Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72 DOI 10.1007/s12124-014-9291-1 R E G U L A R A RT I C L E

Catalytic Models Developed Through Social Work Mogens Jensen

Published online: 28 December 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract The article develops the concept of catalytic processes in relation to social work with adolescents in an attempt to both reach a more nuanced understanding of social work and at the same time to develop the concept of catalytic processes in psychology. The social work is pedagogical treatment of adolescents placed in out-ofhome care and is characterised using three situated cases as empirical data. Afterwards the concept of catalytic processes is briefly presented and then applied in an analysis of pedagogical treatment in the three cases. The result is a different conceptualisation of the social work with new possibilities of development of the work, but also suggestions for development of the concept of catalytic processes. Keywords Pedagogical treatment . Catalytic processes . Adolescents . Social work When we look at social work from a psychological perspective the variability of developmental trajectories can be clearly seen. Some adolescents benefit from outdoor-activities and sports as a core part of the intervention, where others refuse to participate; some are eager to play music and make performances, while others prefer to sit quietly in the workshop painting or making trinkets. These experiences from the practice of social work raise scepticism among social workers towards standardised plans for treatment, and they tend to focus on adolescents who do not fit into the treatment-activities and want to develop treatment adjusted to the particular adolescent. In general developmental psychology has abandoned a description of development through fixed stages, providing one and the same trajectory for everybody (Sroufe 1997; Rolf et al. 1990). Instead it tries to handle several developmental trajectories where the child is seen as having developed in relation to childhood-context and therefore with skills adequate to this context (Fischer et al. 1997; Hundeide 2005). When considering a specific child in a specific context the optimal developmental trajectory to plan for and intervene with is also specific. This does not mean that standardised programs are useless, but here the focus is on developing specifically adjusted interventions and the effort to develop concepts that facilitate this. M. Jensen (*) Department of Communication & Psychology, Aalborg University, Kroghstræde 3 room 4.224, DK-9200 Aalborg, Øst, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

57

When we plan for social work this raises problems. How can we systematically make plans and evaluate them systematically in research, if there are so many different trajectories of development?

Theoretical Demands One strategy for developing social work and developmental psychology has been to simplify the problems we are investigating by focusing on general aspects which are common to several individuals. Research on abnormal development shows many different factors at play (see Carr 2006), and combining them makes standardising even more unsuitable. Here I want to follow another strategy to see if it raises new possibilities. If we achieve a detailed knowledge on the processes going on in development and on the factors which might influence the process in different directions, we can develop concepts useful for assessing the conditions for developmental processes for a specific child in a specific context and thereby plan for an optimal intervention. This demands concepts and theories which see variation not as exceptions to general patterns but as integrated aspects of development. Valsiner and Cabell (2011) call for theories in psychology which explains variability better instead of focusing on one single developmental trajectory and simple causal connections. This has been analysed in systemic theory where the discussion on for example circular causality is well known (Dixon 2007), together with describing deviation-amplifying dynamics as part of normal development creating variability (Maruyama 1963). The aim is to understand processes of the system, instead of trying to determine its development in advance. The development of the system can then be influenced along the way based on the understanding of these processes. One alternative attempt to understand development is to consider theories of catalytic processes and I will here try to explore the benefits of applying this catalytic approach to social work. First I want to analyse and characterise the social work at play – social-pedagogical treatment – in order to clarify the empirical context I want to connect with the catalytic approach. The field of practice I analyse is pedagogical treatment of adolescents placed in out-of-home care because of behavioural or personal problems.

Social-Pedagogical Treatment In Denmark and Europe there is a long tradition of social-pedagogical thinking going back to hermeneutic philosophy in the 19th century (Mathiesen 1999). Humans are seen as fundamentally socially oriented and they develop and learn in social relations to other people and the culture in which they grow up (Gustavsson et al. 2003). Social-pedagogical tradition was for several reasons developed mainly in relation to marginalised groups, such as disabled people, mentally ill and people with deviant behaviour like crime, antisocial behaviour, etc.

58

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

In Denmark children and adolescents in need of pedagogical treatment are often placed in foster families or in institutions of residential care where social workers1 are responsible for the care and education of the children. These institutions mainly take care of between 6 and 40 children, and there might be an internal school at the place or they go to the local school. Smaller children are mostly placed in foster families, whereas adolescents can be more problematic to contain in a family, so they are more often placed in institutions. My research is focused mainly on adolescents who are placed at institutions because of behavioural problems and/or personal problems that their families cannot manage by themselves. The adolescents have behaved in a way society cannot accept, and the municipality has plans to re-socialize them. In my reading of a social-pedagogical tradition the basis of the treatment is forming what I call a social-pedagogical fellowship between the adolescent and the social worker (Jensen 2011a). In any fellowship there has to be a common project the social worker and the adolescent cooperate on, and this is understood as the life of the adolescent with all the challenges it includes. In handling these challenges they of course have to take into account the demands from the social surroundings, both society in general and the other persons at the place. To see it as a fellowship implies the development of some shared norms for interaction and expectations towards each other in order to cooperate, but these norms have to be accepted by both parts in the fellowship and in each episode of interaction of the fellowship is negotiated resulting in confirmation, weakening or strengthening. The fellowship is dynamic and constantly developing. In order to make the adolescents gradually construct their own acceptable norms and attitudes inspired by those of the social worker, it is important that they construct them as their personal positions, as described in a bi-directional model for cultural transfer (Valsiner 2007 p.35), in order to avoid superficial adjustment during their stay with no permanent effect. The main point of this bi-directional model is that the adolescent has to learn to accept the norms imposed on him. In studies of institutions there are several examples of superficial adjustment, where the inmates return to previous norms once they get out (Stokholm 2006). When the frame is that of a bi-directional model for cultural transfer, the social worker and the adolescent are both fully accepted members of the fellowship, but they do not have the same competencies or positions. As a result of education, age and experience, the social worker has more advanced competencies on handling the challenges of ordinary life, and social competencies on cooperating, whereas the adolescent has a better knowledge of his background, interests and wishes for the future. When it comes to decisions on whether to engage in the fellowship, how to act in different situations, which developmental challenges to face and which to try to escape, the adolescent can in fact refuse to cooperate. The social worker can argue and put pressure on the adolescent, but he cannot control him even though the society might expect the social worker to. The common sense understanding of the situation is one of a hierarchy with the authorities on top followed by the social works and the adolescent 1 In Denmark we have an education at the bachelor-level as a social worker specialised in pedagogical work called a pedagogue.

