Interactive advantage, cementing of positions, and social pedagogical recognition

In relation to the production and reproduction of successes, obstacles, social pedagogical recognition, exclusion, and interactive status positioning analysed above, the oral representations create and re-create a series of images about the control and repression of young people (students). These images seem to be narratively synchronised with the superiority of the professional actors in relation to young people, interactive status positioning in relation to young people, and language use. The presentation by the professionals of the young people's subordination and the professionals' own superiority produces and reproduces a series of images. These images cement a positioning of the superior actor (the professional) who sets the agenda for how young people (students) should behave to fit into the prevailing normative order in upper-secondary school and treatment contexts (“But you know that it's illegal here in Sweden”).

Ideally, upper-secondary schools, in collaboration with outpatient treatment units, provide social pedagogical recognition and tools for educational development [5; 31]. If young people (students) who use alcohol and drugs do not receive these tools and recognition, other social institutions must come forward and offer alternative platforms for educational development and self-realisation. Upper-secondary school and outpatient treatment units are the main platforms for young people (students) who use alcohol and drugs (as well as for professional actors) to restore a positive view of themselves and thus have potential in the social pedagogical context. The possibility of social pedagogical recognition and development is embedded in a number of interactive dimensions in upper-secondary school and treatment situations [5]. Good relationships between young people and professional actors constitute an important dimension in which the social pedagogical recognition is based on caring, trust, and mutual interactions. It is crucial for professionals to take an approach of inclusion of young people (students) in the school and treatment contexts, with attention to their ability to develop and change in a social and educational sense. This development and change both are in relation to interactive flows in upper-secondary school and treatment contexts and beyond these contexts (“the students actually start telling and talking a little about how they are feeling and what their life looks like outside of school”). Such an inclusive approach imposes demands on how upper-secondary schools and outpatient treatment units organise their work with young people (students) who use alcohol and narcotics. In addition, this approach plays a role in determining what support and room for manoeuvring professional actors in these contexts are afforded in their practical work with this category of students. An inclusive approach will influence the expected normatively right and deviant actions in upper-secondary school and treatment contexts, as well as in relation to laws and policies that to some extent govern practical work in these situations [5; 31].

Several interesting questions arose during work on this analysis, all related to whether (and if so, how) the various professional categories that figure in upper-secondary school and treatment contexts draw attention to the importance of psychiatric and medical issues in their practical work with young people who use alcohol and narcotics. The primary question is how psychiatric and medical questions such as those below can be handled narratively: What should professionals be treating? What is the content of the treatment? What is the goal of the treatment in relation to the patient group “young people who use alcohol and drugs”? Why should the professional choose precisely that content in the treatment and not something else? How can young people be motivated to stop using alcohol and narcotics in connection with treatment? Who is the young person being treated? Who should decide on the content of the treatment for that particular category of young people?

As a counterpoint to the psychiatric and medical perspective, another interesting question is how the professional's practical actions in the situation contribute to the following: the production and reproduction of success and obstacles in social pedagogical work with young people who use alcohol and drugs; social pedagogical recognition or a lack of recognition in the role of a professional and of a young person (student); the production and reproduction of professional occupational identities and the identities of young people (students); and moralisations in school and treatment contexts in relation to past and present practical behaviour of both actors regarding normatively right versus normatively deviant actions in these and other contexts.

References

1. Andersson, C. & Greve, R. 2020. Achievements and obstacles in senior high school work with students who use alcohol and substances. An interactional analysis of verbal descriptions concerning organisational and practical work in school. Vдxjц and Kalmar: Linnaeus University. Independent work in the Special Pedagogy (second cycle). Retrieved from http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1484216/ FULLTEXT01.pdf (November 16, 2021)

2. Basic, G. 2018a. Social pedagogical work with unaccompanied young refugees with experiences of war in institutional care in Sweden: an ethnography-inspired analysis of the narratives of young persons and institution personnel. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, (5)2: 6-29.

3. Basic, G. 2018b. Successful Collaboration in Social Care Practice: Beneficial Success Points of Interest for the Young Person in Swedish Juvenile Care. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 13(2): 56-77

4. Basic, G. 2012. When collaboration becomes a struggle. A sociological analysis ofa project in the Swedish juvenile care. Lund: Lund University, dissertation in sociology.

5. Basic, G., Lokareva, G. V. & Stadnichenko, N. V. 2021. Inclusive Educational Spaces and Social Pedagogical Recognition: Interaction- and Social-Pedagogy-Inspired Analysis of Space Dynamics in Compulsory, Upper-Secondary and Post-Secondary Education. Education Sciences, 11(11): 754.

