The understandings of social pedagogy from northern European perspectives

Abstract

Summary

This study examines understandings of social pedagogy. Interviews were conducted with nine social pedagogical researchers from Northern Europe. The interviewees were selected as representatives of their cultural and professional context and provided insight into their countries’ social pedagogical discourses. The interviewees were asked to talk about their understandings of social pedagogy from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

Findings

The empirical data were divided into two discourses; the universalistic and the particularistic. In the interview statements it was evident that interviewees leaned towards one of the two discourses as a starting point for their understanding of social pedagogy. However, the way the two discourses were combined varied among the interviewees. In further analysis, three models were constructed, which can be regarded as ideal types. These models shows that social pedagogical way of thinking extend from an individualistic, adaptive, starting point through a democratic approach to a mobilising collective approach.

Application

These models can be seen as an important contribution to understanding of social pedagogy that illustrate three different ways of understanding social pedagogy from northern European perspectives. The models elucidate the complexity embedded in the concept, but can also be used to facilitate analyses and interpretations of various social pedagogical activities. This findings has implications for how education in the field is constructed and implemented. Social pedagogy may not be definable in a simple way, but it can nevertheless be understood and described by the models constructed in this study.

Keywords

Social work empowerment European groups qualitative methods social inclusion social pedagogy

Introduction

In some north European countries, social pedagogical thinking is an important element of the social professions (Hämäläinen, 2003; Kornbeck & Rosendal Jensen, 2009). Significant terminological differences exist among the social professions in Europe, but these differences do not necessarily represent differences in practice (Lorenz, 2008). In nearly all European countries, there is a duality between social work and social pedagogy. Further complicating the understanding of the concept of social pedagogy is the fact that it can be viewed to take two examples (for instance, in Sweden) as a field of professional activities, an object of study within the social sciences or a research field (Eriksson & Markström, 2009; Hämäläinen, 2003). Social pedagogy can thus be understood in a variety of ways. Furthermore, no particular theoretical construct can be described as strictly related to social pedagogy. This is the situation in Sweden and in other places, such as Germany (Eriksson & Markström, 2009; Mikser, 2006), and it may be a common condition in traditions within the social sciences. Social work, for instance, is sometimes described in a similar way (Frost, 2008; van Ewijk, 2009), although attempts have been made to use specific theories to increase the general understanding of these professions (e.g. Wirth, 2009). In many ways, this situation creates an impression of social pedagogy as a diffuse and elusive field. Further complicating the situation, the same concept is not understood similarly in English-speaking countries (Smith & Whyte, 2008). Research has shown that there may be cultural limits to the exportability of social pedagogy (Kornbeck, 2002). Such obstacles explain why issues are raised around social pedagogical meanings and identities and if there is something unique about social pedagogy and it that case, how these aspects of social pedagogy can be defined.

The development of the concept of social pedagogy

During the 1850s in Germany, the social pedagogical perspective focused on attempts to identify educational solutions to social problems (Hämäläinen, 2003) and was linked to new social problems caused by the processes of industrialisation and urbanisation (Sünker & Braches-Chyrek, 2009). A belief existed that it was possible to influence various social circumstances through education. One perspective sees social pedagogy as a German contribution to the theoretical improvement of social work (Lorentz, 2008). In this sense, social pedagogy is closely linked to the German concept of ‘bildung’, which can be understood as the process of socialisation. A sense of community is both a precondition and a goal of social pedagogy, according to Natorp (1904), who was one of the main figures at the forefront of contemporary social pedagogy and is considered by many to be its creator.

The evolution of the concept of social pedagogy has led to blurred boundaries between social work and social pedagogy. In Sweden, this is evident in different education programmes and workplaces (Eriksson & Markström, 2009). However, some researchers argue that one of the core questions in social pedagogy involves the integration of the individual into society, and another question involves the prevention of exclusion (Hämäläinen, 2003). Social pedagogy also promotes participation and integration. Social pedagogy emerged as a way to solve problems of incomplete socialisation and to promote personal growth and the acquisition of social competencies. The relationship between social work and social pedagogy is sometimes perceived as a significant issue, sometimes not. Hämäläinen, one of the few researchers who addressed the dynamics between social work and social pedagogy, views social pedagogy as a perspective of social work, although not only reduced to a method. He argues that social pedagogy can contribute to social work in various ways (Hämäläinen, 2003).

Today, the understanding of social pedagogy ranges from a practice geared towards children and youth in residential institutions to activities aimed at mobilising communities (Eriksson, 2011). International journal articles about social pedagogy can be divided into two main groups based on their content. One perspective addresses residential care work, and the other utilises social pedagogy as a resource for group work in schools (Mikser, 2006). Additionally, researchers have stressed the need for empirical research to create a theory of social pedagogy (Hämäläinen, 2003; Rauschenbach, 1999; Winkler, 1999). This article uses empirical data, theories used as the basis for social pedagogical activities and social pedagogical thinking, to examine the meaning and identity of social pedagogy.

