Questioning the uncritical acceptance of neuroscience in child and family policy and practice: A review of challenges to the current doxa

In January I asked  in my post on RSW Blog  ‘Brains, biology and tests for future burdenhood

Who hasn’t seen the brains?

The luridly coloured images of two children’s brains, side by side. Presented as cast iron evidence of the impact of child neglect.  I remember exactly where I was when I first saw that image. The venue was a lecture theatre at my university (at least 10 years ago) and the presenter was a professional I knew and (still do) held in high regard. The emotional impact of seeing the two brains was considerable- the ‘normal’ brain of a child of a particular age contrasted with the apparently shrunken brain of a child who had suffered abuse and neglect.

And  the brains were to reappear with alarming regularity….. I heard a while ago that there are still social workers handing around pictures of those brains., presumably to frighten struggling parents.  Perhaps they still adorn the staff room walls in early childhood centres.

The brains were a con. The most commonly used image, as pointed out by Healy (2015, p.1499) is devoid of a detailed case history and fails to provide a comparison scale, both of which would be evidence of good academic rigour, and most importantly:

… the technologies themselves provide compelling visual images that are accessible, but also easily misinterpreted, by a range of health professionals, users of services and the general public

what do we have in Aotearoa New Zealand? Growing numbers of children in care (yet every social worker knows that the state is a very poor parent and can’t deliver love); an enormous prison muster that is disproportionately Maori; persistent and racialised health inequalities, the impact of welfare austerity (Edmiston, 2016) and growing homelessness.  The sad sight of people queuing with their children to get basic food at the foodbank days before Christmas (RadioNZ, 2016).

We have a callous, cynical and morally bankrupt lot in power. They will spend money on anything to show they ‘care’ as long as it’s not dismantling this regime that dresses up punishment and cruelty as rehabilitation. For more discussion of these issues and a review of the literature please read our new article  Beddoe and Joy (2017) here for more  


Beddoe, L. (2017)  Brains, biology and future burdenhood. Reimagining Social Work.

Beddoe, L., & Joy, E. (2017). Questioning the uncritical acceptance of neuroscience in child and family policy and practice: A review of challenges to the current doxa. Aotearoa NewZealand Social Work, 29(1), 65-76.  Read here

Edmiston, D. (2016). ‘How the other half live’: Poor and rich citizenship in austere welfare regimes. Social Policy and Society, 1-11. doi:10.1017/s1474746416000580

Healy, K. (2016). After the biomedical technology revolution: Where to now for a bio-psycho-social approach to social work? British Journal of Social Work, 46(5), 1446-1462.

RadioNZ (2016, 7 December). Christmas Queues.

Other refs

Beddoe , L. (2014). Feral families, troubled families: The rise of the underclass in New Zealand 2011-2013 New Zealand Sociology 29(3), 51-68.

Belsky, J., & de Haan, M. (2011). Annual research review: Parenting and children’s brain development: The end of the beginning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(4), 409-428.

Crossley, S. (2015a). Realising the (troubled) family’, ‘crafting the neoliberal state’. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(2), 263-279(doi:

Crossley, S. (2015b, May 25). ‘Feral families’ or a ‘filthy civilization’? [Blog post]. Retrieved from Re-Imaging social work:

Telegraph (2016, 12 December). Test predicts which children will grow up to be drain on society – when they are just three years old

Macvarish, J.(2016).Viewing children as future criminals: Debunking a new study predicting which kids will become a ‘burden’.  Accessed 23-12-6 at

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

To post or not to post? Perceptions of the use of a closed Facebook group as a networked public space


Writing on the wall-  a safe place for debate?

Neil Ballantyne, Simon Lowe, Liz Beddoe 

The expansion of social media is associated with rapid growth in digital spaces for civic engagement and deliberative democratic discussion.  Yet while these networked public spaces offer many possibilities for engagement and interaction, the technology also shapes social dynamics, raising questions about managing professional relationships and boundaries online.  The development of a closed Facebook for social workers in New Zealand provided an opportunity to explore their perceptions on the use of a shared social media space for information sharing, professional deliberation and debate about public issues: our findings highlight perceived benefits and pitfalls.

