Social work practice in rural Australia faces high staff turnover, burnout and difficulties in recruitment and retention (Cuss 2005). A lack of supervision and professional development opportunities have been identified as contributing to the situation of recruitment and retention difficulties (Green, 2003). This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of peer supervision in rural and remote Australia, using technology. The qualitative research described here reports on the process of peer supervision in virtual teams in rural and remote Australia over a twelve month period. Pre and post-trial individual interviews; monthly group supervision sessions; online evaluations of the peer group supervision experience and focus groups were conducted providing rich data of the experience of participants. Two overarching findings were evident and then seven themes were identified. The two overarching findings were that firstly, supervision with peers in groups facilitated good quality supervision; and secondly, that difference in social work contexts and agencies value-added to the peer group supervision experience. A thematic analysis identified seven themes. These are connectedness with like-minded professionals; support; education; reflection on practice; structure and process; technology and the challenges of time, preparation and priority. Significant findings include the apparent erosion of traditional social work supervision models in the workplace in rural, remote and regional Australia; the success of grouping peers selected from different agencies together; the value of connectedness with like-minded professionals and of structure in providing a safe space for ongoing learning, reflection on practice, professional development and support to be effective. The ease and access afforded by the use of simple technology is noteworthy. The validity of peer supervision groups as a supervision option of choice is recommended for rural, regional and remote contexts. These findings have significant implications for the retention of social workers in rural, remote and regional Australia.

1. Exploring peer supervision in virtual teams in rural and remote Australia
Amanda Nickson, amanda.nickson@jcu.edu.au

2. Background and context
 Approximately one third of Australia’s population lives outside
major cities in regional, rural and remote Australia (ABS 2010)
– thats over 7 million people
 Rural disadvantage is well documented in the literature (Sidoti,
1998; Cheers, Darracott and Lonne, 2007; Alston, 2002; Alston
2000; Hall and Scheltens 2005; Pawar and McClinton, 2000)
 Rural practice has drawbacks for some practitioners, including
isolation from supports, excessive long- distance travel,
insufficient supervision, support and training contributing to
work stress and staff turnover (Green, 2003; Lonne, 2003;
Bodor, Green, Lonne and Zapf, 2004; Cheers, Darracott and
Lonne, 2007)
 This may be the case for rural social workers

3. Why?
 Difficulty accessing supervision for workers in rural and remote areas –
impact on recruitment and retention of staff, including high turnover
and burnout of social workers in rural and remote Australia (Green,
2003; Lonne 2003; Cuss 2005 and Symons 2005)
 Lack of available supervisors in rural and remote areas
 Personal experiences of inadequate supervision when working in rural
and remote areas of Qld
 Peer group supervision at a senior social worker level within a large
government department that was also not meeting supervision
expectations
 Gap in literature on peer group supervision

5. AIMS
1. To explore peer supervision with groups of social
workers in virtual teams in rural and remote
Australia
2. To explore whether basic technology could be used
to overcome gaps in available supervision in rural
and remote areas
3. To identify the best ways to provide peer
supervision in groups using technology
4. To explore how peer group supervision compared to
other types of supervision

6. Definitions
 Supervision:
 … a forum for reflection and learning. … an interactive dialogue
between at least two people, one of whom is a supervisor. This
dialogue shapes a process of review, reflection, critique and
replenishment for professional practitioners. Supervision is a
professional activity in which practitioners are engaged throughout the
duration of their careers regardless of experience or qualification. The
participants are accountable to professional standards and defined
competencies and to organisational policy and procedures (Davys &
Beddoe, 2010: 21).
 Virtual teams: a collection of individuals who are geographically &/or
organisationally or otherwise dispersed and who collaborate via
communication and information technologies in order to accomplish a
specific goal. Virtual teams have a common goal and rely on
technology (Zigurs, 2003)

7. Peer Supervision
 Peer supervision in virtual teams refers to a
team or group whose members work together
to explore and reflect their own and each
others professional experiences by supporting,
analysing, planning and hypothetically testing
the changes in their professional &/or personal
life of each other through telecommunication

8. Methodology
 Qualitative Research
 Trialling different peer supervision models in virtual teams
 Step One: Participant interviews (pre –trial)
 Step Two: Peer supervision groups, 4 groups, to meet once a
month, for 12 months, using technology (phone or video link)
Each session is for one hour. A fifth group was added.
 Step Three: On-line evaluations of each supervision session
completed by all participants monthly for 12 months,
immediately after each peer supervision session.
 Step Four: Individual exit interviews with each participant at the
end of the 12 months trial period to evaluate the peer
supervision models and processes.
 Step Five: Focus groups
 Data analysis - Thematic analysis

9. A Structured Supervision Model
 The prescribed process drew on the New Zealand Mentoring Centre
(2000) and from the work of Heron (1993). The processes from these
two sources were collectively referred to as “the model”.
 Very positive feedback from participants
 Use of eight prescribed processes:
practice review, good news analysis, upsetting or critical incidents,
veridical report, Professional Issues Review, Peer Review, Dress
Rehearsals, Peer Responses
Other features of the model:
 Check in at the beginning of the session with all group members
 Check out at the end of the session
 Chairperson and time keeper
 Flexibility