Social pedagogy is more common in some European countries than in others, both as a description of practice and as a theoretical concept. Social pedagogy is used as a basis for professional practice primarily in the northern region of Europe. In terms of professional practice, however, the concept is beginning to spread. In the UK, for example, there is ongoing academic discussion regarding the importation of ‘continental’ social pedagogy (Cameron, 2004; Petrie and Cameron, 2009; Smith, 2003). This development has progressed rapidly in recent years; as a result, numerous articles on social pedagogy have been produced in the UK.

Previous research

Previous research has compared different understandings of social pedagogy, although this research typically was not based on empirical data (e.g. Eriksson & Markström, 2000). This study is based on empirical data from interview responses. Madsen (2005) interprets the meaning of social pedagogy by dividing it into three different discourses: treatment, action and negotiation. These discourses have been individually dominant during different periods, but they have also co-existed. Hämäläinen (2003) discusses the inner structure of social pedagogy primarily in terms of social pedagogy as a discipline. Braches-Chyrek and Sünker (2009) argue that German social pedagogy can be divided in two discourses. The first is the sociological discourse, which addresses issues of deviant behaviour and analysis of life circumstances. This discourse is connected with practical social pedagogical work. The second discourse involves theoretical issues on justifications and clarifying explanations. It is a philosophical pedagogical discourse connected to the social pedagogical discipline. In Germany, there is ongoing discussion regarding the disciplinary identity of social pedagogy (Hornstein, 1995). Mikser (2006) analyses both the historical and current theoretical debates on social pedagogy as a theory. He argues that a broad range of thought and perspectives exist regarding social pedagogy. Many theorists claim that there are problems with the theory of social pedagogy, and they suggest solutions. Philosophical and historical analyses of the notion of social pedagogy and analyses of its sub-concepts are needed.

Similar attempts have been made within the field of social work. For example, Soydan (1993) studied the history of ideas of social work. Payne (2005) described the existing praxis theories and described how they are used, their value for social work and the differences between them.

In summary, social pedagogy is perceived as an elusive and difficult topic to define. It appears in various forms in different countries. One important question is whether it is possible or desirable to attain a common cross-national understanding of how to describe social pedagogy.

The purpose

Many people are involved in different ways in social pedagogical activities or social pedagogical educational programmes. Research in the field with reference to Sweden is limited. Therefore, there is a great need within professional areas and educational fields for new knowledge that can contribute to the understanding and practice of social pedagogy. Conducting research on social pedagogy offers the opportunity to highlight elements of reality in new ways by providing new perspectives on well-known phenomena (Brante, 2003; Hämäläinen, 2003). The intention of this article is not to distinguish social pedagogy from other social professions or disciplines, but rather to explore different conceptions of social pedagogy.

The purpose of this article is to gain an understanding of social pedagogy as it is perceived by social pedagogy researchers in a northern European context. Previous research has often divided social pedagogy into practice-related fields (by profession) and theoretical fields based on abstract reasoning (e.g. Hämäläinen, 2003). This way of understanding and describing social pedagogy provided a starting point for this study. The following key themes are explored:

social pedagogy as a theoretical concept,

social pedagogy as a practice, and

factors that influence these conceptions.

Methods

The study design is based on a social constructionist perspective. This qualitative study is based on expert opinions derived from interviews with experts on their conceptions of social pedagogy. These explorations contributed to a collective definition process by which various phenomena (in this case, social pedagogy) are constructed. These processes are related to their social and historical contexts (Burr, 1995).

The interview subjects

Interviews were conducted with nine social pedagogical researchers (2 women and 7 men). Two were from Finland, two from Sweden, one from Norway, two from Denmark and two from Germany. All interviewees were between the ages of 41 and 59 and had significant work experience. Six of them had worked as professionals in different social fields before beginning their research careers in universities.

The interviewees were selected as representatives of their cultural and professional contexts and provided insight into their countries’ social pedagogical discourses. They had also participated, to varying degrees, in the national and international dialogue on social pedagogical issues through publications, conferences and similar activities. In some ways, they were ‘leaders’ within the field of social pedagogy in their own countries. Within the Nordic social pedagogical education programmes, established exchange networks of teachers, students and ideas exist. These networks were used to locate appropriate subjects for interviews. My involvement in these networks meant that I had insight into the individuals who could be considered key figures in this field. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, I personally selected the interviewees. In Germany, I made contact with a social pedagogue who helped me to contact another social pedagogical teacher. In Finland, I turned to the social pedagogical association (an interest association), and its board selected two individuals to be interviewed.

Six of those interviewed were working both as teachers and researchers. As teachers, these individuals were linked to different forms of social pedagogical educational programmes. These programmes were constructed in various ways. Three of the programmes were integrated with social work educational programmes, five were vocational-training courses and one was purely theoretical.