A  research team was formed, with four of the members also  members of SWANZ,  a social work Facebook group. We shared an interest in social media within the social work profession, and have  at various points been active participants in discussion and debate within the group.  Following an April 2015 announcement by the New Zealand government of plans to reform child protection services ( see for example this blog post) and alter the structure and funding of social services ( see Mike O’Brien’s post) , SWANZ became a place where group members shared information about proposed policy changes and discussed and debated these and other issues.

It was a time of intense debate and discussion as the changes proposed were likely to have  a major impact on social work and social services in Aotearoa New Zealand.

As participants we observed the ebb and flow of discussion and noticed the growth of interest in the group, indicated by a rapid rise in membership.  We also observed that, as in other online communities, some members were very active in making contributions and comments to the online discussion, but the vast majority were relatively passive participants (they may be logging in and reading content posted to the group but made little or no active contributions to discussion or debate).  The study aimed to explore with participants factors associated with active engagement in this networked public space, and factors associated with reluctance to participate.  Our specific research questions were:

  1. What do participants value about their membership of the SWANZ Facebook group?
  2. What problems or issues are associated with membership?
  3. What factors are associated with active engagement and with reluctance to participate in the SWANZ community?

Our recently published article presents our research as an exploratory case study which highlights the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with the use of a networked public space for debating issues of concern to professional social workers.

The creation of an online community of practice in which users can engage and share news, information and opinions was valued highly. However, in this case study, there were issues associated with examples of online incivility and a pervasive reluctance to express policy or political opinions because of concerns about critical comments by others. What is not clear is the extent to which concerns about critical feedback are just a normal, and sensible, part of interaction in networked public spaces; and the extent to which our respondents were reacting to a group climate and recent events in this particular Facebook group. It is also possible that sensitive issues, such as race and culture, pose particular dilemmas for democratic deliberation in the context of a postcolonial society where indigenous people are vastly over-represented in the care and justice systems.

Ballantyne, N., Lowe, S., & Beddoe, L. (2017). To post or not to post? Perceptions of the use of a closed Facebook group as a networked public space. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(1), 20-37. doi:10.1080/15228835.2017.1277903

Read full text here 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Engaging the social work profession in the transnational professional space.

Crossing Borders : Migrant Professionals

Allen Bartley, Liz Beddoe and Shajimon Peter


This study is an Aotearoa New Zealand-wide participatory action research project involving all the significant stakeholders in the social work profession to develop an agreed-upon set of standards and expectations of context-specific professional and socio-cultural transitioning programmes for overseas-qualified social workers in New Zealand. This is the latest phase in our “Crossing Borders- Migrant Professionals study”. Our publications are listed here.

This project builds on growing national and international evidence that the increasing transnationalism of the social work profession has not been matched by a readiness of the profession’s key stakeholders to prepare adequately for the challenges of an increasingly transnational workforce.

The stakeholders involved in the project will include the professional bodies: ANZASW, the SWRB, the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Assocation, Tangata Whenua Voices, and also social work employers, specialist employment agencies and the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa…

View original post 315 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Supervision in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Challenges in changing contexts

Liz Beddoe 

The major supervision journal The Clinical Supervisor has just started a new series, which will run over several years: Global developments in clinical supervision, see here for the Call for Papers.

The series, “Global Developments in Clinical Supervision,” will provide the opportunity to systematically document the current professional status of clinical supervision, as well as ongoing efforts to enhance the specialty, in a range of professions/disciplines around the world.

It is hoped the series will allow clinical supervision advocates an opportunity to share their work and learn from each others’ efforts; will encourage networking among practitioners, educators, supervisors-in-training, and researchers across disciplines and countries; and will stimulate research needed to further advance the specialty. As an ongoing series, these publications may serve as “baseline data” for future comparisons as well as a chronicle of the evolution of clinical supervision.

I was very pleased to be invited to submit an article for the launch of the series, with a focus on supervision in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand (Beddoe, 2016). As I started to compile the material for the article I was aware of how much  research and writing on supervision has emanated from this context over the last few decades.

