be negative,minor challenges were often described asoverwhelming, and the relationship itself be-came a Stressor.

Participants tended to describe their rela-tionship with their instructors in charged termsthat were either positive and glowing or highlynegative. There seemed to be no middle ground;the instructor was either "loved" or "hated." Ofthe 12 participants, 10 had two MSW field expe-riences during their program, and many of themdescribed their two field instructors in a polar-ized manner, as opposites. For instance, whendescribing field instructors, it was typical for aparficipant to depict "one that was great andone that was horrible." They experienced strongpersonal reacfions early on. Comments such as"I instantly felt comfortable with her" or "Wejust didn't click" reflected their quick emotionalreacfions to their instructors.

Regardless of the strength of the reladon-ship or of the participant's personal character-istics, parficipants were acutely aware of thepower dynamic. Even participants who gener-ally felt confident and competent expressed asense of vulnerability within the student-instructor relafionship. This sense of vulnera-bility emerged as a significant Stressor whenthe relationship was not considered solid. Notonly were field instructors responsible for theparticipants' evaluafions, but also participantswere acutely aware that their instructors mightbe called upon as a reference for futureemployment. In addition, participants oftenhoped to find work in the geographic area andpractice specialization of their placement.They believed that an instructor who spokenegatively about them could seriously impedetheir career options. This possibility created anundercurrent of tension for some participantsand magnified what would otherwise likelyhave been perceived as normal challenges.

Participants very clearly identified factorsthat contributed to their posifive or negafiveperceptions about their instructor. They wereacutely aware of instructors who appeared tofeel burdened by the responsibility of a studentand who, according to the parficipants, gavethe message, in varying degrees of subtlety,that they did not want to be bothered by thestudent. Parficipants were cognizant of instruc-tors who focused on their weaknesses andproblems and who did not acknowledge stu-dent strengths. Instructors who were describedas crossing boundaries, either by elicifing orsharing personal informafion, created stressfulsituations for a number of parficipants. It wasnot uncommon for some parficipants to feelthey had to take care of and protect their field


instructor. Finally, participants were quite nega-tively affected by instructors who were per-ceived as "disrespectful" and "misusing power."

On a positive note, many respondentsidentified field instructors who truly men-tored them by celebrating their strengths andconstructively acknowledging areas forimprovement. They appreciated instructorswho were welcoming, accessible, and emo-tionally supportive and who maintainedfriendly but professional boundaries. More-over, participants appreciated instructors whospoke positively about former students.Instructors who were protective of studentswithin the agency context, normalized stu-dents' anxieties, acknowledged errors as alearning experience, maintained a balance ofstructure and flexibility, and gave explicitfeedback created an atmosphere that not onlyenhanced learning but also appeared to miti-gate negative emotional responses to clientand organizational issues. Instructors whowere open to differences and gave the mes-sage that they cared about the student seemedto create an emotional safety net. As an exam-ple, a student who had experienced a publichumiliation described how the negativeimpact of the experience was mitigated by asupportive field instructor:

Afterward I found my supervisor andwe were in the cafeteria. And she wasasking me how it went and then I juststarted to cry in the cafeteria. So thatwas extremely emotional but yeah shewas very understanding and very sup-portive in that respect and she gave metime to kind of talk about it. She said "ifyou don't feel like staying for the rest of

the day maybe you should go home."So I thought that was handled reallywell but yeah that was very emotional.

Organizational Environment

The organizational atmosphere was anotherfactor that could potentially mitigate or exac-erbate participants' distress. Participantsproved to be very acute observers, ever watch -ful and sensitive to organizational issues andpatterns such as power dynamics, meta-communications, "in groups," and "outgroups." The organizational environment andthe relationship with the instructor appear tobe interrelated variables with the potential toenhance the positive or mitigate or exacerbatethe negative impact of the other. A positiverelationship with a tield instructor often pro-tected participants from tense organizationalissues. These students were able to share obser-vations with their tield instructor who in turnsupported the student and often normalizedthe participant's reactions. At times, the nega-tive impact of a stressful relationship with atield instructor was cushioned by others in theagency, who were supportive, made them-selves available for consultation, and provideda welcoming atmosphere. The combination of astressful relationship with the instructor and anegative organizational environment appearedto result in a toxic situation that affected on theparticipants' learning.