Interviews and analysis

The interviews were conducted in the workplaces or homes of the interviewees. Two interviews were conducted in a hotel. The interviews took the form of conversations based on an interview guide. In this sense, the interviews were semi-structured, and each lasted between 1 and 2 hours. During the interviews, the interviewees were asked to talk about their understandings of social pedagogy from both theoretical and practical perspectives. They were asked to describe the educational programmes with which they worked and to reflect on societal development connected to social pedagogy. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed.

During the analysis, the empirical data were categorised into two main categories. These categories emerged from the data concerning the researchers’ statements about social pedagogy, which were rich in meaning and, initially, difficult to predict. The interviews included many different approaches to social pedagogy. Therefore, the interviews were divided into two categories of statements, referred to here as discourses: one was theoretical, and the other focused on practical work. Further analysis produced a more holistic understanding of social pedagogy. I intended to examine whether it was possible, based on empirical data, to describe a more comprehensive way to understand social pedagogy that included both theoretical and practical considerations.

To achieve this goal, figures of thought, or models, were sought that included parts of both discourses. Thoughts and ideas from statements were integrated so that they could be interpreted as having common underlying or embedded ideologies, philosophies or history of ideas. In this phase of the analysis, three models were constructed. These models can be seen as ideal types describing individual researchers’ overall perceptions, including both universalistic and particularistic implications of social pedagogy.

Social pedagogy as a discourse?

The empirical data describing the interviewees’ perceptions of social pedagogy can be divided into two types. In the analysis, I refer to these as discourses. Discourses are defined here as ‘ways to talk about’ social pedagogy. The two discourses described are universalistic and particularistic, and they present different knowledge interests. The universalistic discourse is based on ideas and thoughts about concepts perceived as relevant to social pedagogy. This discourse is utopian and normative in nature and is unconcerned with practical activities. Instead, it is directed towards how things ‘ought’ to be, according to the interviewees, rather than how they actually are. It is also possible to address this discourse as theory. The particularistic discourse, in contrast, is oriented towards social pedagogical professions and activities. These two discourses are intertwined; the practical professional activities presuppose the theoretical frame, and vice versa. Regarding the relationship between theory and practice, one of the Finnish interviewees said:

So I think it ought to be rooted in both. In theory and in practice, that there could be such a synthesis of practice and theory as a basis. It is my opinion. That you cannot tell them apart. (respondent 1)

Visa romanisering

Thus, the interpretation is that theory and practice are different to their characters. Freire, who reflected on the relationship between theory and practice, describes the concepts of reflection and action. He argues that if action is missing, words are just empty talk; similarly, a lack of reflection leads to pure activism (Freire, 1972). In this way, one could say that there is a dialectical relationship between theory and practice (Eriksson, 2006; Mathiesen, 1998). The interviewees often had starting points in a particular discourse, and their choices could be interpreted in relation to their personal backgrounds, the study programmes in which they worked and the societal contexts. Division into two discourses is a theoretical construction based on the empirical data.

The universalistic discourse

The universalistic discourse includes the theoretical talks of social pedagogy. One of the several ways that this was presented during the interviews was through discussion of the theoretical and historical bases of modern social pedagogy. Four different lineages were analysed in the interview material regarding historical roots: German social philosophy with Natorp as a main figure (Natorp, 1904), Latin American pedagogy with Freire (Freire, 1972) as a front figure, a lineage that emerges from American social work (Addams, 1910) and one that originates in Nordic psychiatry. These historical roots seem to have various affects on thoughts about social pedagogical issues. Social pedagogical thinking and activities have developed in different directions depending on their histories. How social pedagogy is interpreted in the twenty-first century depends not only on its historical roots but also on developments within different societies. This is one way to interpret the statements by the interviewees.

In addition to historical roots, the universalistic discourse includes theoretical aspects. Three levels of theory, developed within the framework of other disciplines, are apparent in the statements. The first group of theories, methodical theories, is used in different treatment methods. The second group of theories consists of explanatory models, which could be used to explain the emergence of social problems and to identify causal relationships. The last group of theories represents a point of reference, reflecting different value platforms (e.g. democratic theories). This last group of theories directs social pedagogues’ theoretical choices at other levels; every social pedagogue constructs his or her own theory building by combining ideas from the different theoretical levels. As a result, it is possible to construct ideal models.

Describing important concepts is another way of talking about social pedagogy in a theoretical way. Describing the content within a certain concept area also describes the social pedagogical knowledge arenas. From the perspective of the social pedagogical researchers, two concepts seemed to be of greater importance than others: bildung and community. The understanding of these concepts differed among countries and individuals, but bildung and community were well-used, ‘living’ concepts. Bildung is seen as education, upbringing, empowerment and a means toward citizenship. To analyse the interviewees’ opinions on bildung, their statements were related to different ideals of bildung, which have different ideological roots. One ideal in previous research is that of civic bildung (Gustavsson, 1991), which originated in the Enlightenment. This view emphasises Visa romanisering science and reason, and knowledge, or bildung, enables people's participation in the community. This is an emancipatory interest, and a democratic education is important (Gustavsson, 1991). The second ideal is associated with the formation of personality. It is tied to neo-humanism and is concerned with issues of human self-realisation. Bildung, in this ideal, is not particularly useful. Both of these aspects of bildung are represented in the interview statements. Most of the interviewees’ views of bildung, however, were similar to what we refer to here as civic bildung. According to one of the Swedish interviewees,

It is precisely this that is bildung … in some way, to rise, to grow, to be aware and see things more clearly. You become a more thoughtful person, and that's the most important in the concept of bildung. (respondent 3)

The interviewees argued that both of these ideals of bildung are represented in social pedagogical thinking and acting, but all preferred the civic bildung ideal.

