Social work education and the Bologna Process

1. Introduction

This article describes and reviews social work education and its professional context in Spain. Specifically, it analyses new degree implementation as a consequence of the Bologna Process, that is, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) over the last 10 years. Here the case of Zaragoza University is taken as reference. Social work lecturers are members of the Psychology and Sociology Department, one of the biggest in the university. The faculty is made up mainly of sociologists and anthropologists, some of whom have previous qualifications/experience in social work. There has long been thought to exist a kind of inferiority complex (Juárez, 1993) as a result of the Spanish tradition in this field: it was not a higher-level qualification and was separate from the universities. Moreover, this evolution leads to a theoretical discussion of the relationship between the different approaches to social sciences.

I ask if the increasing complexity of current societies requires a holistic approach and posit some ideas beyond the dominant paradigms with the aim of overcoming corporatism and ‘narrow gauge’ professionalism. Social sciences segregation has unexpected consequences in the creation of scientific knowledge. Social sciences deal, inter alia, with social issues and social problems, in a way that goes beyond the Kantian ‘unsocial sociability’ framework. In a sense, it is ragbag notion where economists, sociologists, social workers, among others, opt for the core position of ‘science’ and the ‘social’. However, the main focus is on ‘problems’, that is, how to solve, explain, understand, predict and intervene in social life and in the social system. We can observe different theoretical and practical issues, different ways of doing things, imitating other disciplines such as physiologists, engineers, technicians, doctors, philosophers, historians, etc., and this, moreover, has always been accompanied by high doses of ‘ideology’, envisions or ‘utopias’, according to different authors and topics, and focused on discussions and observations. Some of the classics insist on the side of social change, others on social order and social control.

The ‘social’ and the ideal of ‘science’ were married in a historical process of paradoxes and power struggles, where the Naturwissenschaften, such as Dilthey (1997 [1919]), defined the benchmark in the Western knowledge hierarchy. The Geistwissenschaften were situated on a second level, in the slipstream of the former. Dilthey, Weber and others tried to clarify the differentiations between explaining and understanding. However, the search for a cause–effect mechanism frequently hides the demand for ‘interpretation’ on social matters. That capacity for explanation and prediction creates a hierarchy of disciplines. Inside the social sciences we could describe a new stratification of relevant disciplines, where it is possible to show different pairs of tensions, for instance, between numbers versus words, theory versus praxis, explanation versus comprehension, conflict versus cooperation, individual versus system and so on. Here, social work is frequently at the bottom of the list. This hierarchical distribution has been accompanied, at least in Spain, by a parallel position in the higher education system. The Bologna Process has modified the map.

2. Social work evolution in Spain: From professional schools to the universities

There are different opinions on the beginning of social work in Spain. If we look at Spanish history we can find several references, for instance, to the contributions of Juan L. Vives and his ideas on De Subventione Pauperum Sive De Humanis Necessitatibus, originally published in 1526. Here we have the first attempt at formulating some kind of ‘social policy’ dealing with urban poverty, legislation and proposals for dealing with poverty (exclusion) and the poor (excluded), although its focus was the city of Bruges. Other milestones regarding charity and charitable actions were implemented during the next centuries. In the 19th century the General Charitable Act was passed in 1849 and the Royal Decree of 5 December 1883, which created the Social Reform Commission (De la Calle, 1984). The term ‘social work’ was used for the first time by the Minister of the Interior (Gobernación), Moret in 1883, to justify a previous study of social conditions and analysis of society before making any new law on social reforms (Molina, 1994). However, this came to nothing. It had no consequences on the creation of a new discipline and a specific field in public administration.