Participants were acutely aware ofwhether they were welcome and valued bytheir organization. They indicated awarenessof team dynamics and recognized when theycould, without hesitation, approach anyoneon the team for assistance. Comments such as


"We never had to feel that we had to floun-der" or "They saw me not only as a studentbut as someone who could give back to theorganization" reflected positive experiences.

These observations are in contrast toother participants' reflections of spending agreat deal of emotional energy on such mat-ters as managing the agency politics, strug-gling with client issues on their own, andnursing wounded self-esteem. Participantswere aware of their instructors' conflicts andstatus within the agency and had to balancealliances. This dilemma was noted by one stu-dent who said:

I didn't feel comfortable talking to a lotof the team members because when Iwould tell them something on behalfof my instructor they would brush meoff and kind of say "oh yeah okay,"and then continue on their way.

Participants were cognizant of the carestaff had taken to provide a welcoming phys-ical atmosphere, not only for the students butalso for clients. A number of participantsexpressed appreciation for the opportunity topersonalize their own physical space.

In general, participants proved to be par-ticularly sensitive to negative feedback whenthe general environment was perceived as"critical" and "cold." For example, one studentdescribed feeling extreme distress when apresentation she made was not well received.Another student felt extremely humiliatedwhen she experienced a personally embarrass-ing incident in front of a group of clients.When not mitigated by a protective and sup-portive instructor or agency environment.

these types of incidents contributed to batteredself-esteem and an intense emotional responsethat affected the participants' personal lives.

Seeking Problem-Solving Assistanceand Support

A number of clearly identifiable and signifi-cant patterns emerged with respect to seekingproblem-solving assistance and support. Sim-ilar themes were found in the responses ofparticipants from both schools despite the twodifferent faculty-field liaison protocols. Par-ticipants were highly reluctant to share theirfeelings and concerns with either designatedfaculty or with the field liaison, and did soonly when they saw no other option. Despiteperceiving faculty and field liaison as wantingto be helpful and as "nice," the participantsdid not see them as generally trustworthy andwere always wary of approaching them witha problem. The recognition of a power imbal-ance strongly influenced their willingness todisplay vulnerabilities and to take the chancethat they might be judged.

Friends and family were almost invari-ably the first people participants approachedfor support and advice with respect to theirfield placement. Fellow students were often asource of assistance because they could gener-ally be expected to understand the troublingissue and to be empathie and nonjudgmental.Talking with friends who were in the programwas generally described as very productive,as the experience was normalized when oth-ers expressed the same concerns and feelings.As an example, one student noted:

There was a huge relief when I talkedabout it with friends who were in the


program too. It was just like "oh Godthank God you're going through thistoo oh good, okay." So it became, it justbecame like a stress relief.

Participants were most able to expressshameful feelings to family and friends. Asthe stressful issues sometimes affected theircore self-esteem, the context of these safe rela-tionships enabled the participants to exposetheir vulnerabilities. For example, they couldcry, act foolishly, disclose fears and, as one stu-dent aptly stated, could admit that she felt likea "goof" without fear of reprisal. Some partic-ipants regularly telephoned partners orfriends throughout the day, just to have themlisten.

Although peer support was generally per-ceived as useful, there were occasions whenparticipants believed that their peers did notunderstand their emotional reactions. At times,the issue seemed insignificant to others, butdue to interrelated factors such as an unsup-portive environment or the participant's indi-vidual personal characteristics, was experi-enced as very significant to the participant.

When the relationship with the fieldinstructor was strong, participants wouldsometimes attempt to seek help from them.They could also, in the context of a safe, securerelationship with an instructor, disclose vul-nerabilities. Similarly, if there was a positiverelationship, an agency staff member was attimes called upon for support or advice.

On the occasions when participantssought faculty assistance, rather than ap -proaching their assigned faculty adviser, theymost commonly approached a faculty mem-ber with whom they had a relationship.