Supervision is a subject of much study and discussion in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a popular topic within the country’s only peer-reviewed journal, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work ( Three national supervision conferences have been convened, in 2000, 2004, and 2010, with an earlier one in 1970 (O’Donoghue & Tsui, 2012 ). I’ve been involved in a number of supervision related research projects and started a blog-The Supervision Research Agenda.

I wrote that Allyson Davys and I  along with Kieran O’Donoghue (and his Hong Kong-based collaborator Ming-sum Tsui) have made significant contributions to the professionalization of social work supervision in New Zealand by advocacy, educational development, and expanding the research and scholarship over several decades. Four books have been published on supervision since 2003 by social work authors   (Beddoe & Davys, 2016 ; Beddoe & Maidment, 2015 ;  Davys & Beddoe, 2010;  Davys & Beddoe, 2015; O’Donoghue, 2003 ).

I noted that while the word count for the article didn’t allow space for  a full review of the literature; however, research activity is lively in Aotearoa New Zealand, with authors contributing to the international literature on themes beyond local concerns (see, for example, the work of O’Donoghue (2015) ; Beddoe, (2015); Beddoe, Karvinen-Niinikoski, Ruch, & Tsui, (2015 );   O’Donoghue & Tsui, (2015)  and Tsui, O’Donoghue,  & Ng (2014).

The article also discusses the contributions of tangata whenua writers about supervision in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand. I wrote about the innovations  to be found in the work being undertaken to develop specific approaches to supervision that reflect and are responsive to Māori worldviews.( see for example Eketone, 2012; Eruera, 2005,2012)  The aims of these approaches to supervision are to ensure the cultural identities and issues impacting within clinical social work practice are brought to the forefront in supervision…….

Read the full article here:

Beddoe, L. (2016). Supervision in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Challenges in changing contexts. The Clinical Supervisor, 35(2), 156-174. doi:10.1080/07325223.2016.1217497


Beddoe, L. (2015). Supervision and developing the profession: One supervision or many? China Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 150-163. doi:10.1080/17525098.2015.1039173

Beddoe , L., & Davys, A. (2016). Challenges in professional supervision: Current themes and models for practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M.-s. (2015). Towards an international consensus on a research agenda for social work supervision: Report on the first survey of a Delphi study. British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv110

Davys, A., & Beddoe , L. (2010). Best practice in professional supervision: A guide for the helping professions. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Eketone, A. (2012). The purposes of cultural supervision . Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work , 24(3/4), 20-30.
Read free here.

Eruera, M. (2005) ‘He Korero Korari.’ In L. Author, J. Worrall and F. Howard (eds) Weaving Together the Strands of Supervision. Proceedings of the 2004 conference, Auckland, New Zealand (pp.59–66). Auckland: Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.

Eruera, M. (2012) ‘He kōrari, he kete, he kōrero.’ Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work  24, (3/4), 12–19.Read free here. 

Davys, A., & Beddoe , L. (2015). Interprofessional supervision: Opportunities and challenges. In L. Bostock (Ed.), Interprofessional Staff Supervision in Adult Health and Social Care Services (Vol. 1, pp. 37-41). Brighton, England: Pavilion Publishing

O’Donoghue, K. (2015). Issues and challenges facing social work supervision in the twenty-first century. China Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 136-149. doi:10.1080/17525098.2015.1039172

O’Donoghue, K., & Tsui, M.-s. (2015). Social Work Supervision Research (1970–2010): The Way We Were and the Way Ahead. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 616-633.

Tsui, M.-s., O’Donoghue, K., & Ng, A. K. T. (2014). Culturally Competent and Diversity-Sensitive Clinical Supervision. In C. E. Watkins & D. L. Milne (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of Clinical Supervision (pp. 238-254). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Solidarity and support: Feminist memory work focus groups with working-class women studying social science degrees in Australia.

Dee Michell, Liz Beddoe, Heather Fraser and Michele Jarldorn 

We have just published a  new article reporting on our use of a two-phase, feminist memory work  study in a project conducted with 11 women, social science students at an Australian university. We begin by describing government-led attempts to widen participation in Australian universities because 10 of the 11 women who participated in our project were from non-traditional backgrounds.