Even the concept of community was seen as crucial and as existing in the historical understanding of social pedagogy. Understandings of community have changed since Natorp's time, and there seems to be a different kind of community today. According to those interviewed, this modern community is more post-modern and does not offer protection in the same way as in the past. This seems to be the understanding of contemporary societal conditions among the interviewees, and they share this understanding with several contemporary scholars, such as Bauman (2000). An emphasis on changes in the understanding of concepts such as community may offer a better understanding of the preconditions of modern social pedagogy.

The particularistic discourse

The particularistic discourse contains statements about social pedagogy as practice or field of activities. Thus, these are statements about occupational activities, professions and their meanings. In the analysis, different subcategories were constructed, including social pedagogy as a goal, social pedagogy as an approach, social pedagogy as a method, tools in social pedagogical activities, professional social pedagogical roles, social pedagogical target groups and social pedagogical arenas. These categories are rich in meaning. The interviewees’ statements contained many different opinions of how to describe and understand social pedagogical activities. Other researchers have noticed the differences among these factors and found it impossible to achieve a unified entity (Mikser, 2006). The statements in this study could sometimes be interpreted as thoughts about how things ought to be, the interviewees’ experiences, or, in some cases, as statements about how these issues were enacted in practice.

Interestingly, one individual sometimes discussed social pedagogy in opposite ways. For instance, an interviewee might describe social pedagogy as having an individualistic approach and subsequently discuss it from a collective view. One explanation for this is that social pedagogy is multifaceted, and it shifts in meaning through time and space (Hämäläinen, 2003). This understanding is also illustrated through the way the interviewees spoke about goals, methods, tools, roles, target groups and arenas. Taking comments about the goals of social pedagogical activities as an example, some interviewees described socialisation as the goal, whereas others cited mobilisation; these represent two significantly different approaches. The social pedagogical methods were also described as being multifaceted, although the most prominent methods were creative methods, community development and community work (see, for example, Eriksson, 2011). Community development is understood, in this case, as a collective method that strives to mobilise groups of people in need of support to play active parts in their own or their groupés lives (Eriksson, 2011). These methods were regarded as specific to social pedagogy. Most interviewees argued that community development was a characteristic method of social pedagogy, but they also deplored its disuse.

Three tools important for social pedagogical activities were highlighted in the analysis: relations, dialogue and activity.

Concerning the roles, the statements were divided into two groups, internal and external. Both were based upon situations of asymmetrical power relations. The social pedagogue is described as the strong party, and the other party (the client or the patient) is either weak or has deficiencies in one or more areas. The interviewees’ statements were interpreted as suggesting that they believe social pedagogues have something to offer, whereas the other individual is often described as a passive recipient. With a few exceptions, the interviewees did not address the possible strengths of the clients in this context.

The internal roles were interpreted as being closely related to the direct relationship between the social pedagogue and his or her client. The external roles, however, describe a situation in which the social pedagogue is involved in the environment and context of the client to a greater extent to improve the client's situation in an indirect, long-term way. Examples of internal roles are those of an advocate, guide, facilitator and problem definer. Examples of external roles are networkers and community constructer.

Concerning target groups most interviewees agreed that there has been some change over time. Previously, social pedagogues’ principal target groups were children and adolescents. Now, their principal targets are subordinated and marginalised people and groups, according to the interviewed researchers. Social pedagogues previously worked with individuals; currently, intervention is often directed towards the whole family or group. This phenomenon has also been described in previous research (Madsen, 2005). Social pedagogical arenas are everywhere, especially in public and private activities, although they seem less common in the voluntary sector (at least in the Nordic countries). The interviewees claimed that the number of arenas in which social pedagogues work is continuously expanding. In addition to working in various residential institutions for children and youth, it is now common to find social pedagogues in schools, prisons and hospitals, among other places. One can observe a shift over time from social pedagogues who work mainly in institutions for children and youth to situations in which social pedagogues work with all marginalised groups and individuals wherever they may live and act.

Three social pedagogical models

In the interview statements, it was evident that interviewees leaned towards one of the two discourses as a starting point for their understanding of social pedagogy. In some cases, one of the discourses was more prominent, but most often, both discourses were present at the same time. This is not remarkable because all interviewees would be expected understand both the theoretical foundations and the practical activities of social pedagogy. However, the way the two discourses were combined varied among the interviewees. These combinations could be either country-specific or specific to the individual. Other researchers have pointed out that social pedagogical traditions are often specific to the country in which they are practiced (Hämäläinen, 2003). This phenomenon was less obvious in this study; it appeared that the societal context was not more important than, for instance, the personal context. This may be because the northern European countries involved in the study have a great deal in common.