Seeking help from the field liaison was evenmore daunting than approaching a trustedfaculty member and fraught with anticipateddifficulties. Regardless of the liaison structure,participants rarely described a meaningfuland trusting relationship with the liaison.They were often concerned about what stepswould be taken by the liaison if the situationwas considered truly problematic. Most com-monly, their expressed goal was to completethe program and obtain their degree. Par-ticipants worried that if they asked for assis-tance they might be risking their ability tocomplete the program successfully, a risk thatwas unacceptable; rather, the participantschose to suffer in silence. At times, partici-pants struggled with the emotional impact ofpotentially dangerous clients or client situa-tions, field instructors who abused theirpower, toxic agency politics, and woefullyinadequate supervision rather than seek helpfrom their liaison.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to elucidate the fac-tors and dynamics associated wifh students'emotional responses to their field experiences.Drawing on the literature and anecdotal evi-dence from faculty who provide consultationand support to students in the field prac-ticum, the expectation was that studentswould recount clinical practice situations thatwere so difficult that they might feel trauma-tized, resulting in strong reactions withadverse affects on their learning and personalwell-being. The study findings only parfiallysupported the observations of faculty thatsome students were traumatized or experi-enced strong negafive emofional reactions in


response to events in the practicum. The smallsample size and the nature of the sample mayhave contributed to these results. Followingconventional human subjects research ethics,the investigators could not directly recruit stu-dents into the study who had self-identified tofaculty as having been adversely affected bypractice events. Rather, volunteers weresought and may not have represented the stu-dent body nor included students who hadtraumatic and negative experiences. Studentsmay have volunteered who had either verystrong positive or very strong negative feel-ings about their field learning. Moreover, thefindings are based only on the perspectives ofthe participants and not those of their fieldinstructors. Hence, although the study find-ings provide interesting insights, generaliza-tions applied to student field educationshould be made with caution. Despite theselimitations, there is some support in the liter-ature for the findings of this study.

Emotionally upsetting experiences can beconceptualized as a product of interrelatedfactors such as the actual practice event andits subjective meaning for the student, thenature of the student and field instructor rela-tionship, and the student's comfort in theorganization. First, regarding the practiceevent, only one participant experienced whatin the literature would be described as anobjective catastrophic event: the suicide of aclient. The participants, however, spoke atlength about subjective stress and strong emo-tional reactions that spilled over into theireveryday lives. It was apparent that individ-ual participants had highly individual defini-tions of what was experienced as critical,humiliating, or upsetting. Events considered

to be extremely upsetting by a participantmight not be perceived similarly by other stu-dents, field instructors, or faculty. It is recog-nized in the literature that when subjectiveexperiences are not acknowledged or validat-ed, the effect on the individual can be quitedevastating (Stolorow & Atwood, 1992).

The second contributing factor to definingexperiences as distressing is the nature of thestudent-field instructor relationship. Similarto the abundant empirical literature on the cru-cial nature of this relationship to students' sat-isfaction and perception of quality field expe-riences (Fortune & Abramson, 1993; Gray,Alperin, & Wik, 1989; Knight, 2000; Strozier,Barnett-Queen, & Bennett, 2000), the stijdent-field instructor relationship served as either arisk or a protective factor. When studentsreacted negatively to field events and soughtthe guidance of their field instructors, warm,supportive, and interested field instructorsmade a difference in assisting students to pro-cess the experience and move ahead in theirlearning. These instructors appeared toacknowledge students' strengths in the face oftheir fears and strong emotional reactions;they normalized student anxieties, were atten-tive to student concerns, and maintainedappropriate boundaries with distressed stu-dents. Conversely, students did not seek outfield instructors who were seen as unavailableor uninterested in teaching. The absence of apotentially helpful person appeared to exacer-bate students' negative reactions, whereas thepresence of a caring field instructor appearedto soften or diminish the students' discomfortand distress. This finding is consistent withBennett and colleagues' (Bennett, Mohr, Szoc,& Saks, 2008; Bennett & Saks, 2006) recent


contributions in which the relationship isviewed through the lens of attachment theory.These authors underscore the importance ofthe field instructor providing a secure base sothat the student can return "to the safe havenof supervision for repair of the inevitable rup-tures that occur during the field experience"(Bennett & Saks, 2006, p. 671). The fieldinstructor who is attuned to the student's cuescan determine what should be offered, whento provide encouragement to venture forthagain into the practice situation, and when touse the safe haven of the relationship to exam-ine the vulnerabilifies and difficulties evokedin learning. Additional study of the linksamong the nature of the relafionship, stu-dents' emofional reactions, and ability to learnand master competencies is warranted.