If we consider official recognition of social work by the ‘authorities’, we would place this after 1964 (Mira-Perceval, 2000). However, I would argue that the beginning of social work should be placed in the first third of the 20th century. This century began with harsh conditions in all aspects of Spanish society: political, economic and social. It was a turbulent period, where modernization and industrialization were advancing to transform the social system. Ideas and practices changed the map and the horizon. Monarchists, republicans, progressives, conservatives, communists, liberals, socialists, anarchists, traditionalists and revolutionaries all hardened in their particular positions and in the shadow of the (un)Civil War a cruel civil confrontation took place. It was the moment, especially in the large Spanish cities, in which new urban needs appeared as challenges and social problems.

Early activities in Spanish social work are linked to urban contexts. First, we can identify ‘social action’ as an organized response by groups and social movements to poverty and the needs of the people around them; second, as the insight and expertise to carry out such action. The first of these facets was a consequence of ‘organized social assistance’ initiatives and was launched in the 19th century. The second had its ‘origin’ in studies of social work in the first third of the 20th century. Catholic Church movements and parochial groups were basic to both.

The first school of ‘social work’, referred to as ‘social assistance’, was founded in 1932. In the same year, the Escuela Católica de Enseñanza Social (Social Teaching Catholic School) was created in Barcelona. This arose from the momentum of a group of middle-class people committed to their society from a religious Catholic viewpoint. In this case, it was linked to the Acción Social Popular (Popular Social Action) movement created by the Jesuit Gabriel Palau in 1908 (Álvarez Bolado and Alemany Briz, 1980; Berzal, 2001). It aimed at addressing the challenges of the Catholic Social Doctrine paying special attention to what were then called the ‘backward classes’. Its initiatives were probably inspired by others in Europe, for instance, the first social work school in Brussels. ¹

Situated in Barcelona, the Acción Social Popular group developed many activities and initiatives from 1926 onwards and promoted the Comité Femenino de Mejoras Sociales (Women’s Social Improvement Committee) and it was in this context that they wished to extend their enthusiastic volunteerism and desire for technically trained and thoughtful action. The first generation of the school’s professionals graduated in 1934. We could also include the Escuela de Formación Familiar Social de Madrid (School of Social Family Training of Madrid), at the end of the 1930s.

However, the Spanish Civil War of 1936–9 dramatically shortened that experience, and we could argue that the first stage was completed. The post-war years were particularly hard in many ways. Poverty and repression were the main features of that time. It was not until the 1950s that new Catholic groups resumed efforts and 15 schools were founded in 1958.

Again, ‘social action’ was resumed in urban contexts in the main Spanish cities through members of the Catholic Church. ² Social service schools in Spain arose out of the necessity for improving and professionalizing social action with all of them in the hands of institutions linked to the Catholic Church. They had a private character, without any official recognition. They were said to offer a ‘feminine career’ with a strong religious or service vocation.

These new schools promoted the creation of the Confederación Católica de Escuelas de la Iglesia de Asistentes Sociales (Catholic Confederation of Church Schools for Social Assistants), which within a few years, changed its name to the Federación Española de Escuelas de la Iglesia de Servicio Social (Spanish Federation of Church Schools for Social Service). During this stage, such institutions used the term ‘social assistance’ instead of ‘social work’, and this was a feature of the period.

They received official recognition after long hard negotiation with government authorities, which lasted approximately nine years. In 1964 the Franco regime finally granted them official status, and social assistance studies were recognized. ³ Two years later, in July 1966, an official order was passed which conferred the title of social assistant (i.e. social worker), middle-level professional status and their own syllabus. ⁴ This was an important step because students and the profession received a position in the legal educational hierarchy. This was similar to recognition of electrical, mechanical, administrative, managerial and professional studies for professional occupations. It was a way of creating a series of new schools dependent on the State and recognition of earlier efforts. In 1983, the schools of social work were incorporated at university level as a result of the Decree 1850/1981. Gradually, the former schools developed different strategies and evolved in diverse ways, some were incorporated in the universities and others disappeared.