In the further analysis of the empirical data, three distinct combinations became evident. On this basis, three models were constructed, which can be regarded as ideal types. Each model contains model-specific tools, methods, attitudes/approaches and concepts. These models were constructed to gain a broader understanding of social pedagogy (Table 1).

Table 1.

The models of social pedagogical meanings.

Adaptive	Mobilising	Democratic
Tools	Relation	Action	Dialogue
Methods	Treatment methods targeted to the individual	Structural methods targeted to society	Animation targeted to the group
Attitudes/ approaches	Individualistic	Collective, change	Practical wisdom
Concepts	Community	Emancipation, empowerment	bildung, citizenship

The adaptive model

In the adaptive model, the main goal is adaptation to society, and there is an underlying, sometimes implicit, assumption about an existing ‘good’ society. In statements related to this model, the ‘good’ society is described as existing or, at least, as possible in the future or having existed in the past (e.g. Bauman, 2000). The interviewees mean that this society functions as a gathering community for all individuals and that the only way to become a human being is by participating in the community. An individual cannot exist alone. The following quotations illustrate this:

The social pedagogue should help people who are in any way marginalised, mentally handicapped, criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes and so on, and children who cannot live with mom and dad. You try to socialise them into the community. (respondent 6)

Social pedagogy is aimed to socialise people into society. So in some way you can talk about a principle of integration. (respondent 7)

This way of thinking finds support in Natorp's and Dewey's thinking, both of whom saw humans as social beings in constant development in interaction with the community (Dewey, 1916). Both Dewey and Natorp were inspired by Hegel. Natorp's opinion was that the goals set for the education system were twofold. The first goal was to educate people to be members of the community, and the second was to educate citizens to want to improve the community. The community body of knowledge provides the ultimate guide to the choices that individuals must make. Community knowledge serves as security for the individual. The interviewees’ reasoning can thus be traced back to both Natorp's and Dewey's philosophical reasoning.

These statements involve the idea that individuals or groups that have been excluded by society for various reasons may become participants in the ideal ‘good’ society through social pedagogical interventions. This social pedagogical work is based on ‘good’ relationships between the professional and the client. In the interviews, these “good” relationships were described as both possible and desirable. No aspect of power was mentioned, nor was there any discussion of asymmetric relationships. The interviewees argued that the social pedagogues they met often described their practice as relation-oriented. This is part of the social pedagogical self-understanding. When discussing the social pedagogical work conducted among people rather than in offices, or when describing work with people in their everyday lives, this focuses on the close relationship with the client. This relationship can be of various kinds. One example is the daily close relationship between a professional and a client in an institution. Another type of relationship is more therapeutic and is described by some of the interviewees as differentiating social pedagogy from social work, an interpretation that is not unanimously supported.

In the adaptive model, different kinds of treatment methods are used to reach the adaptive goal of curing the client and enabling him or her to be a ‘good’ member of the community, understood here as an integrated and active member of society. Based on responses elicited during the interviews, this model mirrors individualistic thinking because the interventions are aimed at the individual client rather than at society. There are methods for this model on different levels and with diverse focuses. Social pedagogic practitioners are often required to work with the methods applied in their workplace. According to those interviewed, these methods are often related to specific treatment ideologies or theories. The consequences of following a pre-determined theory without the possibility of an individual theoretical choice by the social pedagogues were pointed out by the interviewees and have been discussed in previous research (Langager, 1992). Several researchers, mainly in Denmark, have perceived this practice to be completely devoid of theoretical discussion (Eriksson, 2006; Holst, 1995; Tuft, 2003). This way of understanding social pedagogy (the adaptive way) is practiced among professionals and in society. However, according to the interviewees, it is not viewed as ‘the politically correct’ way. One of the Finnish interviewees puts it this way:

I fear the use of social pedagogy in adjustment processes. And I'm very critical of Swedish society, I know that this is even more common among you. It is used to suppress people or teach people manners and I am afraid that we will use it as an instrument in the same way that I know has happened in several places. (respondent 2)

The interviewees argued that social pedagogues ought to work in other ways. This model is similar to what Madsen calls the ‘treatment discourse’ (Madsen, 2005), which describes social pedagogy as relation-oriented, with adaptation as a goal. The model also relates to descriptions of residential care work (Cameron, 2004).