Finally, with respect to the student-fieldinstructor relafionship, there were examplesin which the relationship itself was the sourceof negafivity and stress for the participants. Insuch relafionships students experienced thefield instructor as misusing power, such asbehaving in authoritarian and punifive waysor inconsistently crossing boundaries by shar-ing too much personal information and thenavoiding and retreafing from the student.These dynamics created an undercurrent oftension throughout the practicum for studentsand intensified students' reactions to chal-lenging pracfice events by operating as a dou-ble burden, whereby the student was con-cerned about the event and also concernedabout how to relay their concerns to aninstructor viewed as unsupportive or puni-five. This finding is consistent with resultsfrom a nafional survey of crifical incidents in

field learning (Giddings, Vodde, & Cleveland,2003). Respondents identified as negative afield instructor's harsh and unyielding style;being rigid, authoritarian, overly challenging,or accusatory, and lacking empathy and sensi-tivity to student needs. Also reported as criti-cal was unprofessional behavior with moder-ate ethical and boundary violations.

The third contributing factor to perceivingan experience as stressful relates to the organi-zafional context of the pracficum. Agency poli-cies, observafions of informal styles of com-municafion, and staff tensions all had thepotenfial to affect the parficipants. Study par-ficipants were acutely aware of organizafionaldynamics and their field instructors' status inthe setting and how they are perceived by theteam. Acutely attuned to the agency culture asit relates to staff, students, and clients, parfici-pants recalled that the environmental contextaffected them intensely. This variable interact-ed in a synergistic manner with the effect ofthe student-field instructor relafionship. Aposifive experience with one lessened the neg-afive impact of the other. When both the rela-fionship and the organizational context werestressful, the total experience was perceived ashighly negafive. Although there is consider-able literature on the impact of workplacestress on employees, there is virtually no liter-ature on the effect of the organizational contexton social work students. Given that the socialwork profession relies heavily on ecosystemstheory, this is a glaring gap.

When students experienced upsettingemotional reactions, they turned to personsthey felt they could trust to help them handlethese reactions. As noted, when field instruc-


tors were perceived as supportive, studentsprocessed their experiences with them. Ofinterest was the finding that participants didnot go to the tield liaison for help. Differentfaculty field liaison models were offered bythe two schools in this sample: a traditionalintensive model with regular visits and atrouble-shooting model (Fortune et al., 1995)that does not include field visits. Regardless ofthe practicum model, almost all the partici-pants viewed the liaisons as "nice" peoplewho were not very effective. They described asuperticial relationship that was task focused.They did not disclose problems because theyfeared that they would not be supported, orworse still that they would be judged, andthat disclosing any vulnerability would jeop-ardize their future careers. Participants' pri-mary sources of support were family, friends,and, most significant, student colleagues.When faculty input was truly required theyapproached faculty members with whom theyhad relationships rather than designatedadvisers or liaisons. Once again, given theclinical literature on relationship and thera-peutic alliance, it is not surprising that whenfeeling vulnerable and in need of support, stu-dents would turn to those they trust.

implications for Practiceand Researcii

The findings of this study have implicationsfor faculty and tield instructors in under-standing emotional reactions of students infield placements. The themes that emergedhighlight that the participants' success in thetield placement resulted from a number of fac-tors including their own abilities and charac-

teristics and variables related to the placementsuch as the nature of the student-field instruc-tor relationship and the organizational envi-ronment. These findings correspond with theecological person-in-environment framework.

The signiticant variation in how partici-pants identified and defined emotionallycharged events points to the importance ofvalidating a student's subjectivity rather thanfocusing on "objective" facts. Clearly, eventsand situations in the practicum that matchevents that according to the literature are "ob-jectively" considered traumatic were definedby participants as emotionally charged andpotentially distressing. Our findings suggestthat other events and situations, however, thatdo not fit with the traditional notion of eventsthat can be experienced as traumatic, mightalso significantly affect and distress students.This tinding warrants further study to catego-rize events and their meanings for students.

The findings highlight the potentially cru-cial nature of the student-field instructor rela-tionship for the student and suggest that thisrelationship might serve as a significant riskor protective factor. There is unequivocal evi-dence about the significance of the worker-client relationship, which is considered funda-mental to effective social work practice(HoUis, 1970; Richmond, 1917). The impor-tance of the student-field instructor relation-ship has only recently been given due atten-tion (Bogo, 1993) and remains underestimated(Fox, 1998). Increasingly, however, the stu-dent-field relationship has been consideredcentral to the process of learning clinical prac-tice and critical to the student's satisfactionwith tield education (Bogo, 1993; Fox, 1998).