Recognition of the discipline occurred in June 1990 (De las Heras, 2000) when the Área de conocimiento de Trabajo Social y Servicios Sociales (Social Work and Social Services Field of Knowledge) was created in the Spanish higher education system, which recognized social work as a specific ‘field of knowledge’. The Academic Commission of the Spanish Universities Council approved the incorporation of the discipline in higher education, however, it was still a minor ‘discipline’, and not a Licenciatura, that is, Bachelor degree level.

In the particular case of Aragon, in 1958 the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul, with the collaboration of the archdiocese, created the Escuela de Asistentes Sociales (School of Social Assistance). This was a girls’ school composed of the daughters of the bourgeoisie and leading business families of the city who wanted to help people and to learn. It has been criticized for its paternalism, its fraternizing with the regime and for not being critical of the social order. However, it was successful particularly with regard to school practices in the neighbourhoods, in the Caritas NGO, as well as in the Faculty of Medicine and the Juvenile Court. ⁵ The subjects and courses were organized over three years. They included training in the general subjects of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine, economics and social work. Groups were small with about 15 to 20 people per class. The title was conferred privately, without official recognition, as previously mentioned. This private Catholic school trained the first generations of social workers.

In 1964 the government agreed to build a new Universidad Laboral Femenina (Female Training College) in the city of Zaragoza through its Labour Department. ⁶ This was ‘francoist’ training institution. It was a type of ‘professional school’ mainly for sons and daughters of the working class. In the case of Zaragoza, it began as a girls’ boarding school and the first course for social assistants was initiated in 1967. The students received scholarships from the government to cover their expenses and came from all of the Spanish provinces. This was a state-dependent school, secular in origin, which guided the practices of government entities and managed to achieve a great reputation in Spain. This was the time of Licinio de la Fuente, who was the Ministro (Minister), at the forefront of the Ministerio de Trabajo (Department of Employment). Thus, 1967–8 saw the creation of an official school in Madrid and a school of social work was also set up on the Polígono Malpica (Malpica Industrial Estate) of Zaragoza, as a specialism within the Universidad Laboral. Their management was left to qualified personnel trained in the Sección Femenina (Female Branch) of the Franco regime.

Thus, for three decades, Aragon had two schools where it trained several generations of first social assistants, and then social workers. In fact, this evolution reflects the transformation that was taking place within Spanish society. In the 1970s, schools of social work were also a place where one could see the shift from an authoritarian regime to a new democracy, a democratic political transition, which introduced important changes in social policies and the construction of the welfare state.

As previously mentioned, in the 1980s social work was incorporated into higher education. The last generation of ‘social assistants’ finished their courses in 1983–6, and during the 1984–5 course, the ‘Diploma in Social Work’ began. In October 1988, the courses passed from the Universidad Laboral Social Work School to Zaragoza University. Prior to this students had staged strikes and encierros (sit-ins) to achieve this objective. The Social Work Diploma was ‘transformed’ into a new official course of study at Zaragoza University. This was a ‘re-foundation’ process; social work studies were now part of the campus. During the first years, the school was located in the inter-faculties building.

In these years the ‘social work area’ was within the department of Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social (Employment Law and Social Security). In 1992, it moved to the current Department of Psychology and Sociology. The Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Sociales (University School of Social Studies) acquired a new building in 1996, which was important in terms of presence and visibility within the campus. Another element was its quest to become a ‘Facultad’. Finally, in 2009 the ‘School’ was transformed into the Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y del Trabajo (Faculty of Social Sciences and Work).

Currently, at Zaragoza University, social work scholars are members of the Psychology and Sociology Department, one of the biggest of this university. The faculty consists mainly of social workers, sociologists and anthropologists; some of them have a previous degree in social work and other combinations. In the period 2010–11, the faculty members came from the following disciplines: 18 social workers, nine sociologists, two anthropologists, one psychologist, one historian, one philologist and one philosopher. During the early years of incorporation, there were mainly social workers on the staff with only one doctor. Now, the situation is different, the number with PhDs is higher than ever, and there is more diversity in the qualifications and specialist fields.

