Youth criminality and urban social conflict in the city of Rosario, Argentina. Analysis and proposals for conflict transformation

The present article describes and analyses youth criminality in the city of Rosario, Argentina between the years 2003-2006. Key actors’ understandings of and responses to the conflict were investigated by means of semi-structured interviews, observations, discourse analysis of policy documents, analysis of secondary data, and draw heavily on the experience of the author, a citizen and youth worker of Rosario. The actors examined were the police, the local government, young delinquents and youth organisations. Youth criminality is analysed from a conflict transformation approach using conflict analysis tools. Whereas, the provincial police understand the issue as a delinquency problem, other actors perceive it as an expression of a wider urban social conflict between those that are “included” and those that are “excluded” and as one of the negative effects of globalisation processes. The results suggest that police responses addressing only direct violence are ineffective, even contributing to increased tensions and polarisation, whereas strategies addressing cultural and structural violence are more suitable for this type of social urban conflict. Finally, recommendations for local youth policy are proposed to facilitate participation and inclusion of youth and as a tool for peaceful conflict transformation.

Educational and Anthropological Perspectives: An Italian View on Migration in Multi-cultural Urban Spaces

In contemporary societies there are different ways to perceive the relation between identity and alterity and to describe the difference between “us” and “them”, residents and foreigners. Anthropologist Sandra Wallman sustains that in multi-cultural urban spaces the frontiers of diversity are not only burdensome markers of identity, but rather they could also represent new chances to define “identity” and “alterity”. These frontiers, in fact, can work like interfaces through which to build time after time, in a creative way, a relationship with the other. From this point of view, the concept of boundary can offer many opportunities to creatively define the relation with the other and to sign new options for cognitive and physical movement. On the other side, in many cases we have a plenty of mechanisms of exclusion that transforms a purely empirical distinction between “us” and “them” in an ontological contrast, as in the case when the immigrant undergoes hostilities through discriminatory language. Even though these forms of racism are undoubtedly objectionable from a theoretical point of view, they are anyway socially “real”, in the sense that they are perpetually reaffirmed and strengthened in public opinion. They are in fact implicit “truths”, realities that are considered objective, common opinions that are part of day-to-day existence. That is the reason why an anthropological prospective including the study of “common sense” should be adopted in our present day studies on migration, as pointed out by American anthropologist Michael Herzfeld. My primary goal is to analyze with such a critical approach same pre-conditions of racism and exclusion in contemporary multi-cultural urban spaces. On the other hand, this essay would also investigate positive strategies of comparing, interchanging, and negotiating alterity in social work. I suggest that this approach can offer positive solutions in coping with “diversity” and in working out policies for recognizing a common identity which, at the same time, do not throw away the relevance of political and economic power.

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.