Further research is recommended to explorethe impact of the student-field instructor rela-fionship.

Our results also point to the impact of theorganizational environment on students andits potential to serve as a risk or protective fac-tor. A hallmark of social work practice is theperson-in-environment or ecological frame-work. According to this perspective, becauseindividuals are embedded in social and envi-rorunental contexts, multiple factors invari-ably contribute to social, emotional, andbehavioral patterns (Germain & Bloom, 1999).Such factors include individual characteris-tics, social interactions, and ecological andcultural conditions. This perspective suggeststhat it may be important to take into accountthe effect of a placement's organizational en-vironment on a student's emotional reactionsand functioning.

A striking finding that emerged throughanalysis of the interviews is that participantsturned to their friends and family for supportand help in dealing with emotionally chargedissues and stresses in the practicum despitethe presence of faculty field liaison models.The field placement is an integral componentof students' social work education andrequires further research. How effectively stu-dents manage stresses in the placement caninfluence their strategies in dealing with Stres-sors that arise in their future social work prac-tice. Research is needed to examine the waysstudents cope with emotionally chargedevents, including to whom they turn for helpand the factors that influence that choice. Suchresearch will contribute to new faculty andfield models that promote student learningand development.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC:Author.

Barlow, C, & Hall, B. (2007). "What about feel-ings?" A study of emotion and tension insocial work field education. Social WorkEducation, 26, 399^13.

Bennett, S., Mohr, J., Szoc, K. B., & Saks, L. V.(2008). General and supervision-specificattachment styles: Relations to studentperceptions of field supervisors. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 44, 75-94.

Bennett, S., & Saks, L. V. (2006). A conceptualapplication of attachment theory andresearch to the social work student-fieldinstructor supervisory relationship. Jour-nal of Social Work Education, 42, 669-682.

Bocage, M., Homonoff, E., & Riley, P (1995).Measuring the impact of the current stateand national fiscal crises on human serv-ice agencies and social work training.Social Work, 40, 701-705.

Bogo, M. (1993). The student/field instructorrelationship: The critical factor in fieldeducation. Clinical Supervisor, 11(2), 23-36.

Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1998). The practice offield instruction in social work: Theory andprocess (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Colum-bia University Press.

Bride, B. E. (2004). The impact of providingsocial services to traumatized popula-tions. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis: An Inter-national Journal, 7, 29-46.

Bride, B. E. (2007). Prevalence of secondarytraumatic stress among social workers.Social Work, 52, 63-70.

EMOTIONAL REACTIONS OF STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION 2 4 1

Bride, B. E., & Figley, C. R. (2007) .The fafigueof compassionate social workers: An in-troducfion to the special issue on compas-sion fatigue. Clinical Social Work Journal,35,151-153.

Collins, S., & Long, A. (2003). Working withthe psychological effects of trauma: Con-sequences for mental health workers—aliterature review. Journal of Psychiatric andMental Health Nursing, 10, 417-424.

Council on Social Work Educafion. (2008).Educational policy and accreditation stand-ards. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org / NR/ rdonlyres / 2A81732E-1776-4175- AC42-65974E96BE66 / 0 / 2008EducafionalPolicy andAccreditationStandards.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry andresearch design: Choosing among five tradi-tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deal, K. H. (2000). The usefulness of develop-mental stage models for clinical socialwork students: An exploratory study.Clinical Supervisor, 19(1), 1-19.

Figley, C. (1995). Compassion fafigue as sec-ondary stress disorder: An overview. In C.Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Copingwith secondary traumatic stress disorder inthose who treat the traumatized (pp. 1-20).New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Fortune, A. E., & Abramson, J. S. (1993). Pre-dictors of satisfaction with field practi-cum among social work students. ClinicalSupervisor, 11(1), 95-110.

Fortune, A. E., Miller, J., Rosenblum, A. F.,Sanchez, B. M., Smith, C, & Reid, W. J.(1995). Further explorafions of the liaisonrole: A view from the field. In G. Rogers(Ed.), Social work field education: Views andvisions. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Fox, R. (1998). An essay on mutuality and par-allel process in field instrucfion. ClinicalSupervisor, 17(2), 59-73.

Germain, C. B., & Bloom, M. (1999). Humanbehavior in the social environment: An eco-logical view (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Columbia University Press.