The mobilisation model

The goal of the mobilisation model is the emancipation of the client. This model illustrates a more radical interpretation of social pedagogy. The social pedagogue wants clients to reflect upon their own situation and to be aware of the impact of societal structures and processes on their everyday lives. Through this awareness, the client becomes ‘released’. The statements that form the basis for this model are similar to Freire's thoughts about conscientisation and liberation (Freire, 1974). Many consider Freire an important figure within social pedagogy, and several of the interviewees referenced him. Freire has many followers, but still seems to be the most important in a social pedagogical perspective. The mobilisation model is action-oriented, as is Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed. Another explicit viewpoint of the interviewees’ was that both the client and the social pedagogue are active subjects. The concept of action is specific in this context; it was described during the interviews as either a means and an end or a tool and a goal. Thus, there are several meanings attributed to the concept. Some of the interviewees see the action as an end in itself, whereas some see it merely as a means, and still others view it as both a means and an end. The meaning also differs if you take the pedagogical professions as a starting point the starting point or the ‘condition’ of an individual. When viewing the profession as a starting point, the interviewees argued that social pedagogues should be both active and proactive. However, another way to say it is that the task of the pedagogue is to persuade others to become active, or to activate people. One of the interviewees argued that previous social pedagogy focused on providing care, whereas activity is now the main agenda. The goal is to change people's behaviour from passive to active. The methods described by the interviewees, in contrast to the adaptive model, are directed towards changes in the society; societal structures are believed to cause individuals’ difficulties. This model focuses on the right to be different and to be recognised as such rather than on adapting. The methods mentioned by the interviewees included various forms of community work, among other radical methods. It is worth noting, however, that they described only a minor focus on community work, a situation with which many interviewees seemed unhappy. Community work can involve many different approaches, but one way of defining it is as a group of purposeful and rational change processes at the meso level, aimed at improving the living conditions of resource-starved and marginalised groups. In many Anglo Saxon countries, community development and community work are now common (van der Veen, 2003). In Sweden, for example, the link between social pedagogy and community work was strong during the 1970s. Several scholars developed acting principles for social pedagogy and direct access to community work (Ronnby, 1982; Swedner, 1996).

Changing beliefs may be reflected in the interviews, such as when the interviewees stated that community work is no longer an important part of curricula or practical activities. One of the German interviewees said:

And mobilisation is a thing that has become more and more difficult, because in this process of individualisation it is quite, quite difficult to mobilise, for instance, poor people to stand in for their interest. So, sometimes it may happen, but it is really difficult, and in the late 70s, of course to mobilise young people was quite easy and even for adults in poor district, and they went in town hall and demonstrated a long time ago. (respondent 8)

In general, some trends in welfare work in Sweden have developed from structural interventions to efforts directed at individuals. The same development is evident in community development work, according to researchers in the field (van der Veen, 2003). Development in all of the Nordic countries seems to have proceeded similarly. Thus, according to several of the interviewees, development away from the structural approach towards a more individual approach is apparent throughout society. There is a clear trend towards an individualised society. Because social pedagogy is influenced by society and societal trends, some of the interviewees suggest that it is not possible to discuss specific methods for social pedagogy over time. When the boundaries between, for instance, social workers and social pedagogues are blurred, as is the case in Sweden, the methods used by working social pedagogues also change. Most of those interviewed believe that methods with a collective focus are closely associated with social pedagogy. This is the preferred model for several of those interviewed, although it is associated with difficulties, as the following quote shows:

But our clients are not in the position to change the society, so empowerment … the talk of community work conception, like Alinsky, that is very nice to me. But it doesn’t work. (respondent 8)

This model has some similarities with Madsen's action discourse, which he describes as a reaction to the treatment discourse. In the action discourse, the role of the social pedagogue is to advocate for the weak (Madsen, 2005).

The democratic model

The democratic model emerges from statements made in the interviews and is based on humanistic democratic thinking. This model reflects the perspective that individuals can reach some type of ‘citizen bildung’ through support and ‘education’ from social pedagogues. This perspective takes a mobilisation approach, but it is less radical than the mobilisation model. A ‘good’ dialogue is central, according to the interviewees. The dialogue is understood as going beyond communication; dialogue must be open, without elements of power. Through ‘true’ dialogue, one can gain an understanding of the other's perspective as well as improved empathic ability. The social pedagogue must be able to ‘put himself in someone else's shoes’. The dialogue also contains aspects of intuitivity, which is related to ideas about social pedagogues as possessors of practical wisdom. These ideas are well established among the Swedish interviewees. Practical wisdom makes it possible for them to do the right thing at the right time. The concept of practical wisdom coined with Aristotle and was elaborated by philosophers such as Nussbaum (Aristoteles, 1988; Gustavsson, 1996; Nussbaum, 1995). The connection between social pedagogy and practical wisdom has been developed in some Swedish studies (Eriksson and Markström, 2000). The belief holds that if one is involved in a true dialogue, it changes their understanding. Thus, the model and thoughts in the statements are linked to a hermeneutic tradition (e.g. Gadamer, 1989). Gadamer, one of the hermeneutic tradition's foremost figures, believed that by opening up to others’ ways of thinking and reasoning, individuals could change their own thinking. In dialogue, different horizons blend together, and a new common understanding occurs (Gadamer, 1981). Engaging in dialogue means that we are open to what is new and to others’ interpretations of a situation. ‘True’ dialogue requires mutual respect. These ideas were recognised in the interviews in this study. Philosophers such as Taylor have developed Gadamer's reasoning about the individual's identity as it is shaped by others’ recognitions (Taylor, 1992). For example, the hermeneutic tradition has dominated the German social pedagogical way of thinking (Hämäläinen, 2003). The close relationship between social pedagogy and the hermeneutic tradition is clear in this study.