The final milestone was the creation of a new degree in social work in accordance with the framework of EHEA. Zaragoza was one of the first Spanish universities to achieve this and the old desire and ambitions for achieving a higher status in the education system were formally fulfilled.

3. Bologna Process

The so-called Bologna Process is very well known or, at least, it is a problem that hovers over our heads in many European universities. Official discourses say that it is a revolutionary process of cooperation and in addition:

At its inception, the Bologna Process was meant to strengthen the competitiveness and attractiveness of the European higher education and to foster student mobility and employability through the introduction of a system based on undergraduate and postgraduate studies with easily readable programmes and degrees. Quality assurance has played an important role from the outset, too. ⁷

Nevertheless, I do not want to analyse and reproduce this kind of discourse. The main point of this section is to show some Spanish particularities and their consequences for social work education. These observations are, mainly, the result of a synthesis of personal experience in the system, participant observation and a review of the literature.

First, the Spanish higher education system has deleted the old scale of academic qualifications. There are no longer differences between licenciaturas (degrees) and diplomaturas (diplomas); for instance, for sociology (five courses) and social work (three courses). At the same time, it has, as a consequence, deleted all the symbolic dimensions that went with it. There are no differences between degrees, as the first step in higher education. It is a tautology. However, it is important to point out that all graduates have a degree and, therefore, the same level of accreditation. Now, however, there are disputes ⁸ between nurses and doctors, peritos (experts) and engineers (i.e. in the past education system technical engineers had a four-year course and higher engineers a six-year course), etc. In the intangible sphere of the reputation and prestige of different certifications and qualifications the situation has not been resolved.

Second, the EHEA has been used to introduce strong modifications in teaching and learning models and values. This has produced the idea and feeling that ‘power’ is in hands of pedagogues (Fernández Liria, 2009) and the sensation of confusion with new ways of evaluation, teaching innovations, and so on.

Third, there is another dispute ⁹ on at least two different levels of discourse (Palomero, 2004): i) the supporters of EHEA defend the process according to two words: flexibility and coordination; ii) the detractors emphasize the marketization of higher education and the loss of independence (Fernández Liria, 2009). Both are speaking, as we say in Spanish, in a ‘bream dialogue’, that is, a pointless exchange.

Fourth, theorists argue that lecturers should look to the students in their job and time use, (Kember, 2009); this translates to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). ¹⁰ This accounting credit system has made the ‘job’ of the student accountable. However, the logic of the universities is traditionally oriented to calculate the time of the lecturers. We find several maladjustments in the current process of class distribution and teaching time commitments, and something diffuse in the sense of a general increase in unrest and upset on the part of teaching staff (Maqueda, 2009). Many students complain about the increase in new assessment systems and the number of tests. ‘Continuous assessment’ ¹¹ is considered by many universities as the new, and sometimes only, best way of assessment. It has been converted into a new ideological axiom, with many jokes and criticisms surrounding it (García Amado, 2010).

Fifth, the ECTS was conceived to facilitate mobility in the EHEA on the basis of the same system. The Bologna Process was sold as a way of homologation within Europe. The majority of the European systems introduce a chain of three years for the degree, two years for the Master’s and after that, three years for the doctorate. Spanish education authorities decided to construct the reform following the pattern 4-1-3. ¹² That means there is not an exact concordance for a simple and direct exchange. We have a different pattern, which means some difficulties for mobility.

