Towards the Transversalism of Social Pedagogy

The text below is a small contribution to this discussion about the search for ontological, epistemological and axiological references, which enable us to develop hypotheses that explain social events and processes within the field of social work. It is also a very synthetic presentation of social pedagogy’s point of view on the processes and individually enacted events that occur in the field of practice. We describe this point of view as the transversal dimension of social pedagogy. The thesis of the viewpoint presented here refers to an expectation that social pedagogy, understood as a certain theoretical construct (epistemological-ontological-axiological), will provide us with an orientation for social action undertaken in the field of social practice.

Traditionen, Utopien, Dekonstruktionen - die Sozialstaatskonzepte des 'Ostblocks' (1945-1990)

The welfare state concepts in Eastern Europe under state socialism (1945-1990) were based on the conviction that only the state was responsible for solving all social problems. The 'bourgeois' manners of individual care were substituted by general measures in the field of labour- and family politics, as well as urban development. The experience showed however that this way of substitution was an illusion, because certain target groups were still in need of help (for example ill or handicapped children and adults, elderly people etc). Nevertheless, most of the Eastern European countries - with the exception of Yugoslavia - decided to abolish the existing forms of professional social work and the training for social workers. Instead, they invented 'surrogate structures' to manage the care for the 'needy': Various institutions and occupational groups (schools, hospitals and ambulances, employees groups etc.) took over the tasks of social workers and were trained to fulfil this as a kind of 'social practice'. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that social work was completely abolished under state socialism, But: as social work 'as such' did not exist any longer, it is more reasonable to speak of welfare state concepts, including social policy on one hand, and non- or paraprofessional social practice on the other. To characterize the effect of these welfare state concepts three parameter of interpretation seem to be useful: 'traditions', 'visions', and 'deconstructions' - embedded in a system of repression as well as incentives. Traditions: The huge 'social laboratory' that was installed was not a totally new one - it still carried on the heritage of the bygone: some bourgeois traces as well as elements out of the fascist heritage and -last but not least - the traditions of their own socialist movement. Visions: The socialist traditions included visions of social justice, the creation of a 'new mankind', a classless society, the end of exploitation and a peaceful living together of all people. Although the 'real existing socialism' has destroyed most of these visions, the power of these utopian ideas has outshined a lot of the every day’s misfortune and injustice for quite a long time. Deconstructions: The term of 'deconstruction' has a threefold meaning: the deconstruction of professional welfare, the deconstruction - in the sense of reinterpretation - of the socialist ideals such as social justice and social security, making an instrument of inclusion and exclusion out of it. And the deconstruction that is necessary to free the history of social work under state socialism from the prejudices and distorting practices, from both sides, the east and the west. In the contribution these three parameter of interpretation are applied on the following issues: The gaps in the 'overall system' of social security; working morale and education for work; mass organisations as an instrument of egalitarianism and general prevention; de-professionalisation by 'surrogating' social work; the 'transparent client'; church as refuge or 'state organ'; women’s politics as bio-politics.

Social Work Students’ Use of Knowledge in Direct Practice – Reasons, Strategies and Effects

This article describes a study of Swedish social work students’ use of knowledge during their field practice. Data was collected by using short written narratives, where the students reflect on situations from practice, situations they experienced as critical or problematic. The narratives were analysed with a method inspired by the interpretation theory of Paul Ricoeur. The article starts with a discussion adhering to the present trend of evidence-based social work practice. This is followed by a study of 144 narratives from social work students containing critical or problematic events. A quantitative description of the material as well as qualitative model of two type-strategies, that social work students use, is presented. The results show, among other things, that students use several forms of knowledge, where facts/evidence is one of several. The study also shows that there is a strong adaptation to varying critical situations. A conclusion is that it is difficult to a priori define the types and proportions of knowledge to use in social work practice.