The methods used in the above-mentioned model are somewhat similar to animation. The concept of animation, which is not often used in the Swedish context but is common in, for instance, France and Italy, can be described as a form of popular adult education directed towards groups within the local community. These, mostly pedagogical interventions, strive to help groups cope with their own situations.

The limitations of the study

This study examines understandings of social pedagogy from the perspective of 9 social pedagogical researchers. The study has some important limitations. One limitation is that I knew most of those interviewed, which may have influenced the interviewees’ responses. Based on the purpose of the study, however, there did not seem to be a resulting disadvantage.

Another limitation is that no social pedagogical practitioners were interviewed, although virtually all interviewees had been previously involved in social pedagogical work. The results may have been different if I had interviewed practitioners regarding their understandings of social pedagogy.

A further limitation is that I did not examine the contexts and their implications. The respondents live in different societies, work at different universities and have different personal backgrounds. All of these factors impact their ways of thinking about social pedagogy, although in this article I have chosen to concentrate on their similarities.

Conclusions

The results presented in this article support previous research describing social pedagogy as confusing and disparate (Mikser, 2006). In this article, three theoretical models have been constructed based on empirical data elicited from an interview study. These models can be seen as an important contribution to understandings of social pedagogy that illustrate three different ways of understanding social pedagogy from northern European perspectives. The models elucidate the complexity embedded in the concept, but they can also be used to facilitate analyses and interpretations of various social pedagogical activities. The models show that social pedagogy cannot simply be regarded as a type of social practice or theoretical framework; social pedagogy entails both theoretical and practical considerations. This division can also be identified, for instance, in German research (Mikser, 2006). To understand social pedagogical traditions, it is also important to understand their varying value systems and the consequences inherent in the concept. A social pedagogical way of thinking can extend from an individualistic, adaptive foundation to a democratic, dialogue-based approach or a mobilising, collective approach. This study reveals that all social pedagogues have their own understandings of social pedagogy that are influenced by personal experience, the educational programme to which they are linked and the development of the society. This means that it is difficult to argue that one universal approach to social pedagogy should exist. This finding has implications for how education in the field is constructed and implemented. Different teachers and educational institutions may convey different views of what comprises social pedagogy. However, this study shows that it is possible to construct a way of understanding social pedagogy that can be shared between countries and contexts. The constructed models allow practitioners and researchers in the field to recognise and understand different ways of relating to society and to others. Social pedagogy may not be definable in a simple way, but it can nevertheless be understood and described by the models constructed in this study. The models also imply that social pedagogy cannot simply be understood as an activity or a theoretical approach; it is necessary for theory and practice to compose a single entity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the interviewees for their contributions to the study. Without their commitment and knowledge it would have been impossible to write this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Addams

(1910) Twenty years at Hull House, New York, NY: Macmillan.

Aristoteles (1988) Den nikomachiska etiken, Göteborg, Sweden: Daidalos.

Bauman

(2000) Savnet fellesskap, Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

Braches-Cyrek

Sünker

(2009) Will social pedagogy disappear in Germany? In: Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(eds) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschuleverlag GmbH & Co, pp. 169189.

Brante, T. (2003). Konsolidering av nya vetenskapliga fält - exemplet forskning i socialt arbete. In Socialt arbete. En nationell genomlysning av ämnet. FAS och Högskoleverket 2003:16 R. (The Consolidation of New Scientific Fields - the Case of Social Work Research).

Burr

(1995) An introduction to social constructionism, London, England: Sage.

Cameron

(2004) Social pedagogy and care: Danish and German practice in young people's residential care. Journal of Social Work 4(2): 133151.

Dewey

(1916) Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education, New York, NY: Free Press.

Eriksson, L. (2006). “Socialpedagoger utan gränser” – en studie om socialpedagogiska innebörder. Linköping, Sweden: Skapande vetande nr 47.

10.

Eriksson

(2011) Community development and social pedagogy: Traditions for understanding mobilisation for collective self-development. Community Development Journal 46(4): 403420.

11.

Eriksson

Markström

A.-M.

(2000) Den svårfångade socialpedagogiken, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

12.

Eriksson

Markström

A.-M.

(2009) Social pedagogy in a Swedish context. In: Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(eds) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschuleverlag GmbH & Co, pp. 4663.

13.

Freire

(1972) Pedagogik för förtryckta, Stockholm, Sweden: Gummesson.

14.

Frost

(2008) Is there a European social work identity? European Journal of Social Work 11(4): 341354.

15.

Gadamer

G. H.

(1989) Truth and method, London, England: Sheed & Ward.

16.