Sixth, the Bologna Process converges with the arrival of the ‘LOE generation’ (San Román, 2008) at the Spanish universities. ¹³ This was the ‘penultimate’ education reform of the Socialist Party. It modified the Popular Party’s previous reform, which was never implemented, and introduces some controversial points into the system. The ‘feeling’ is that education levels are heading towards a dual situation, a decreasing level for the majority and the creation of a pull for very good students. The PISA report offers an ‘un-comfortable’ picture of the Spanish situation. ¹⁴

Seventh, the social work degree is involved in the mainstream of a new framework whereby the Spanish system tries to emulate the North American model (Nubiola, 2008). However, the discourse about ‘competences’ and professional records for students and careers is producing a collapse in some symbolic spheres (García Amado, 2010). Maybe this is a particular perception, according to a particular experience, in a particular university. However, it seems it can be generalized to many other institutions. Under this process and its ‘slogans’, there is much dissatisfaction and confusion: competences, markets, issues, contents, theory, practices. What purpose do they serve (Maqueda, 2009)? It is not clear that the new degrees improve the old situation of certifications. ¹⁵ We could identify a perception that this is a loss of level (Nubiola, 2008). Nevertheless, a social work career has reached a higher level in terms of the number of years of training.

Eighth, the adaptation/reform started in Spain with the doctoral degree. They built the house from the roof, and now there is a new reform of doctoral studies creating the new ‘Doctorate School’. There has been a complete turn in the conception of the system and a strange new use of words: the old schools are now faculties and the doctorates are in the schools. Moreover, this is the third reform from the same ‘government’ in less than six years. The PhD curriculum and framework have been amended three times. ¹⁶

Ninth, the Bologna Process introduces a reduction of the ‘knowledge fields’ into five big ‘macro-areas’: arts and humanities, sciences, health, law and social sciences, and engineering and architecture. The old battles for getting social work its own place has evolved to a new context. We should think about this. For many years, identity and difference were high mountains to climb and when the stone is at the peak, like Sisyphus’ boulder, it rolls back down again.

4. Social sciences and scientific knowledge

Social work pioneers have similar conditions in different countries, times and cultures. It is possible to find many convergences in their experiences as we can see in the narratives and literature of many of the theorists. Pioneers were people involved in the task of making a better society and reflecting on it. They were practitioners making theory in practice; the ideals of social justice and social welfare were fundamental to them. There are many books about the Anglo-Saxon tradition and its pioneers, for instance, Octavia Hill, Mary Richmond, Jane Adams, and somewhat less about other countries and traditions.

However, there is a common framework of urban contexts, unbalanced cities and societies, economic inequalities and poverty and a similar horizon to promote social change in order to get the empowerment of the people and attend to their welfare. These points are very similar to other approaches in social sciences. In a sense, it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to separate this horizon from other social sciences. We can see a similar leitmotif in economics, sociology, etc. There is an ethical commitment to society and a scientific aspiration for achieving the best knowledge about social matters. The ‘social’ appears as a relevant phenomenon and as a scientific object. Subsequently, there are three poles to manage following Diltheyian ideas: to explain, to understand and to act for. Social work itself synthesizes these three aspects; social work theory and practice build a tradition and scientific discourse. Nevertheless, science is a complex world, where we can see many different ways of performing. Merton (1985) attempted to describe and categorize the ethos, control mechanism and results. However, scientific ideals are based on different practices, frames of reference and ideologies. Scientific knowledge is a product of human beings and it is useful to reject the Platonic cavern myth as a mystification of the social construction of science. There are many topics for discussion, positivism, post-positivism, phenomenology, materialism, realism, subjectivism, constructivism; however, now, is not the time.

It is generally known that in our time a hierarchy exists in science and knowledge (Bunge, 1982, 2010; Mahner, 2007). The quickest proof is the research budgets of different countries investigation policies, together with other intangible issues such as the relevance of the figures and objectification protocols (ERAWATCH, 2012). Naturwissenschaften have an easy job in their targets, with very different features other than social phenomena. Complexity and ephemeral condition are two very relevant characteristics of the ‘social’. The successful results of the Object Oriented Approach (Kjellman, 2003) have important failings, the Subject Oriented Approach is necessary, but the former is on the cusp of the social hierarchies regarding science and knowledge.