We discuss qualitative group research, identifying some of the benefits and limitations of focus groups, before differentiating them from feminist memory work and analysing key findings. Using excerpts from participants’ written stories and oral discussions, we analyse some of the obstacles the women faced trying to complete their studies.

Our attention then turns to methodological concerns where we examine memory work as a feminist inquiry method. As second-wave feminists understood several decades ago through their use of consciousness-raising groups, we describe how we derived many benefits from using feminist memory work. The method invites deep reflection on the intersections between the personal and political and can be productive of insights about how people feel, not just think, about their experiences. A sense of solidarity can stem from this awareness amongst participants who have a chance to workshop and thus reinterpret their own stories and those of others, which can mean a growth in self-confidence and a reduction in self-blame.

read free here

Michell, D., Beddoe, L., Fraser, H., & Jarldorn, M. (2016). Solidarity and support: Feminist memory work focus groups with working-class women studying social science degrees in Australia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1-15. doi:10.1080/09518398.2016.1242804

See also:

Fraser, H., Michell, D., Beddoe, L., & Jarldorn, M. (2016). Working-class women study social science degrees: remembering enablers and detractors. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4), 684-697. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1137885 Abstract 

Jarldorn, M., Beddoe, L., Fraser, H., & Michell, D. (2015). Planting a seed: Encouraging service users towards educational goals. Social Work Education, 34(8), 921-935. doi:10.1080/02615479.2015.1098607 Abstract 

Posted in research, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Understanding decision-making variability in child welfare – a current research project

Emily Keddell and Ian Hyslop 

Decision-making across the spectrum of child welfare services is to say the least, complicated. Studies time and again find that decisions to refer to statutory services, to accept notifications, to substantiate them, and to proceed to formal care proceedings, can have significant outcome variations, even if the family circumstances or level of harm are fairly similar. While no two families are exactly the same, the levels of variation can be significant. This is a problem, as children’s right to protection, and family rights to retain children in their care, should both be enforced at a consistent level or threshold.

Differences in outcomes have led to many attempts to theorise and understand why this occurs. There are two main findings from the ‘why’ research. The first is that it is not simply the individual decision-maker that controls decision outcomes – rather it is a range of interacting influences across the ecological spectrum that determine these. Secondly, while some influences on decisions, such as assessment tools, are obvious, there are many less obvious ones that need examination if decision variability is to be understood and reduced. Some of these less visible ones include the values and beliefs of practitioners, how family behaviour or abuse is interpreted, family responses, the presence of alternative resources such as preventive services, how decision-making heuristics develop via feedback, site-based organisational cultures, the impact of group or supervisory processes, the influence of biases, the expression of inequalities of class and ethnicity, and an often conflicted orientation or ideology of the nation state in regards to child welfare policy. Little research has been undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand to date to examine which of these are most significant or how they interact in our context.

In order to attempt to grapple with this huge and overwhelming list of possible influences, we are running an exploratory research project to attempt to understand what is driving variability here. With this in mind, our study uses two methods to attempt to ‘get at’ the micro – meso aspects of decision making. The first method is the online questionnaire some of you will have seen. This phase will gather some basic data on to what extent variability exists by seeing how much perceptions of risk in response to the same case (a vignette) differ. It also asks questions relating to the interpretive processes relating to understandings of abuse and harm, knowledge bases, biases, ethical considerations, etc, and gathers some information about the meso context such as time constraints, other powerholders in the decision process, and the depth of information able to be gathered.

To extend the examination of meso factors, several sites will be selected in phase two, where we will be running focus groups and inviting people to be interviewed. This phase will be looking at how decisions are processed at different sites through decisions pathways. It will also seek to understand the cultural norms and practices at each site, and ask respondents about how they decide in ‘cusp’ cases – those that are difficult to decide about.

Using these two methods, together with a literature review incorporating the relevant macro aspects, we hope to produce useful baseline research into what contributes to decision variability. This knowledge can then be put into practice by working with relevant agencies to address the causes of variability – without introducing heavily prescribed or automated practice responses. Balancing practitioner discretion and creativity with the need to have a fair and equitable response to whanau in the child welfare system will be the aim at that point of the research project.