Theory and Practice: A Matter of Words. Language, Knowledge and Professional Community in Social Work

The relation between theory and practice in social work has always been controversial. Recently, many have underlined how language is crucial in order to capture how knowledge is used in practice. This article introduces a language perspective to the issue, rooted in the ‘strong programme’ in the sociology of knowledge and in Wittgenstein’s late work. According to this perspective, the meaning of categories and concepts corresponds to the use that concrete actors make of them as a result of on-going negotiation processes in specific contexts. Meanings may vary dramatically across social groups moved by different interests and holding different cultures. Accordingly, we may reformulate the issue of theory and practice in terms of the connections between different language games and power relationship between segments of the professional community. In this view, the point is anyway to look at how theoretical language relates to practitioners’ broader frames, and how it is transformed while providing words for making sense of experience.

Jan Fook: Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice & Karen Healy: Social Work Practices: Contemporary Perspectives on Change

In his recent book on the contemporary politics of social work, Powell (2001) nominates Jan Fook and Karen Healy as two Australian authors who have made significant contributions to the radical or critical social work tradition. I have chosen to review them together, as each, in different ways, attempts to achieve the same purpose. That is, they attempt to provide a convincing account for adopting a critical approach to practice in the contemporary conditions of the 21st century and, in doing so, re-invigorate the radical tradition of social work practice. My first comment, important for the readership of this international journal, is that both books easily 'travel' beyond the Australian context.

Everyday Sexuality and Social Work: Locating Sexuality in Professional Practice and Education

Social work has seen increased intellectual interest in sexuality. However, little attention has been paid to the relevance of everyday sexuality for professional practice or how this might be integrated within existing social work curricula. This paper proposes that knowledge about everyday sexuality is vital to social workers as they deal with a variety of clients faced with the increasing complexities brought about by late-modernity. Additionally, it is argued that this knowledge base is congruent with the ethical and political dimensions of the profession. The PLISSIT model is presented as a possible pedagogical framework for social work education in this area.

Book Review of “Human Behaviour and the Social Environment: Models, Metaphors, and Maps for Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Practice”. 640 pages, Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2007, by James A. Forte

This voluminous book which draws on almost 1000 references provides an important theoretical base for practice. After an informative introduction about models, maps and metaphors, Forte provides an impressive presentation of several perspectives for use in practice; applied ecological theory, applied system theory, applied biology, applied cognitive science, applied psychodynamic theory, applied behaviourism, applied symbolic interactionism, applied social role theory, applied economic theory, and applied critical theory. Finally he completes his book with a chapter on “Multi theory practice and routes to integration.”

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

What is Practice Research in Social Work - Definitions, Barriers and Possibilities

Practice is subject to increasing pressure to demonstrate its ability to achieve outcomes required by public policy makers. As part of this process social work practice has to engage with issues around advancing knowledge-based learning processes in a close collaboration with education and research based perspectives. This has given rise to approaches seeking to combine research methodology, field research and practical experience. Practice research is connected to both “the science of the concrete” – a field of research oriented towards subjects more than objects and “mode 2 knowledge production” – an application-oriented research where frameworks and findings are discussed by a number of partners. Practice research is defined into two approaches: practice research – collaboration between practice and research – and practitioner research – processes controlled and accomplished by practitioners. The basic stakeholders in practice research are social workers, service users, administrators, management, organisations, politicians and researchers. Accordingly, practice research is necessarily collaborative, involving a meeting point for different views, interests and needs, where complexity and dilemmas are inherent. Instead of attempting to balance or reconcile these differences, it is important to respect the differences if collaboration is to be established. The strength of both practice and research in practice research is to address these difficult challenges. The danger for both fields is to avoid and reject them.

Book Review of “Indigenous Social Work around the World. Towards Culturally Relevant Education and Practice”, 2008, edited by Mel Gray, John Coates and Michael Yellow Bird

One could be seduced into a critique of this volume that focuses on its potential to overstate the momentum for a shift in Western social work ideology when faced with the conundrum of cultural difference. One could posit that the discussion is too broad, the topics covered too numerous, the opportunity for detail missed, the urgency of the messages unnecessarily exaggerated, the “proof” not beyond anecdote and so forth. I reject this temptation to conform to the dominant professional dynamic most emphatically and offer that what Gray, Coates and Yellow Bird have presented to the social work field in this volume is the first tangible step towards an alternative paradigm for an occupation afflicted with unsustainable hypocrisy and thus at the brink of irrelevancy.