• Ingen resultater fundet

Abstract

IV. Evidence-based – what does it mean for practitioners?

two dimensions: content and perspective. By asking what social research needs to consider, the authors point to five fundamental issues: purpose, contexts, researchers, methods of inquiry and domains. We will not go into further detail about these issues here (cf. Bryderup, 2008, p. 12 ff.), but will focus briefly on con-tent and perspective. By concon-tent is understood the primary research focus (target groups, communities (professional and policy) etc.). By perspective is meant the primary issue of research, for example, understanding/explaining risk, vulner-ability, abuse, resilience, and other issues. Further, Shaw and Bryderup pinpoint five characteristics of good social research, which should: (1) be methodologically robust, (2) be theoretically robust, (3) add value to practice, (4) represent value to people and (5) have economic value (Bryderup 2008, p. 18). It seems obvious that the authors are responding to a critique of qualitative social research, but are similarly trying to build bridges between quantitative and qualitative research in social work/social pedagogy. In spite of their efforts, there are still tendencies to restart the old war between the methods mentioned.

These tendencies reflect the consequences of modernization which could be sum-marized with Bauman’s term of ambivalence and uncertainty where contradictory knowledge and contradictory approaches have to live together” (ibid., p. 24).

Moreover, they quote Peter Sommerfeld, who states that “we have to face more complexity and learn to cope with it” (Sommerfeld, 2005, p. 18).

Among the complexities, there is a need to define what ‘evidence-based’

means and why we need to expand the concept of ‘evidence’ to a broader concept of knowledge that includes research knowledge, professional knowledge and practice knowledge (cf. Rasmussen, Kruse, & Holm, 2007). The question is to what extent does what research measuring outcomes, effectiveness and effects provide what kind of evidence to social pedagogical practice and vice versa: what kind of research is needed to contribute in a broader way to improve the quality of social pedagogy?

not that simple. There is not one relevant dimension of effect; in fact, there are several, for example, the outcomes, causal mechanisms, contexts and contents of the interventions (Kazi, 2003).

First, we paint a broader picture of developmental trends of the professions.

On the basis of Bourdieu’s studies (Bourdieu, 1998) we point out that the role of professionals has changed – been reduced – as a consequence of the restructuring of welfare states through marketization, economization and accountability, the re-definition of citizens as consumers, and an increase in client participation. Further, new modes of governance have limited the discretionary space of professionals.

The voice of ´consumers´ has been augmented at the expense of professionals:

consumers, who, according to Bauman, live in a consumer society where their consumption consists of choices. He argues that the

poor, once a ‘reserve army of labour’, are re-cast as ‘flawed consumers’. This leaves them without a useful social function – actual or potential – with far-reaching consequences for the social standing of the poor and their chances of improvement (Bauman, 2005, p. 2).

The question raised is whether clients of social pedagogy interventions, through their role as consumers of welfare within this system, serve a social function as clients. Clients or consumers have gained a voice by means of a critical public discussion on welfare provisions as well as exit options by means of money to choose their preferred services. Generally speaking, this makes it difficult to intervene in people’s lives, even when clients may need support. These new trends seem to have changed the motivation and perspective of professionals, their workload and the content of their job (Clarke & Newman, 1997, p. 77). They are led to a new consciousness,

“a dispersed managerial consciousness”, as Clarke and Newman put it.

This development has also been labelled “de-professionalization”. Yet perhaps this is not the right way to frame the issue. Social pedagogues may still be ‘heroes of childcare’. Therefore, we plead for new vocabularies to better understand the construction of old and new professionals. We opt for a re-professionalization in a new way. When professionals regain their professional self-confidence by improving their knowledge and skills, then the combination of formal knowledge, professional knowledge and practice-based evidence as well as an upcoming knowledge alliance with key stakeholders (like parents, policymakers, managers, educational and research institutions, etc.) may develop a new professionalism.

In this section we outline a somewhat alarming new tendency: the socializa-tion of professionals, which involves moving from professionalism to managerial-ism.

To make a long story short: the professions seem to be forced to drop their own criteria of professionalism, first and foremost, their professional assessment of situations of interference with users, in favour of economization, for example, market criteria. Walker states, for example:

...the professionals are described in a new way by emphasizing three basic, but interdependent changes of the modern state. The first is the introduction of a new discourse aiming at both preparing and improving public servants to deal with reorganizations while those are made. Thereby the new discourse becomes govern-ing and manipulatgovern-ing. Second, the driver for changgovern-ing the discourse originates in the need of modernization, which in turn changes the social relationships between the leaders of the state, citizens and professionals. A modern state aims at govern-ing employees and makgovern-ing them flexible and mobile. The outcome of this process is or will be a loss of status, professional creativity and autonomy. Third, behind the project of modernization lies coercion, originating from the globalization of markets and the processes of accumulation of capital (Walker 2004, p. 87 – our translation).

Walker adds that Ford succeeded in “splitting up working processes in smaller items and organizing them and similarly the social relations in new ways, too”.

Like Ford, the modern state gets rid of the semi-professions. The outcome is a post-Fordist “flexible accumulation of capital” (ibid., p. 112). Summing up the critique, Walker emphasizes some key words: performance, strategic plans of action, leadership, continuous evaluation, external control of finances, competition and profiling of institutions. Social relations are expressed in terms of teams, su-pervision, control of quality, wages linked to performance, manuals and modules, internal evaluation, differentiation between the core and the peripheral labour force, differentiation of levels of work, etc. The process transformed socialization within the professions.

Over the same decades, societal values have changed. Jørgensen (2003) men-tions four basic values for the public sector:

1. the public sector bears the responsibility for society in general;

2. there should be public control and supervision;

3. protection of the law should be safeguarded;

4. autonomous professional standards should be followed.

Jørgensen underlines important changes as the state draws back from earlier responsibilities. Our hypothesis is that points 1 and 4 of the above-mentioned values are under the hardest pressure. Citizens are no longer the focus of state in-terventions, and we observe how old distinctions between worthy and unworthy

poor or unemployed are re-entering the public debate. The focus is shifted to underpinning private companies’ ability to compete. Likewise, one could point to a discourse of bio-political governmentality emphasizing the responsibility of the citizen in all fields (employment, health, education etc.). This individualization of responsibility becomes a decisive value in the public sector, and the population has over the years become used to “full freedom” and “full responsibility” (Beach, 2010, p. 555 – cf. also Beach, 2009 and Beach & Carlson, 2004).

Concerning point 4, the trend seems to be blurring the boundaries between professional standards and political intentions. The outcome is a sharpened demand for identification with the values of the leadership in the institutions and municipalities. One could speak of “the encircled institution” (Pedersen, 2011, p. 246), characterized by a number of governing and controlling systems (accountability etc.). We sum up what we label the discursive formations within this issue, namely, the discourse of performativity, the discourse of accountability, the discourse of standards (or commodification), and the discourse of surveillance and control (cf. Jensen & Walker, 2008, Ch. 10; Jensen & Jensen, 2007; Jensen &

Jensen, 2008).