Output 2

Examples from the case presentations revealed the importance of issues of personal biography, professional expectations, social contexts, and political structures that must be taken into consideration because they may enhance or hinder opportunities for participatory approaches. At one level, these factors are country-specific, for example,

• in terms of understanding how services developed historically, (whether services developed through civil society or self-help initiatives or were implemented ‘top-down’),
• professional cultures (the degree of ‘professional autonomy’, variations in professional practice and ethics),
• political cultures (‘trust’ in state organisations or strong opposition between private and public interests; traditions of political representation, experience with authoritarian regimes, paternalistic civil society institutions, lobbying and consumer activism.),
• and legal conditions (participation enshrined in law, privacy law).

Rather than suggesting one universal formula for the ‘correct’ approach to participation, it is the mix of the above factors which may determine the nature of the framework conditions of participation. This will then require distinct forms of negotiation under national and local circumstances. In particular, the history and success of self-advocacy, survivor and social movements in respective countries will provide reference points that help to orient practice in this field. It is important, however, to acknowledge that in some circumstances self-advocacy and social movements can work independently and in opposition to professional initiatives.

It was agreed, however, that simplistic statements of ‘best practice’ which do not account for the complexity of these factors, will not have an impact on policy, practice, education, and research, as evidenced from examples in each of the project countries. For example, where there was a long hiatus in the presence of the profession of social work in a nation’s history (Czech Republic, Portugal) or historically traditional, paternalist policy making (Ireland), an unthinking approach to participation runs the risk of ending in tokenism and stigma for service users. In addition, the location and understanding of the nature of social work in social policy and higher education policies in terms of how they are regulated by the state may determine the framework conditions for participatory approaches. For example,there is relatively little stigma attached to requiring the services of a social worker in Nordic countries. In contrast, in Portugal, social work tends to be underdeveloped and undervalued compared to other health and social care professionals and consequently perceived as a residual service with the associated risk of raising suspicion or resistance among service users over ‘whose sides they are on’. This relates also to the role and strength of professional associations and the version of professional autonomy they enshrine. In Ireland and Finland, the professional is strictly regulated by the state, and within this regulation there is a requirement that practitioners, educators, and students embrace and operationalize participatory practices.

A decisive impulse can also be developed from references to the ‘Global definition of social work’ formulated by IFSW and IASSW which states ‘Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people.” A possible guide to participation would be to highlight ways in which these factors can inform types of practice in terms of: 

Theme 3) Case Study Example: Influence of personal biography, professional expectations, social contexts and political structures on participatory approaches (See Tourne et al., 2022)

In the Belgian case study, the impact of social contexts and political structures of participation in the social domain of education were discussed. The current neoliberal focus leads to a human capital perspective in educational policy in Flanders. Education is consequently mainly seen as an important economic strategy. This instrumental view on education results in education becoming increasingly outcome-based.

Consequently, the framing of ‘acceptable student behaviour’ is narrowed down and homogenized. In higher education there tends to be excessive lists of rules, which often reduce students’ space to manoeuvre within the educational system and carry the risk of students being penalised over trivial issues, which can lead to forms of exclusion. Furthermore, these policies seem to impose a rather homogeneous (student) identity; students who don’t fit this predefined (for example, white and middle- class) identity are often labelled and stigmatised by both teachers and peers.

In conclusion, these policies imply that there is an exclusionary educational system in which can contradict the principle that young people are formally guaranteed (through student councils), a voice, yet this apparent participatory approach rather seems to function as a smokescreen for an education system that excludes mainly vulnerable students due to a one-sided focus on the acquisition of human capital.