6. Basic, G. & Matsuda, Y. 2020. Inclusion and obstacles in the Swedish social pedagogical context: an analysis of narratives on working with unaccompanied refugee minors with wartime experiences in institutional care. Croatian review of rehabilitation research, 56(1): 1-18

7. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

8. Bhopal, K., & Preston, J. 2012. Intersectionality and race in education. London: Routledge.

9. Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

10. Bjцrk, K., Danielsson, E. & Basic, G. 2019. Collaboration and identity work: a linguistic discourse analysis of immigrant students' presentations concerning different teachers' roles in a school context. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 41(1): 26-47.

11. Burr, V. 2015. Social constructionism. New York: Routledge.

12. Collins, R. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: University Press.

13. Eriksson, L. 2014. The understandings of social pedagogy from northern European perspectives. Journal of Social Work, 14(2): 165-182.

14. Eriksson, L., & Winman, T 2010, Eds. Learning to fly: social pedagogy in a contemporary society. Gothenburg: Daidalos.

15. Ethical vetting. 2018. Decision (Approved): School as a protection factor. An analysis of achievements, obstacles, collaboration, and identities in senior high school work with students who use alcohol and drugs. Regionala etikprцvningsnдmnden i Linkцping. Reg. No. 2018/81-31.

16. Foster, R. 2012. The pedagogy of recognition. Dancing identity and mutuality. (Dissertation in Education). Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

17. Garfinkel, H. 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall.

18. Goffman, E. 2002. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin Books.

19. Gubrium, F. J. & Holstein, A. J. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford University Press.

20. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

21. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

22. Hдmдlдinen, J. 2012. Social pedagogical eyes in the midst of diverse understandings, conceptualisations and activities. International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 1(1): 3-16.

23. Hдmдlдinen, J. & Eriksson, L. 2016. Social pedagogy in Finland and Sweden: a comparative analysis. Pedagogia Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 27, 71-93.

24. Janer, A. & Ucar, X. 2019. An international comparison: Social pedagogy training. Journal of Social Work, 19(2): 253-275_%

25. Janer, A. H. & Ucar, X. 2020. Social Pedagogy in the world today: An analysis of the academic, training and professional perspectives. British Journal of Social Work, 50(3): 701-721.

26. Johnsson, A,. Blivik, G. & Basic, G. 2021. Newly arrived parents and collaboration in Swedish school context: an interactionally and ethnomethodologically inspired analysis. Education, 141(3): 127-144.

27. Koning, I. M., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., Verdurmen, J. E. E. & Vollebergh, W. A. M. 2010. Why target early adolescents and parents in alcohol prevention? The mediating effects of selfcontrol, rules and attitudes about alcohol use. Society for the study of addiction, 106(3): 538-546.

28. Kornbeck J. & Ucar, X. 2015, Eds. Latin American social pedagogy: relaying concepts, values and methods between Europe and the Americas? Bremen: Europдischer Hochschulverlag.

29. Linnaeus University. 2021. Project: School as a protection factor. An analysis of achievements, obstacles, collaboration, and identities in senior high school work with students who use alcohol and drugs. Retrieved from https://lnu.se/en/research/searchresearch/forskningsprojekt/project-school-as-a-protection-factor/ (November 16, 2021)

30. Mead, G. H. 2015. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

31. Medegдrd, E. Henrixon, K. and Basic, G. Submitted. Successes and obstacles in the work of upper-secondary schools with newly arrived students: a constructivist-inspired analysis of teachers' verbal accounts regarding their schools' organizational and practical work.

32. Onrust, S. A. Otten, R. Lammers, J. & Smit, F. 2015. School-based programmes to reduce and prevent substance use in different age groups: What works for whom? Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 44: 45-59.

33. Potter, J. 2007. Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric, and social construction. London: Sage.

34. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

35. Silverman, D. 2015. Interpreting qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE

36. Silverman, D. 2006. Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage.

37. Sznitman, S. R., Dunlop, S. M., Nalkur, P., Khurana, A. & Romer, D. 2012. Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41: 146-155

38. Ucar, X., Soler-Maso, P. & Planas-Llado, A. 2020. Working with Young People: A Social Pedagogy Perspective from Europe and Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.

39. Ucar, X. 2013. Exploring different perspectives of social pedagogy: towards a complex and integrated approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(36):1-15.

Размещено на Allbest.ru