Gustavsson

(1991) Bildningens väg. Tre bildningsideal i svensk arbetarrörelse 1880 - 1930, Stockholm, Sweden: Wahlström & Widstrand.

17.

Gustavsson

(1996) Bildning i vår tid. Om bildningens möjligheter och villkor I det moderna samhället, Stockholm, Sweden: Wahlström & Widstrand.

18.

Holst, J. (1995). Socialpædagogiske udviklinger. Socialpedagogiken i Sverige. Vänersborg.

19.

Hornstein

(1995) Zur disziplinären Identität der Sozialpädagogik. In: Sünker

(eds) Theorie, politik und praxis sozialer arbeit, Bielefeld, Germany: Kleine Verlag, pp. 1231.

20.

Hämäläinen

(2003) Developing social pedagogy as an academic discipline. In: Gustavsson

Hermansson

H.-E.

Hämäläinen

(eds) Perspectives and theory in social pedagogy, Göteborg, Sweden: Daidalos, pp. 133153.

21.

Kantowics

Wilinska

(2009) Social pedagogy in Poland and education for the social professions. In: Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(eds) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschuleverlag GmbH & Co, pp. 6481.

22.

Kornbeck

(2002) Reflections on the exportability of social pedagogy and its possible limits. Social Work in Europe 9(2): 3749.

23.

Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(2009) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschuleverlag GmbH & Co.

24.

Langager, S. (1992). Undervisning, socialpedagogik og terapi- eller hvorfor lærare gerna vill lære mere socialpedagogiske og socialpedagoger mere terapeutiska i deras arbejde. DPT 5/1992 Tema: Pædagogik og terapi.

25.

Lorenz

(2008) Towards a European model of social work. Australian Social Work 61(1): 724.

26.

Madsen

(2005) Socialpædagogik og samfundsforvandling, Kopenhavn, Denmark: Munkgaard.

27.

Mathiensen

(1998) Sosialpedagogikkens teoretiske grunnlag. Nordisk pedagogik 18(1): 3650.

28.

Mathiesen

(2004) Socialpedagogik från teori till praxisfält -inblick i den tyska diskursen om socialpedagogik från 1890-talet fram till Weimartiden. In: Eriksson

Hermansson

H.-E.

Münger

A.-C.

(eds) Socialpedagogik och samhällsförståelse, Eslöv, Sweden: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion, pp. 1553.

29.

Mathiesen

(2008) Sosialpedaogisk perspektiv på individ og felleskap, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

30.

Mikser

(2006a) Equal opportunities: Competing paradigms in Estonian education. In: Ross

(eds) A Europe of many cultures, London, England: CiCe, pp. 189194.

31.

Mikser

(2006b) Legitimacy of the German concept social pedagogy. A social-epistemological analysis, Turku, Finland: Turku University.

32.

Natorp

(1904) Sozialpädagogik, Stuttgart, Germany: Franmanns Verlag.

33.

Nussbaum

(1995) Känslans skärpa tankens inlevelse. Essäer om etik och politik, Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.

34.

Payne

(2005) Modern social work theory, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Petrie

Cameron

(2009) Importing social pedagogy. In: Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(eds) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschuleverlag GmbH & Co, pp. 145168.

36.

Rauschenbach

(1999) Das sozialpädagogische Jahrhundert. Analysen zur Entwicklung Sozialer Arbeit in der Moderne, München, Germany: Juventa Verlag.

37.

Ronnby

(1982) Den lokala kraften: människor i utvecklingsarbete, Stockholm: Liber.

38.

Smith

(2003) Towards a professional identity and knowledge base: Is residential child care still social work. Journal of Social Work 3(2): 235252.

39.

Smith

Whyte

(2008) Social education and social pedagogy: Reclaiming a Scottish tradition in social work. European Journal of Social Work 11(1): 1528.

40.

Soydan

(1993) Det sociala arbetets idéhistoria, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

41.

Sünker

Braches-Chyrek

(2009) Social pedagogy in Germany. In: Kornbeck

Rosendal Jensen

(eds) The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, Bremen, Germany: Europäoscher Hochschulverlag GmbH & Co. KG, pp. 1233.

42.

Swedner

(1996) Socialt välfärdsarbete. En tankeram, Stockholm: Liber.

43.

Taylor

(1992) Multiculturalism and “the politics of recognition”, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

44.

Tuft

(2003) Socialpædagogik. Tidskrift för socialpædagogik 12: 4050.

45.

van der Veen

(2003) Community development as citizen education. International Journal of Lifelong Education 22(6): 580596.

46.

Van Ewijk

(2009) Citizenship-based social work. International Social Work 52(2): 167179.

47.

Winkler, M. (1999). Qualität und Jugendhilfe: Über Sozialpädagogik und reflexive Modernisierung. Zeitschrift für pädagogik. 41. Beiheft: Qualität udn Qualitätsicherung im Bildungsbereich: Schule, Sozialpädagogik, Hochschule, 137–159.

48.

Wirth

(2009) The function of social work. Journal of Social Work 9(4): 405419.