We hope this gives a good overview of the project – if you work for Child, Youth and Family  or a child and family service, Iwi social service or Cultural social service in Aotearoa New Zealand, we would love you to take part in the questionnaire phase of the study. You can take part in it here:

PS. This project has been approved by the University of Otago Ethics Committee, and the Ministry of Social Development Research Access Committee. The researchers are Emily Keddell at University of Otago, Ian Hyslop at the University of Auckland, and the research advisor is Shayne Walker at the University of Otago.

PPS. If you’re interested in the background literature, there’s an open access article available here:

Keddell, E. (2014). Current debates on variability in child welfare decision-making: A selected literature review. Social Sciences, 3(4), 916.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Where to social work in a brave new neoliberal Aotearoa?

Ian Hyslop 

Ian is a lecturer in Social Work in the School of Counselling , Human Services and Social Work  at the University of Auckland. Ian’s professional and research  interests are tied to a concern with the relationship between social work and social justice, locally and globally. He worked for twenty years as a social worker, supervisor, and practice manager in statutory child protection practice in Auckland, New Zealand. He has spent a great deal of time over the last  year thinking, writing and talking about the review of New Zealand’s child welfare services. Like most who practice, teach  and research in child welfare he acknowledges the role of risk identification, assessment, decision making, professional judgment in practice. Ian writes:

“Uncertainty is embedded in the nature of child protection work, despite the bureaucratic and managerial imperative to eradicate it. The recent focus on the scientific prediction of child abuse within high risk families connects with the neoliberal policy agenda of disciplining the poor and unproductive”.

Child protection social work in Aotearoa New Zealand is enmeshed with poverty and social deprivation – with the lives of vulnerable families. Current policy initiatives are moving social work towards a stricter policing of the underclass poor as I have written elsewhere  in The Road not Taken about the  recent review of Child Youth and Family Services in New Zealand. And  let’s be clear:

 that that the CYF Review process, outcome and ongoing implementation, is not a neutral or dispassionate exercise. It has and will continue to be, politically and ideologically orchestrated. In this sense the ‘review’ has been about constructing a narrative to fit within a predetermined frame that is consistent with the Government’s wider social investment policy programme. The agenda is about reducing the downstream fiscal cost caused by ‘vulnerable’ people and “productivity”.

Child ill-treatment is correlated with poverty in the form of inadequate housing, education failure, poor health, low incomes and impoverished communities. It is time to make this clear in a political environment that is bent on divorcing social work from a concern with increasing structural injustice and focusing us on the detection, remoralisation and/or punishment of deviant abusers. The liberal humanist tradition of social work focuses on the individual redemption of failing subjects. In a punitive neoliberal political environment, this orientation potentially lures social workers into an othering of those who are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own moral rehabilitation”.

“We live in pivotal times for social work.” 

This article asks readers to consider the argument put forward and to question where they stand: where might social work be taking you  in these current conditions and where would you like to take social work?

Readers can access the full article in the  free open access journal Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work from the link below.

Hyslop, I. K. (2016). Where to social work in a brave new neoliberal Aotearoa? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work. 28(1) ,5-12     Read here.

Further articles by Ian:

Hyslop, I. (2012). Social work as a practice of freedom. Journal of Social Work, 12(4), 404-422. doi:10.1177/1468017310388362 Abstract here.

Hyslop, I. (2013). The’White paper for vulnerable children’and the’Munro review of child protection in England’: A comparative critique. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(4), 4-14. Read here.