10. FINDINGS
Two over-arching findings:
 Supervision with peers in groups is good supervision
 Difference in social work contexts and agencies value-added to the
peer group supervision experience
Themes grouped as the essence of peer group supervision
 Connectedness with like-minded professionals
 Support
 Learning
 Reflection on practice
Themes grouped as the mechanics of peer group supervision
 Structure and process, eg: structured group process helpful and safe
 Technology: positives and negatives
 Challenges: time, preparation & priority

11. Overarching themes one and two –
 1. peer group supervision is good supervision.....
 My expectations were met – I met with other social workers, not
available in the workplace. Great – fulfilled. Discussed and learned
from others – terrific. Having Social Work values and processes was
beneficial. What developed exceeded my expectations – camaraderie
– it was good –I hope to continue (Mandy)
 2. the value of diversity in peer groups
 Advantages of peer supervision include that you get a “slice of
peoples’ experience. If limited to one supervisor, you are limited to
their experience. Greater exchange from more careers – more
opportunities”

12. The essence of peer group
supervision – 4 themes
 Essence = the spirit, core, heart, soul,
real meaning, fundamental nature.
 Connectedness with like minded people
 Support
 Learning
 Reflection on practice

13. Clear
purpose
Reflection and
preparation
A group of social
work peers
A structure and process (facilitates review of practice,
sharing successes, ethical discussion, debriefing)
A Safe space where
supervision happens
More
reflection
learningsupport
Connection
with like-
minded
peers
GOOD SUPERVISION
START within a Strengths-based approach

14. A strengths
approach
Clear purpose
Like minded
social work
peers
preparation
Refection on
practice
A structure and
process
A SAFE SPACE (HOME)
where supervision
happens
Start
Connection
Support
Learning
More reflection
Supervision hopscotch
Outcomes of :

15. In Conclusion:
The research is relevant and important because:
 Contributes to the acceptance and use of peer group
supervision as a preferred and valid form of supervision
for social workers
 Contributes a new model linking social workers from
different contexts together in groups
 Contributes to the acceptance of using basic technology
as a legitimate method in the provision of professional
supervision
 provides a structured method of supervision that provides
safety and maximises the time available for supervision
 Will assist in the retention of skilled professionals in rural
and remote areas

16. In Conclusion:
 The trial has provided evidence of the experience and
effectiveness of connecting like minded professionals together,
offering support, learning and overcoming isolation
 Peer supervision is valid supervision, comparable to one on
one supervision
 Recommendations for best practice in peer supervision
include:
 use simple technology - teleconference calls
 Provide a structured model process such as in the New
Zealand Mentoring Centre (2000) and Heron (1993)
 Provide a mix of workers from a number of agencies
 Participants need to be committed to attending / linking in

17. Bibliography
 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) Regional Growth Australia, 2009 – 2010
 Alston, M (2002) Social Capital in Rural Australia, Rural Society, Volume 12, Issue 2,
pp93-104
 Bodor, Ralph, Green, Rosemary, Lonne, Bob, Zapf, Michael Kim. (2004). 40 degrees
above or 40 degrees below zero: Rural social work and context in Australia and Canada.
Rural Social Work, 9, 49-59.
 Cheers, B; Darracott, R and Lonne, B (2007) Social care practice in rural communities,
The Federation Press, Leichardt NSW
 Corcoran, J (2009) Groups in social work: a workbook, Pearson Education Inc, Boston,
Sydney
 Cuss,K (2005) Allied Health Recruitment and Retention Project, Phase 1 Executive
Summary, Key Findings and Recommendations, Northeast Health Wangaratta
 Cuss, K (2005) Professional Supervision of Allied Health Professionals in Central Hume
Region, Health, Victoria
 Davys, A and Beddoe, L (2010) Best Practice in professional supervision, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, London
 Dey, I (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists,
Routledge, London New York

18.  Green, R (2003) Social Work in rural areas: a personal and professional challenge,
Australian Social Work Vol 56 Issue 3, pp 209 – 219 AASW
 Hall, G and Scheltens, M (2005) Beyond the drought: towards a broader understanding of
rural disadvantage, Rural Society, Vol 15, Issue 3, pp 347 – 359
 Heron, J (1993) Group Facilitation Theories and models for practice, Kogan Page Limited,
London
 McCashen, W (2006) The Strengths Approach, A strengths-based resource for sharing
power and creating change, St Luke’s Innovative Resources, Bendigo
 McNiff, J(2002) Action Research, Principles and Practice, Routledge Falmer , London
 McNiff, J and Whitehead, J (2006) All you need to know about action research, Sage
London
 New Zealand Mentoring Centre (2000) The Power of Peer Supervision, Enhancing your
ability to learn from experience, New Zealand Mentor Centre Ltd, Auckland
 Nickson, A (2010)Teleconferencing group supervision with social work students on field
placements: a small trial evaluation. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 12
(1). pp. 89-99.

19.  Saleebey,D (1996) The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and
cautions, Social Work, Volume 41, Issue 3, Oxford University Press, New York
 Symons,J (2005) Applying the evidence - recruiting and retaining Allied Health
Professionals in a remote area; Mount Isa Centre for Rural and Remote Health (MICRRH)
Remote Health Conference 2005, pp20-21
 Zigurs, I (2003) Leadership in Virtual Teams: Oxymoron or Opportunity, Organisational
Dynamics, Volume 31, Issue 4 pp 339-351
 amanda.nickson@jcu.edu.au