3 SOCIAL PEDAGOGY CONTRIBUTING TO RCC
3.3 Current trends in social pedagogy development
approaches, readings and policies to implement interventions and methods as one necessary competency of social pedagogical professionalism. Perceiving education as an instrument of social interests, this study takes advantage of the idea, regarding RCC as an educational environment with the potential to provide opportunities for edu-cational dialog, cooperation and participation and to see RCC as a formal educative community (Hämäläinen, 2012), mirroring the famous concept of a ‘total institution’
from Erwin Goffman, with a high degree of structure and strict rules and at worst separated from wider society by distance, etc. RCC is an institutional environment with the potential to provide opportunities for educational countering and dialog, social activities and participation and engagement.
3.3 CURRENT TRENDS IN SOCIAL PEDAGOGY DEVELOPMENT
While social pedagogy is considered a concept for a particular profession separate from social work, there is a tendency to outline particular approaches and define pro-fessional competencies and working methods that are unique to social pedagogues.
One main difference lies in social pedagogy’s focus on learning, formation and up-bringing and therefore on children and young people (Storø, 2013). This is designed to show professional difference and originality. When social pedagogy is viewed both as a science and a profession, there are reasons for suggesting that it is not a science for a
particular profession (Niemeyer, 2003). In the field of social work there are reasons to consider how social pedagogy, as a branch of educational philosophy, may contribute to professional activities (Hämäläinen, 2003a).
Some authors assert that social pedagogy is a generic approach to social work and not a particular profession (Coussée, Bradt, Roose and Bouverne-De Bie, 2010). In turn it is argued that although both share the ideal of encountering and empowering, social work is not always pedagogical in its content and purpose (Nivala & Ryynänen, 2019, 192; Storø, 2013, 39). It is argued that social work is more concerned with compensa-tion and is somehow ‘deficit-oriented’ (Lorenz, 2008, 636), focusing on proceduralism and managerialism (Hatton 2013, 99), while social pedagogy is directed towards the facilitation of learning experiences, being more open to engaging with others (and less inclined to assume an expert role) and drawing its knowledge and values from edu-cation (pedagogy), philosophy, the humanities, but also various creative disciplines (Kornbeck, 2008, 2012). Social pedagogy is also described simply as a form of social work that uses education (Walther, 2012).
Social pedagogy has been characterized by heterogeneity and ambiguity (Hämäläi-nen, 2015; Niemeyer, Schröer & Böhnisch, 1999) because the term has been developed amid different traditions, policies and practices and in different contexts. The recent development in the field of social pedagogy can be explained in part by the publica-tion of an unprecedented volume of books and articles in the English language. This has given an opportunity to academics of different origin to share experiences and develop social pedagogy theory-building. However, there still are several different interpretations, partly without common denominators, and consequently, the concept of social pedagogy is largely ‘a semantic mess and the theoretical self-conception of social pedagogy is incoherent’ (Hämäläinen, 2012). Therefore, ongoing debate in the academic and professional literature from different countries has shown some disagreement on whether social pedagogy is a specific area of knowledge, a profes-sional field or research field, or all of these at once (e.g. Ucar, 2016, 203). Elina Nivala and Sanna Ryynänen (2019, 408 pages) have made a significant contribution to social pedagogy devlopment with their current publication Sosiaalipedagogiikka. Kohti in-himillisempää yhteiskuntaa [Social Pedagogy. Towards a More Humane Society] where this disagreement is discussed and thoroughly argued, but in addition, the authors offer many insights into different working fields to show how to implement social pedagogy ideas into practice.
As a result, the question of professional titles in relation to social pedagogy is considered differently in different countries. For instance, in the Nordic countries, social pedagogy has not been built up as a distinct profession with the associated professional title of social pedagogue, though social pedagogy is a subject in HEI training (Nivala & Ryynänen, 2019). In Finland, social pedagogy is introduced as an academic discipline based on a range of theoretical underpinnings and consisting of different focus areas, such as citizenship education, activity and community ped-agogy, socio-cultural animation, and pedagogical methods related to the different contexts and needs of various target groups, including age groups covering the whole lifespan (e.g. Hämäläinen, 2014).
In spite of this lack of unified title as a profession, the professionals in the Nordic child welfare system are in many ways involved in social pedagogical activities and social pedagogical programs. According to Eriksson (2005), however, in the Nordic countries social pedagogy practice does not seem to participate to a great extent in the reflection of social pedagogy theory. So far, there is very little information about the
understanding of social pedagogical expertise in the Nordic countries based on sys-tematic comparative studies. Some significant similarities and differences have been found, for example between Finland and Sweden (Hämäläinen & Eriksson, 2016), and different paradigmatic frameworks have been identified (Eriksson, 2010; 2013), but there is no considerable drive to reflect on the nature of social pedagogical expertise in light of the common Nordic welfare context. Interestingly, recent academic discussion in Norway concerning the professional approach in RCCs has identified the existence of ‘love’, an idea rather at odds with most conceptions of professional expertise, which has been raised to academic discussion featuring the professional approach in RCCs (Lausten and Frederiksen, 2016; Thrana, 2016; Vincent, 2016).
Most interest and effort for social pedagogy theory-building today is taking place in the UK. The last decade or so has witnessed an explosion of interest in social ped-agogy and its applications in developing RCC practice (Bengtsson et al., 2008; Smith and Whyte, 2008; Cameron and Petrie, 2009; Cameron and Moss, 2011b; Berridge, 2013; Hatton, 2013; Cameron, 2016). The practice of developing RCC towards a so-cial pedagogy profession is termed in the UK as applying the ‘European model’ of social pedagogy (Hatton, 2013, VI; Cameron, 2016). Implementing social pedagogy as a broad education and learning approach has met some challenges. This problem and the need for a theoretical foundation are indicated in British research. In order to develop the quality of RCCs in the UK, social pedagogy standards have recently been summarized as a threshold level of practice ‘that should be held in a person’s heart and guide their way of living and working’ (Social Pedagogy Standards, 2016 Year).
These standards represent an attempt to conceptualize the educational philosophy underpinning social pedagogy, but can be seen more as value-based commitments applied to a diverse workforce, rather than a social pedagogy-based conception of skills and competencies. There are attempts to ‘practice’ understanding of social ped-agogy in the UK (training) context, with concepts such as the 3Ps (the professional, personal and private) and the Common Third (using practical or creative activity to develop relationships) (Eichsteller and Holthoff, 2012). It seems that while applying the ‘European model’, there are still educational challenges and systemic and cultural barriers to applying the social pedagogy approach in the UK (Cameron 2016). In the UK situation, one pivotal difference in implementing social pedagogy is the extent to which individualized or social, community-based solutions are sought for children and families; the concern for social cohesion and solidarity that characterized the or-igins of social pedagogy is less apparent in the UK tradition of social work and child welfare (Cameron 2016).
It is noteworthy that the lack of current research literature from the ‘mainland’ Ger-many in the English language restricts building a congruent picture of the theoretical development of social pedagogy. For example, the reflections of the ‘heimerziehun’
[home upbringing] approach in RCCs are based in this study on secondary references and resources. It is, on the other hand, claimed that there is a need for Germany to reclaim its heritage in educational thought and practice, including social pedagogy in their ‘social work-only’ model (Kornbeck, 2013).