Hyslop, I. (2016). Social work in the teeth of a gale: a resilient counter-discourse in neoliberal times. Critical and Radical Social Work. 4(1) 21-37   abstract here

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Comparing public perceptions of social work and social workers’ expectations of the public view

Neons cropped-p1030177

Barbara Staniforth, Kesley Deane and Liz Beddoe

Barbara, Liz and Kesley are researchers in the School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, University of Auckland

In a previous article from this research project ‘Public perceptions of social work in New Zealand‘  Barbara Staniforth, Christa Fouche and Liz Beddoe wrote about a telephone survey carried out  in 2013 in which 386 members of the public in Aotearoa New Zealand were asked about their beliefs and impressions about social work and social workers. Study findings demonstrate that members of the public surveyed appeared relatively well informed about what social workers do, and were generally positive in their views.  Snippets of those findings include:

A majority of respondents indicated that they would encourage their children or a close family member to become a social worker. This, despite the fact that they were also aware of the high stress associated with the job, the low pay and the hard work that is required, as well as some uncertainty about what it actually is that social workers do.( Staniforth et al. 2014,p.58)

In a second online survey we asked New Zealand  social workers “How do social workers think that they are perceived by the public of Aotearoa New Zealand?” and a few additional questions. We had 403  responses  from social workers who were members of  the Aotearoa  New Zealand Association of Social Work. We asked them about their perceptions on how  social work and social workers are viewed by the public, using similar questions to the first public survey and a few additional questions, which we will be reporting on soon. These results have been  compared to the  previous telephone survey.

In a new article’ Comparing public perceptions of social work and social workers’ expectations of the public view‘  we note that the results demonstrate that the social workers generally had a poorer impression of what the public believed in most areas, compared to what the public had indicated in the prior study.

Social workers in this study sensed that there is stigma associated with social work and that they are not particularly well represented by the media. These results are consistent with many previous studies

Both studies note the  lack of positive messages that the public receive about social work. Both studies reported in this new  article suggest that one of the ways of improving the public perception is for social workers to become better at educating the public about their roles and mission.

We hope you will read both articles- free open access from the links below- and share your ideas about ways social workers can be more visible in the great work they do. Leave us a comment below.


Staniforth, B., Fouche , C. B., & Beddoe , L. (2014). Public perception of social work and social workers in New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 26(2/3), 48-60.

Staniforth, B., Deane, K., & Beddoe, L. (2016). Comparing public perceptions of social work and social workers’ expectations of the public view. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(1), 13-24. doi:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Challenges in professional supervision: Current themes and models for practice

Just published with Allyson Davys, our second book on professional supervision.

Book Cover

This is a new book with material we couldn’t cover enough in our first book. Please  click on this link for a video  Q and A  on the book on the JKP website:


Intro: Contemporary themes in professional supervision

Chapter 1: Supervision in context: Surveillance or support? Chapter 2: Starting with who we are: Culture, gender and belief in the supervision encounter. Chapter 3: The education of the reflective supervisor. Chapter 4: Practitioner wellbeing and the role of supervision. Chapter 5: Ethics and supervision.Chapter 6: Managing a supervision practice.

Chapter 7: Group supervision. Chapter 8: Interprofessional supervision. Chapter 9: Supervising for strengths. Chapter 10: Supervision of managers. Chapter 11: From difficult situations to courageous conversations. Chapter 12: Creativity in supervision: keeping supervision exciting and supervisors engaged.

Comments from our very kind reviewers:

“This book is written by the two people who know most about professional supervision: Liz Beddoe and Allyson Davys. What is most exciting is the critical analysis that they bring; they really understand the complexities in practice today, and in exploring the challenges in supervision, they challenge us to raise our game, so that there are better outcomes for those who use our services”. — Professor Viviene Cree, School of Social & Political Science, The University of Edinburgh

“The scope of this text is truly impressive. The authors are unflinching in their critical analysis of the urgent developmental challenges facing supervision in all the health professions today. Their scholarly and up-to-date knowledge of the professional literature and current research in the field, combined with their keen awareness of the hard realities of practice in diverse contexts, makes for invigorating reading”. — Jim Holloway, BACP Senior Accredited Supervisor, partner in Cambridge Supervision Training, co-author of Practical Supervision: How to Become a Supervisor for the Helping Professions

Available here and in Kindle from Amazon

Beddoe , L., & Davys, A. (2016). Challenges in professional supervision: Current themes and models for practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Authors of: Davys, A., & Beddoe , L. (2010). Best practice in professional supervision: A guide for the helping professions. London: Jessica Kingsley.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 3 Comments