We could speak of a kind of inferiority complex on the side of social sciences (Machlup, 1961) and, in Spain at least, in the case of the social work discipline because it is on the bottom rung of the ranking. This is not a particular perception; we could find several concurring opinions as a result of the Spanish tradition in this field (Juárez, 1993). ¹⁷ However, the situation is moving towards a new framework. If the 19th century was a time of success for chemistry and physics, the early 20th century showed the limits of these advances and its own incompleteness with the Göedel theorem, the Heisemberg principle, the decadence of Western Science, the creation of the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction and the technological revolution; the 21st century is a time when social sciences need not be ashamed. The global atmosphere is giving small signals of a new ‘scientific revolution’. ¹⁸ A new paradigm is on the way, and, more than ever, we should ask whether or not the increasing complexity of current societies requires a holistic approach.

Maybe it is more important to focus on the problems rather than on the hierarchy of disciplines. Discussions about cause–effect relations, the overcoming of materialism and the proposal of scientific knowledge require a turn to the people. Poverty is the main challenge for human beings; the Millennium Development Goals set out some milestones to consider, however, there is probably a considerable distance between different labs when it comes to listening to the ‘global action plan to achieve the eight anti-poverty goals’. ¹⁹ Collen’s three pairs of logical categories in research, questions-answers, problems-solutions, issues-problems (Collen, 2003), could serve to orient the task.

A systemic thinking approach is more necessary than ever and systems theory as a science of complexity is needed. Bertanlanffy, Boulding, Wiener, Maturana, Prigogine, Bayley, Geyer and many others explored the way. Moreover, we can see many connections with the early period of the social work discipline. Initially, it was probably very significant to achieve a differentiated position. The history of Spanish social work teaching and the institutionalizing process is a particular example of this idea. However, we should now explore the path beyond the dominant paradigms. Does such a thing exist or are we living in an inertial system where routines have the power? Maybe we have to introduce a second-order observation approach. Then the main issue will be to solve problems; probably this is an ‘art’ (Ackoff, 1978). For this reason, we should overcome corporatism and ‘narrow gauge’ professionalism. As I said at the beginning, the social sciences scission has unexpected consequences in the creation of knowledge, scientific knowledge.

Maybe, we need to continue the endless job of building human knowledge, with the best Socratic ideal in front of us: ‘I just know that I know nothing’. In this sense, social work in the EHEA has at least two challenges: i) to put social problems (poverty, inequality, hunger and illness) at the core of the universities; ii) to improve its capacity for making theory as a theory in practice and in other new spaces. Creativity, social imagination and scientific strategies will be part of the ladder. In this context, we should reject expressions like ‘The doctorate does not add anything to professional training’ (Mira-Perceval, 2000: 132) and think in terms of improving the quality of degrees and theories. We can see the same in terms of the electrician faced with a particular house-related problem, the builder of the house and the architect and urban designer. It is not necessary to explain the comparison.

5. Conclusions

This particular road has been followed to show an overview of social work as a discipline inside the social sciences and in human knowledge from a particular perspective. I have focused on a particular case. Spanish social work has evolved through tortuous ways, fighting against many elements. Maybe it is time to go beyond the traditional paradigms.

The main ballast is corporatism in terms of acquiring a position in the scientific panorama and the higher education system. In the professional sphere, it will probably have more battles to fight. There is a never-ending process in this respect, for instance, “fighting against” social educators, occupational therapists, and so on. In the case of Spain, professionalism has had a very prominent role but it is not clear that it should continue. Social sciences could be taken as a toolkit where several instruments and techniques are useful to solve social problems in a transdisciplinary way. What one is able to solve and learn in the present is more interesting than remaining in the past and asking what about one’s background.

Social sciences have to face the new ‘glocal’ scenarios, new coordinates in social systems and new challenges in order to formulate accurate diagnosis and recover non-concluded envisions. This is probably a paradoxical task where practices and theories have to consider change as the main subject of research. In this way, the socio-cybernetics paradigm (Marcuello, 2006) could be a way forward and social work and social workers have many things to say in the horizon of complexity sciences. ²⁰