Social work in search of academic legitimacy

If connecting the world of academic research with that of the world of social work is not obvious, “ all the more so when it is considered that social workers can be defined as researchers or that their abilities to transform their professional knowledge into scientific knowledge are fully recognized » (in the words used by the coordinator of the work Marcel Jaeger as an introduction, see page 6-7.), how to make social work a university discipline legitimized by a CNU independent dedicated to this purpose ? This is the ambition of the coordinator of this work, Marcel Jaeger, professor of the chair of social work and social intervention at Cnam, and of some of the contributors belonging, for the most part, to schools of social work. The objective of this work is therefore to restore the opposition between supporters of the autonomy of social work as an academic discipline (mainly belonging to schools of social work) and sociologists, most often academics or at CNRSwho only see social work as an object or a field of study. For the moment, social work is a field of study shared by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, historians, etc., and in no way constitutes from the point of view of institutions a discipline or even a science in its own right.

THE “ practitioner-researchers » in the assault on academic legitimacy ?

We have brought together here all the contributors from the field of social intervention, most often holding a doctorate in sociology or educational sciences, wishing to empower the discipline of social work or even, for the most insightful in make, why not, an academic science in its own right. This is the case of Eliane Le Play, vice-president ofSHARPNESS (French Association for university and higher education in social work), doctor in educational sciences and trainer in a school of social work, who advocates social work as a specific scientific object “ acting and thinking about acting in a professional situation » (p. 90). Thus, the study of field practices and training in situ would constitute an autonomous science with regard to other human sciences. In the same sense, Dominique Paturel, doctor in management sciences, proposes to pool the practitioner approach through participatory research which would be the basis of a “ research community » in social work (p. 106). The sociologist Philippe Lyet, head of a research laboratory in a school of social work, puts the contribution of researchers in the human sciences into perspective in comparison with the practical knowledge of social work: “ …is the knowledge of action of social stakeholders as relevant and as legitimate as the knowledge produced by scientific researchers ? » (p. 100) We must believe so because, according to him, a majority of researchers “ academic ” East “ positivist » and thereby commit many errors due to their lack of empirical knowledge and simplicities. This is why he preaches for constructivism, namely based on data or field actors equipped with rigorous methods in order to better understand the “ action knowledge “. The chapter written by Frédérik Mispelblom Beyer, professor of sociology at the university, also defends the approach of a “ concrete analysis of intervention practices, that of producing “ situated knowledge » (p. 261). If he starts from the principle that the gap between academic knowledge/professional knowledge is a false dilemma, he proposes cooperation between social workers and researchers “ who don’t want to tell a story » (p. 274). Paradoxically, the author does not go beyond the Manichean view that he himself is supposed to denounce and suggests, like previous contributors, establishing a science of social work to compensate for the “ missing link » between academic research practices and professional field practices.

Stéphane Rullac, specialized educator and doctor in anthropology, pleads for the organization of an autonomous subject: only social work established as a discipline, or even as human sciences (p. 130), could unify the articulation of social work practices with theories. If the author calls for greater cooperation between schools and universities, he paradoxically separates the two: the former would train more experienced social workers with endogenous know-how intrinsic to the history of these schools while the universities do not would only produce operators that are significantly less intuitive compared to the reality on the ground. Moreover, the author has a curious tendency to homogenize the history of social work schools which do not all have the same situation and especially the same “ political sensitivity » with a view to clearly differentiating them from universities and IUT.

From all of these contributions emerges the idea that the debates within the history of the sociology of social work seem to have to be repeated even if we note an accentuation: every twenty years, social work must emancipate itself sustainably of sociology critical ” but also, what is more surprising today, of the so-called “ understanding » in order to definitively stamp itself as a university discipline or even above all as a science.

Provide social work schools with a productive and quality research space

Other researchers present in this work, on the other hand, do not recognize social work as a science and also struggle to find it an autonomy that would make it a discipline in its own right. This is the case of sociologist Michel Chauvière, emeritus research director at CNRSunconvinced by the approach of this conference and who remains as skeptical, forty years later, when it comes to finding arguments in favor of a presupposed science of social work. The sociologist Manuel Boucher, director of a research laboratory of a school of social work and president ofACOFIS (Association of researchers of training organizations and social intervention), separates the vocation of social work from which “ the political objective of reducing the negative consequences of inequalities » (p. 69) of that of science which “ has the task of producing knowledge » (p. 69). For this author, the desire to establish research in social work reflects “ the desire for power of institutional actors and “ alterscientists » acting in the social field. The researcher at CNRS Pierre Lénel questions the merits of social work as a science and encourages, like the sociologist Jean Foucart, to develop interdisciplinarity instead (p. 157). Finally, Michel Autès speaks frankly about epistemological confusion on the subject of “ scientificity » of social work: “ knowledge is useful for action, but does not direct it. They are produced in the heart of the action, but it is not the action that produces them » (p. 295). According to him, decisions are made based on opportunities, the nature of interactions and the balance of power based on the choices and values ​​that drive the actors and not on a presupposition “ action science » represented here by social work.

Political strategy or scientific request ?

Reading this work, we realize that the epistemological and/or scientific issue of research around the object of social work actually hides a political offensive which does not speak its name. If, for Michel Autès, this conference remains the cyclical manifestation of a balance of forces in which university legitimacy would confer an additional advantage for the “ notable » from the field, Manuel Boucher shows the desire of certain trainers to acquire academic and therefore political power likely to translate, according to Jean-Claude Ruano-Borbalan, into an autonomous discipline to grant themselves a section CNUwhich “ provides resources and establishes the sustainability and legitimacy of research, constructed knowledge, etc. » (pp. 26-27). Thus, certain practitioner-researchers not always identified in the disciplines in which they obtained a doctorate could suddenly find themselves considered researchers and especially “ decision-makers » within a new discipline « empowered » which is theirs, that of social intervention.

You must therefore be careful with amalgams. An excellent social worker cannot necessarily become a good researcher and vice versa. In fact, the training does not arise from the same issues. Although uncertainties remain in the statuses, positions and sometimes vocations, the contributors wishing the autonomy of social work as a discipline and especially as a science want to accentuate the uncertainties in order to carry out a sort of sedition that is both epistemological but above all political. which would be favorable to them in order to self-legitimize themselves as academics and researchers. But this ambiguity should not conceal the structure of current scientific issues and the individual abilities of each person assessed by competent organizations made up of colleagues. The issues posed by this consensus conference around disciplinary and academic autonomy are reminiscent of those drawn up by the actors wishing to develop the “ criminology » at university ? This claim of a “ scientificity » of social work, which criticizes the lack of empirical knowledge of so-called “researchers academic “, runs the risk, on the one hand, of neglecting the real difficulties facing the world of research and academia and, on the other hand, irremediably moving away from the concerns of social workers operating in increasingly “ sensitive “. Why not instead develop a real field of quality scientific research bringing together psychologist, historian, sociologist and political scientist with which the school of social work and university would be associated, for example? ?