simulation presentation

1. Simulation
DebriefingSWP 341
By: Ainsley, Emily, Erika, Katie, Monica, Sabrina

2. AGENDA
1. Theoretical considerations
2. Issues of power, powerlessness, privilege, and
oppression
3. Structural issues
4. The use of self in practice context
5. What you would do the same/differently

3. “Whatever the practice context, it is essential
that the setting be accessible
with enough space to offer privacy and a
certain degree of comfort.”
Lundy, C. (2004). Social work and social justice: A structural approach to practice . Peterborough, ON:
Broadview Press. (pp. 111-127).

4. THEORETICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Approaches used, how anti-oppressive principles were/were not incorporated
• Lundy explains that it’s important that the setting be
accessible to offer privacy and provide comfort
• The first few minutes of the meeting are crucial as
the service user is observing to see whether or not
the social worker is someone that they can trust
• Introduction – tuning in approach
• Lundy explains the importance of tuning in, as is it
when social workers get in touch with personal
biases, feelings and concerns

5. THEORETICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Approaches used, how anti-oppressive principles were/were not incorporated
• We began the meeting with respectful, attentive, interested,
caring, trustworthy, friendly, genuine, honest and warm
demeanor
• Throughout the meeting, we tried to incorporate an anti-
oppressive framework as much as possibly by asking everyone
how they were feeling
• This was difficult due to the language barrier that Enrique
experienced
• We attempted to provide equal opportunities to speak
throughout the meeting, however, Penny and Doug spoke often
as their personalities were stronger and which led them to
having more of an advantage throughout the meeting.

6. POWER VS.
POWERLESS
NESS

7. In social work role, relational dynamics, fluidity of power
ISSUES OF POWER +
PRIVELEGE• A social worker is believed to be in a position of power and
privilege however it is a social workers responsibility to break this
barrier and provide a power-with approach instead of a power-over
approach
• Our group held an enormous amount of privilege as the social
worker while dealing with the service workers
• This caused more confusion and frustration between the service
users and our group

8. In social work role, relational dynamics, fluidity of power
ISSUES OF POWER +
PRIVELEGE• The ideas of privilege and issues of power are factors that show how
important an anti-oppressive framework and approach is in order to
better understand and support the service users
• In order to eliminate issues of power, privilege and oppression, it is
important that the social worker does not talk over or talk more than
the service users.
• Our group tried to do this as much as possible, by allowing the service
users to express how they were feeling, and how different solutions
would affect them rather than telling them what we thought would be
best for them.
• Issues were seen when we asked the service users about Ben and
the other individuals that have been helping them access food through
the back door.

9. STRUCT
URAL
ISSUES

10. Structural issuesSpecific to population/issue, specific to you/service users in simulation
• Our group had a hard time with regards to population needs, as
introductions from the service users were not addressed in the
beginning of the meeting
• A better introduction would have allowed us to understand each
service user and what they struggled with
• Enrique was struggling with transitioning into Toronto
• Nancy was struggling with paying for a baby sitter
• Doug was there because of his wife, Edie
• Penny was an Aboriginal woman who was proactive and wanted to help in
order to see a change for not only herself, but the whole community.

11. Structural issuesSpecific to population/issue, specific to you/service users in simulation
• According to Payne 2006, a process is “a series of actions and
factors affecting [the service user] that go towards making or
achieving something”
• Our group would identify this meeting as an “empowering
process” which is “strengthening people's ability to overcome
social barriers”
• Most applicable to this situation because the users of the
backdoor service needed to overcome the barrier of the
warehouse shutting down, which allowed them accessibility to
food.
• Identifying which process to use is important because it
changes how the social worker would approach the conflict.

12. “What am I
feeling?” “How am I
presenting?” “What
did I do?” “Why did
I do it?”.
Lishman, J. (2002). Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates . London: MacMillan. (pp. 89-103).

13. COMFORTOpen Welcoming
THE USE OF SELFYour unique identities and subject positions, how you used “yourself” in simulation
• Remained calm
• Kept a professional stance (posture)
• Maintained eye contact
• Admitted frustration in not knowing as much information
• Work with information given

14. WHAT TO DO
DIFFERENTLY
Using reflection on action skills and knowledge, what would you do next time
• Be more welcoming
• Allow members of group to properly introduce themselves
• Allow service users to feel more as an individual (personal
experiences and the effects of it)
• Make sure and acknowledge what they are saying
• When dealing with group, do not put all of them under same
category
• Provide beverages and snacks

15. • Do not form questions in a “cryptic” manner
• Be as specific as possible
• Do not repeat the same question or use long phrases
• Be careful of wording (may “accuse” the client)
• Feed off of each other to gather information
WHAT TO DO DIFFERENTLYUsing reflection on action skills and knowledge, what would you do next time
• Be aware of anything such as language barriers
• Continuously remind them that we were advocating for them

16. WHAT TO DO THE SAMEUsing reflection on action skills and knowledge, what would you do next time
• Agreeing with the group about their circumstances
• Our body language and eye contact
• Remained neutral and professional and avoided getting
frustrated
• Our demeanor while speaking to the clients

17. DISCUSSION
• We weren’t given not a lot of information prior to our simulation, so if you were in a
similar situation where you didn’t have the answers that the clients were asking for, how
would you answer them in a way that satisfied them? And how would you react to them
being angry at your lack of information?
• With dealing with 4 completely different people, what approach would you have taken in
this situation to hold the meeting? How would you have tried to get everyone's voice
heard and kept control of the interview with so many voices giving you so many different
ideas and questions?
• Specific to a distinct individual who was a part of the interview, how would you have
approached the situation? (ex. How would you have included Enrique into the
conversation)

18. DISCUSSIONTable 2.1 (Payne, 2005)
TYPE OF
PROCESS
WRITER AIMS
Critical Fook (2002);
Healy (2000)
Move towards transformation of social
relations
through dialogical, shared relationships
Developmenta
l
Smalley (1967) Help people to 'grow' in understanding and
skill
Ego-
supportive
Goldstein (1995) Strengthen people's will to plan and organize
life
Empowering Solomon (1976);
Lee (2001)
Strengthen people's ability to overcome social
barriers
Person-
centered
Rogers (1967) Release individual's capacity for self-
actualization

19. DISCUSSION con’t
TYPE OF
PROCESS
WRITER AIMS
Problem solving Perlman (1957) Help people to specify and
overcome problems
Psychosocial Hollis (1964) Help people to identify and
respond to
psychological and social
stresses
Process
Knowledge
Sheppard et al. (2002) Make assessments and
decisions through cognitive
processe
Systems Evans and Kearney
(1996)
Phases that place work
tasks in sequence,
according to connections in
time

20. ANY
questions?
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!

21. References
Allen, G. & Lanford, D. (2007). Types and purposes of interviews in the agency
context. In
Effective interviewing in social work and social care: A practical guide. (pg. 52-60).
New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Lundy, C. (2004). The helping process: Assessment and intervention. In Social Work
and social
justice: A structural approach to practice. (pg. 111-120). Peterborough, ON:
Broadview Press.
Lishman, J. (2002). Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates . London:
MacMillan. (pp. 89-103).
Payne, M. (2005). Social work process. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli & M. Payne (Eds.)
Social work futures: crossing boundaries, transforming practice (pp. 21-35). New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.