My brain is really beautiful.

I have been through really bad DV.

And in that, attending graduate school is really hard for me. My abuser would often tell me that my intellect was rude, mean, offensive, and then ask me to dumb it down to be more approachable.

When students respond to my synthesis of research with textbook definitions, I get so triggered that I revert back to creative writing to say it.

In academia, I’m quite happy being a researcher.

In supervised clinical practice, I’m research-informed.

I don’t quote research at people, and it’s not for lack of reading it, it’s because I don’t find it useful or helpful in rapport. It’s not liked very well.

I’m honestly showing up as myself in academia. I’m not showing up as a supervised clinician. The question was how we would use ourselves as a professional in social work practice.

I quoted about six articles and synthesized all of them in defining and describing differing opinions and areas of bias in the social work helping process where we show up as ourselves, and also as barriers.

I finished the post by commenting my own expertise in supervised clinical practice (as I talked extensively in a previous thread that non-social work/non-related professionals see independent practice not as an independent licensure definition but as a form of independence from 24/7 supervision in clinical practice).

In that supervised experience I learned that there was a beauty in showing up as myself, but posing to clients the willingness to be challenged and told my method or style was unhelpful.

I realized that when someone responded with their research, and it was the textbook, they were kind of asking me to explain the correlation. I don’t like the idea that I’m asked to explain my research, and it’s not a big deal, really, but responding to an elaboration of a definition with a definition shows the instructional designer in me that you’re not really grasping how to use a textbook.

The educator in me screams.

The trauma response in me also sees this as a need to prove myself. Because I have learned I cannot say to someone “you are reading the research wrong,” as that is offensive.

Man, did I feedback for that last term!

They can tell me all day that my intricately crafted piece is overwhelming, and that their perspective is the textbook version of my synthesis.

Yet I’m not allowed to feel unsafe.

I presented biases in assessment, planning, treatment, and evaluation, even in follow up and how efficacy is measured. All researched, all peer reviewed articles to support my claims.

I synthesized course objectives.

I’m an educator, yes.

I’m a clinical student, who wants to learn how to implement different approaches and research methods into clinical practice. I’m in supervised practice at the moment. It’s imperative that I am able to get a grasp on taking research properly.

I engage in CEU courses. Why?

Because I know what populations I work with, and I want to learn the clinical language around translating the research into practice.

I’m very good at the professional level.

I want to enhance my own skills with clients.

That’s where I’m at.

Connecting the dots for me was realizing that many learners don’t know how clinicians talk about their experiences, as well as that colleagues are not treated the same as clients. There are things I would never tell my colleagues I would tell my therapist, and there are things my clients tell me that I’d likewise never expect of my colleagues.

The reverse of this is true.

There’s things we don’t say to clients that we can say to colleagues. Learning the language on how to translate these can be messy, though.

Good supervisors help us transition to doing this instinctively. It is what I call the “technical knowledge” component of social work. The language around how we define our own skills and experiences is very important.

In many clinical spaces in social work, they didn’t realize that clinical mental health often calls interns “therapists” while social work interns are called “supervised clinical social work interns”.

The annoying part of this was that while I was willing to learn the verbiage, many supervisors were so offended that I didn’t know it yet, that they were unwilling to give me a chance.

It was not a surprise to me that one location called her unethical for this. What was a shock was that no one had asked me why my former title in clinical internships wasn’t what they were used to. That seems unethical on their part.

We use different language in LPC track degrees.

That didn’t mean I lacked clinical knowledge or judgment, just that you can’t expect me to know the field of social work perfectly.

LCSW who think I’m not ready because they desire someone who has done case management first tells me they don’t get the rigor of an LPC internship.

It’s full time. It’s a minimum 30 hour week.

Like it’s no joke.

It’s not the MSW 15/16 hours a week.

They see “25-30” client caseload and they don’t get that that’s a weekly occurrence in LPC internships.

In MSW that means bi-weekly or maybe a mix of both and some monthly stuff. It doesn’t translate with them. And I needed an LPC site to instantly see that I’m an appropriate clinical intern.

LCSW often didn’t. About 10 sites all said they didn’t like me when they heard my expertise was full time work in a clinical internship.

Finding a supervisor was hard.

I don’t think they all are this way.

But I’m unlikely to work in a private office that isn’t multidisciplinary for this reason, as my experience is often disregarded or dismissed in SW.

I have to prove that I can speak their language.

But what about mine?

Can they prove they can meet another professional where they are at, as well?

Where’s the link in that?

I’ve read that research, as well, and it’s been very interesting and informative.

Until again!

XOXO,

Dorothy B