Printer Friendly


The doctoral thesis, MODELS OF SOCIO-EDUCATIONAL ACTION IN CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE IN THE BASQUE AUTONOMOUS REGION MUNICIPAL SOCIAL SERVICES, arises from two previous research projects in which the author participated in the years prior to writing this thesis, and from her experience of more than 20 years as a social educator in the field of childhood.

The initial hypothesis was: "The professional cadre of social educators has the potential to build an alternative model of socio-educational action".

The objectives defined were as follows:

* Analyse professionals' daily practice in socio-educational action.

* Identify the existing models of socio-educational action currently in existence in the context of the Basque Country.

* Develop recommendations with regard to socio-educational action in childhood in situations of risk.

The study of socio-educational models (Geibler and Hege, 1997; Gimenez, 2014; Medina, 1997; Nunez et al., 2010; Ucar, 2004; Varela, 2013) explains and justifies the educational practices observed, as the latter display different approaches, objectives and results depending precisely on the models from which they arise. These models were analysed and classified according to the participative dimension (Pericacho, 2012; Nunez et al., 2010).

We have adopted the term "models of socio-educational action", as it focuses on pedagogy and, therefore, on education, with a sense of possibility in the project and the future, bypassing proposals based on deficit (which is transmitted by the more usual term, "intervention"), as indicated by several authors (Geibler and Hege, 1997; Lucio-Villegas, 2005; Nunez et al., 2010; Saez, 1993).

With regard to methodology, the qualitative approach was selected as it allows access to the perspectives of social partners--that is, to their interpretations, knowledge and experiences, which are the specific focus of this thesis--through three key elements of communicative methodology:

* Horizontality between the world of science and the subjects of study;

* Visibility of excluding and transforming factors; and

* Generation of change for social transformation.

With regard to the production of data, a total of 15 in-depth interviews were conducted and 8 focus groups comprising more than 80 professionals. An Advisory Council was formed of participants in the study to guarantee scrutiny of the objectives, the research process itself, the instruments and also the interpretation of the results being gathered. As such, this structure entails a democratisation of the research process, as it involves bringing real life and science together (Alonso et al, 2012b; Gomez et al., 2006; Yuste, Serrano, Girbes and Arandia, (2014). Likewise, criteria of scientific and ethical rigour have been followed (Miyata and Kai, 2009; Gomez et al., 2006; Tellado et al., 2014; Tracy, 2010).

A lot of information has been obtained over the course of the research process on the basis of the dimensions and categories I have defined, and through which the profession's expertise in working with children can be appreciated. These dimensions are: the professional practice dimension (areas, dimensions, objectives, activities, physical spaces, strategies, protocols, interprofessional relationships and schedules, institutional responsibility and social responsibility, and the evaluation of content and who should conduct it), the subject dimension (the subjects, i.e. the children and their families, the professional worker and everything relating to the educational relationship), and the context dimension (the legislative context, i.e. the institution as a framework, legislation and the organisational context, with respect to membership bodies).

With regard to the conclusions, it is fair to state that we are considering a very young profession, focused on action and with diverse and mixed theoretical sources. Tensions between the models of socio-educational action render it urgent to overcome the conflict between the model of work imposed by public institutions and the model on which social educators base their work. These professionals express their confidence in a model that emphasises social change and transformation, taking community participation as a foundation, progressing toward a model based on dialogue and participation, although for the time being this goal requires a greater professional effort as it entails the abandonment of homogenising monitoring practices for all citizens.

DOI: 10.7179/PSRI_2018.3115

Autor: Maria Aranzazu Remiro Barandiaran.

Directores/as: Dra. Maria Jose Alonso Olea. Dra. Maite Arandia Lorono. Departamento/Instituto: Universidad del Pais Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

Fecha de defensa: 18 julio 2016.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Sociedad Iberoamericana de Pedagogia Social
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:THESIS ABSTRACT
Author:Barandiaran, Maria Aranzazu Remiro
Publication:Pedagogia Social
Article Type:Resena de libro
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Previous Article:Education and citizenship. Empowering from the own social dynamics of a neighborhood/ EDUCACION Y CIUDADANIA. EMPODERANDO DESDE LA PROPIA DINAMICA...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters