Sosiaalityön ammattilaiset refleksiivisinä toimijoina : tutkimus erikoistumiskoulutuksesta Margaret Archerin teorian valossa

In Finland, specialized studies in social work (professional licentiate education) were begun in the year 2000. The education is targeted at experienced social workers and leads to a licentiate degree (a degree between master s and doctorate). In this study, the experiences of members of the first study cohort, specializing in social work with children and young people, are examined. The study s theoretical frame of reference is based on the morphogenetic approach, developed by British sociologist Margaret Archer. In it, the potential powers of both an agent as well as social and cultural structures are considered important and worth taking into account. Archer sees reflexivity, a person s ability to analyze herself/himself, as an essential starting point for agency. Thanks to reflexivity, people are able to engage in internal conversations , discuss the concerns that are important to them and form agential projects . In Archer s theory, the social structures and traits of the cultural system are seen as having potential power in relation to people s agential projects; these powers can enable but also restrain the realization of the projects. On the other hand, individuals can try to review the factors affecting their agential projects and find ways of action that facilitate them. The research task is to study the self-understanding of social work professionals in the 21st century, the issues and goals professionally important for them, as well as the contexts framing the realization of these goals. The research questions are as follows: 1) What kind of internal conversations, concerns and agential projects related to their work did the professionals taking part in licentiate education bring to light? 2) What kind of enabling and restraining factors can be identified in their situations? And 3) What kind of social structures and traits related to the cultural system are connected to these factors? The research material was collected by interviewing the students in different phases of their education. In 2001 and 2004 all members of the study group (n = 25) were interviewed. In 2007, 13 students took part. The themes of the internal conversations brought to light in the interviews were divided into four broad thematic categories: professional development, the position of children in social work, multiprofessional work and structural social work. In relation to these themes the students formed different kinds of agential projects. In addition, the study reveals several cultural and social structures that have enabled but also restrained the realization of the agential projects. These structures are linked, for example, to the relations between employees and employers, students and teachers, children and adults as well as between the representatives of different professions. Working conditions which social workers often consider weak are discussed as a focal issue related to many themes. These working conditions become evident, for example, in the great imbalance which exists between the professional tasks and the amount of time that social workers have for them. Difficult situations arise when social workers feel they cannot reach the goals that are professionally important to them because of the strict external conditions of the work.

From Habits to Social Structures : Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory

Pragmatism has sometimes been taken as a catchphrase for epistemological stances in which anything goes. However, other authors argue that the real novelty and contribution of this tradition has to do with its view of action as the context in which all things human take place. Thus, it is action rather than, for example, discourses that should be our starting point in social theory. The introductory section of the book situates pragmatism (especially the ideas of G. H. Mead and John Dewey) within the field and tradition of social theory. This introductory also contextualizes the main core of the book which consists of four chapters. Two of these chapters have been published as articles in scientific journals and one in an edited book. All of them discuss the core problem of social theory: how is action related to social structures (and vice versa)? The argument is that habitual action is the explanation for the emergence of social structures from our action. Action produces structures and social reproduction takes place when action is habitualized; that is, when we develop social dispositions to act in a certain manner in familiar environments. This also means that even though the physical environment is the same for all of us, our habits structure it into different kinds of action possibilities. Each chapter highlights these general insights from different angles. Practice theory has gained momentum in recent years and it has many commonalities with pragmatism because both highlight the situated and corporeal character of human activity. One famous proponent of practice theory is Margaret Archer who has argued that the pragmatism of G. H. Mead leads to an oversocialized conception of selfhood. Mead does indeed present a socialized view of selfhood but this is a meta-sociological argument rather than a substantial sociological claim. Accordingly, one can argue that in this general sense intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity and not the other way around. Such a view does not indicate that our social relation would necessarily "colonize" individual action because there is a place for internal conversations (in Archer s terminology); it is especially in those phases of action where it meets obstacles due to the changes of the environment. The second issue discussed has the background assumption that social structures can fruitfully be conceptualized as institutions. A general classification of different institution theories is presented and it is argued that there is a need for a habitual theory of institutions due to the problems associated with these other theories. So-called habitual institutionalism accounts for institutions in terms of established and prevalent social dispositions that structure our social interactions. The germs of this institution theory can be found in the work of Thorstein Veblen. Since Veblen s times, these ideas have been discussed for example, by the economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson. His ideas on the evolution of institutions are presented but a critical stance is taken towards his tendency of defining institutions with the help of rules because rules are not always present in institutions. Accordingly, habitual action is the most basic but by no means the only aspect of institutional reproduction. The third chapter deals with theme of action and structures in the context of Pierre Bourdieu s thought. Bourdieu s term habitus refers to a system of dispositions which structure social fields. It is argued that habits come close to the concept of habitus in the sense that the latter consists of particular kinds of habits; those that are related to the reproduction of socioeconomic positions. Habits are thus constituents of a general theory of societal reproduction whereas habitus is a systematic combination of socioeconomic habits. The fourth theme relates to issues of social change and development. The capabilities approach has been associated with the name of Amartya Sen, for example, and it underscores problems inhering in economistic ways of evaluating social development. However, Sen s argument has some theoretical problems. For example, his theory cannot adequately confront the problem of relativism. In addition, Sen s discussion lacks also a theory of the role of the public. With the help of arguments derived from pragmatism, one gets an action-based, socially constituted view of freedom in which the role of the public is essential. In general, it is argued that a socially constituted view of agency does not necessarily to lead to pessimistic conclusions about the freedom of action.