• Ingen resultater fundet

Abstract

VI. Conclusion and further perspectives

Hütteman & Sommerfeld, 2008, p. 164-167; Jensen, 2008). An important point here is to understand that the distinction between fundamental and applied research cannot be taken for granted anymore. The distinction has decreased as new forms of mode-2 knowledge have emerged (Nowotny, Scott & Gibbons, 2002). Knowl-edge processes in science and practice are assumed to have a cyclical structure.

Practice is thus not only regarded as a field of applying or consuming scientific knowledge, but as constituting a system of knowledge in itself. The science cycle and the practice cycle are seen as linked with each other for a limited period of time and in the form of common developmental projects. The main link is to deal with a practical problem that requires practitioners to leave their routines and start afresh with innovations. Exactly at this point they need scientific knowledge.

Without further elaborating this understanding it seems obvious that profession-als and academics may profit considerably from this cooperation (Hüttemann &

Sommerfeld, 2008, p. 165; Jensen, 2008, p. 29-31).

We will now sum up our reflections.

A less ideological and more pragmatic discussion has been suggested, which should be an important part of the education and training of social pedagogues and will impact it for better or for worse, of course. It may look like a flash in the pan if the education institutions adopt anything without criticism, and demands naturally change over time. In spite of this reasonable objection to giving up one’s own identity, we urge researchers and practitioners to take the problem seriously. The actual form may change; however, the basic idea appears to be widely accepted.

To get a closer look at the “meeting place”, our point of departure is to under-stand the two logics in their contexts.

Hanlon advances two useable logics. The first is called society-based profes-sionalism, while the other is labelled commercial professionalism. The tradition of the former is to provide universal services in order to meet people’s needs without considering their financial means. The latter departs from managerial and entrepreneurial skills at the expense of professional skills (Hanlon, 1998, p. 45ff.).

Changes in the public sector have created a dependency on management and organization. This implies a decrease in society-based professionalism. Freidson (2001) notes that competition and efficiency are prioritized at the expense of the freedom to carry out professional judgments. This further implies a progression of commercial professionalism, including less control on the part of professionals over their work. Freidson’s point is, however, another consideration, namely, that having work related control does not exclude markets or managers. The argument is that as long as an organized occupation has the power to determine who is qualified to carry out the defined and agreed upon tasks, to prevent others who are not assessed to be qualified from doing so and to control how performance is evaluated, then professionalism is still present. The critical point is whether or not professionals are able to control their performance as well as their professional territory.

Related to this, it is important to take into consideration that managers are be-coming professionals as well. Managers, policy makers and other administrators do not only draw on professional expertise; they develop their own programmes, diplomas and other aspects of education and training. This means that managers are getting much better acquainted with the specific field in which they are work-ing. This is not a zero-sum game; new professionals can certainly cooperate with

‘old’ professionals for their mutual benefit. This suggests that any simple idea of

“management by manualization” is not the answer. Freidson’s argumentation is interesting and needs further research because of its apparent naivety. The political implications of his suggestions have to be taken into account. They may displace the contradiction but not overcome it.

With respect to the control of professionals, three scenarios should be mentioned:

• Users in the capacity of consumers would under pure market conditions decide what they want, where they want to get these services and for which price. This scenario would increase the competition between various companies and producers in order to satisfy the demands of the consumers.

• The bureaucratic model is a second option. This model is characterized by the fact that management decides on the division of labour, that is, what kind of work has to be done, by whom and not least, how (meth-ods).

• In case of the professionally controlled work, the professions would decide who has the right to implement the task on the basis of what qualifications. This specialization is decided by using professional judg-ment.

The last scenario is the only one based on professional work related control, but as Freidson notes, neither management nor market are excluded. The practice controlled by professionals presupposes both management and organization. It could as well include the market, for example, contracts, offers and tenders. This is not the focal point; the focal point is if or when professional control is substituted by economic control.

So, where could the two logics possibly meet? Perhaps in the frame of a third logic: institutions and organizations contributing by organizational and financial means to maintain professional control of the practice.

However, the contradiction remains political by nature. Much depends on the relative strength between policy and practice; politicians seem to advocate for forcing people into particular predefined aims, while professionals in social pedagogy aim at expanding the scopes and scales of people’s right to choose.

Reflexive policy-makers know from their own experience that good policy cannot be derived from research findings. Policymakers take decisions depending upon the goals, the situations, the positions of key stakeholders, or opposition parties, etc. Policymakers do not follow a rational model. Reflexive professionals are not only concerned with scientific knowledge production or applications of research findings as such. They are primarily concerned with the practical application of professional knowledge and professional capacities. Reflexivity is by and large

“a practical and ethical skill that is fundamental for judging what is desirable and appropriate in specific circumstances by applying particular informal heuristics, rules, and values” (Otto et al., 2009, p. 248-249).

The third logic may be what is called a second generation of evidence-based practice (ibid.).