Giddings, M. M., Vodde, R., & Cleveland, P.(2003). Examining student-field instruc-tor problems in practicum: Beyond stu-dent satisfacfion measures. Clinical Super-visor, 22(2), 191-214.

Gray, S. W., Alperin, D. E., & Wik, R. (1989).Multidimensional expectations of studentsupervision in social work. Clinical Super-visor, 7(1), 89-102.

Hendricks, C. O., Finch, J. B., & Franks, C. L.(2005). Learning to teach: Teaching to learn.Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.

Hensley, R H. (2002). The value of supervi-sion. Clinical Supervisor, 21(1), 97-110.

HoUis, F. (1970). Casework: A psychosocial thera-py (2nd ed.). New York, NY: RandomHouse.

Iliffe, G., & Steed, L. (2000). Exploring thecounselor's experience of working withperpetrators and survivors of domesticviolence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,15, 393-412.

Kadushin, A. E. (1991). Introducfion. In D.Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman(Eds.), Field education in social work: Con-temporary issues and trends (pp. 11-12). Du -buque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Kamya, H. (2000). Hardiness and spiritualwell-being among social work students:Implications for social work education.Journal of Social Work Education, 36,231-241.


Knight, C. (2000). Engaging the student in thefield instruction relationship: BSW andMSW students' views. Journal of Teachingin Social Work, 20,173-201.

Maslach, C, Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P(2001). Job burnout. In S. T. Fiske, D. L.Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), AnnualReview of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

McCann, L., & Pearlman, L. (1990). Vicarioustraumatization: A framework for workingwith traumatic stress. Journal of TraumaticStress, 3(1)131-149.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research inpractice: Examples for discussion and analy-sis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pearlman, L. A., & Saakvitne, K. W. (1995).Trauma and the therapist: Countertransfer -ence and vicarious traumatization in psycho-therapy with incest survivors. New York,NY: W.W. Norton.

Poison, M., & Nida, R. (1998). Program andtrainee lifestyle stress: A survey ofAAMFT student members. Journal ofMarriage and Family Therapy, 24(1),95-112.

Raskin, M., & Bloome, W. W. (1998). Theimpact of managed care on field instruc-tion. Journal of Social Work Education, 34,365-375.

Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitativeresearch. Bundoora, Australia: OualitativeSolutions and Research Pty. Ltd.

Richmond, M. (1917). Social diagnosis. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Saari, C. (1989). The process of learning in clini-cal sodal work. Smith College Studies in SocialWork, 60,35-49.

Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in theprofessions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-60.

Stamm, B. H. (Ed.) (1995). Secondary traumaticstress: Self-care issues for clinicians, researchers,and educators. Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press.

Stolorow, R. D., & Atwood, G. E. (1992). Contextsof being: The intersubjective foundations of psy-chological life. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Strozier, A. L., Bamett-Queen, T., & Bennett, C. K.(2000). Supervision: Critical process andoutcome variables. Clinical Supervisor, 19(1),21-39.

Toison, E. R., & Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum:Clients, problems, interventions and influ-ences on student practice. Journal of SocialWork Education, 24,123-134.

Towle, C. (1954). The learner in education for theprofessions. Chicago, IL: University of Chica-go Press.

Wade, K., Beckerman, N., & Stein, E. (1996). Riskof posttraumatic stress disorder amongAIDS sodal workers: Implications for orga-nizational response. Clinical Supervisor, 14(2),85-97.

Walter, C. A., & Yoimg, T. M. (1999). Combiningindividual and group supervision in educat-ing for the sodal work profession. ClinicalSupervisor, 18(2), 73-89.

Younghusband, E. (1967). The teacher in educa-tion for sodal work. Social Service Review, 41,359-370.


Accepted: 09/09

Andrea Litvack is senior lecturer and Marion Bogo is professor at the University of Toronto. FayeMishna holds the Margaret & Wailace iVIcCain Famiiy Chair in Child & Famiiy and is professor at theUniversity of Toronto.

This project was funded by an institutionai grant fronn the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncii of Canada.

Address correspondence to Andrea LitvacK Factor-lnwentash Faculty of Social WorK University ofToronto, 246 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario M5S1V4, Canada; e-nnail: [email protected].

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Council on Social Work Education and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

emotional reactions of students in field education: …

Documents