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

59

at the bottom; but it would be more correct to describe it as an intransitive hierarchy (Poddiakov and Valsiner 2013), where the adolescents has power to block decisions made by authorities and social workers. Likewise social workers have the possibility to circumvent the decisions of authorities, such that informally the hierarchy is intransitive. Some institutions such as jails may involve so much force that it is impossible to not accommodate; however, as stressed in the bi-directional model, this can in the long run oppose genuine re-socialisation. The adolescent at the bottom of the formal hierarchy cannot decide by himself on where to live and what occupation to choose, but by refusing to cooperate he can undermine the decisions of the higher levels in the hierarchy, so it is intransitive. This just adds another important point in social-pedagogical treatment: the aim is to make the adolescent an agent in his own life, so that he becomes aware of his own possible influence and responsibility. This important aspect of the treatment is encompassed in the conceptualisation of social work as a fellowship, where the adolescent gradually takes over the responsibility for handling his own life. Along the way there is a series of negotiations on what to focus on and prioritize in the cooperation, which the following case illustrates:

Case 1 Marias Scheme I followed and observed Maria 1 day a week for 6 weeks at the institutions where she was placed, and ended each day with an interview, where I asked her, how she understood selected episodes from the day. She quickly felt confident with me and freely talked about her life considerations and concerns. Maria was a 15 year old girl placed at an institution for residential care. She came from a boarding school, where she was placed because of great problems with her single mother including quarrels, vagrancy, drinking with friends etc. Unfortunately she was expelled from the school because of her oppositional behaviour and ended up at this institution. During the 6 weeks I noticed some topics, which seemed to influence Maria’s everyday life at the place. She was very careful concerning her schoolwork since she wanted to take her exam at the end of the school year. The social workers wanted her to develop a better relationship with her mother, but she didn’t care since she saw her mother as the one and only reason for their quarrels. On the other hand she was very much engaged in a discussion on ‘sweethearts’ at the institution since, she wanted to be the sweetheart of one of the boys. Here the social workers had reservations because they expected it would not last long and when it ended it would give a lot of problems to the group of adolescents, including taking sides with one or the other. In other words there were some topics which Maria focused on as important and which she wanted to invest a lot of effort in, and there were other topics which the social workers focused on and wanted to invest the main effort in. The foci of Maria and the social workers were only partly overlapping.

60

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

From these data I made the following scheme Table 1: In the pedagogical treatment there were some topics which both Maria and the social workers focused on as common topics – here schoolwork is a good example. Then there are some topics which the social workers focused on, but Maria did not see as important and did not cooperate much on, which are here called professional topics – here the relation to her mother is an example. Then there were some topics which Maria found very important, but the social workers did not see as worth engaging in, that is adolescent topics – the discussions of sweethearts is an example of this. In making this scheme a fourth category emerged, which I call external topics. In other cases I have seen social norms influencing the pedagogical treatment, which are outside the conscious awareness of both adolescents and social workers, so somebody from outside would have to bring them up if they were to be considered. For a more elaborated discussion of this scheme see Jensen (2011b). This case shows some of the conditions for establishing a social-pedagogical fellowship. In Maria’s case she learned much in school but concerning sweethearts she developed with only little and un-coordinated support from the social workers. In relation to her mother nothing changed during the 6 weeks I followed her. The case raises the question of how to establish a cooperation in order to facilitate the best and most effective development and points to the importance of finding common topics to cooperate on. Of course the social workers should have a professional perspective on topics they know from education, research and own experience are important in the long run, but the first step should then be to convince the adolescent to focus on these as important – to move it to common topics. An assessment of and cooperation on adolescent topics could be used for establishing and strengthening the socialpedagogical fellowship, and good-will established in this can then be used for motivating the adolescent to consider professional topics. Of course the social worker should take the initiative to establish and carry the greatest part of the responsibility for the fellowship at the beginning, but gradually he should then hand over the responsibility for the common project, the life of the adolescent, to the adolescent himself. This is carried out in everyday situations where the social worker in each situation adjusts his actions in a way where the adolescent gets the best possibilities for developing the competencies he needs to handle his own life. As the adolescent very often has had to handle life by himself earlier on, he has learned to cope by acting quickly and turning the situation into something well-known, Table 1 Topics from adolescent and social workers perspectives Marias scheme

The adolescent perspective In focus

Social worker perspective

Out of focus

In focus

Common topics

Professional topics

Out of focus

Adolescent topics

External topics

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

61

such as conflicts, which he is quite skilled at. The social worker then has to catch up with the adolescent and still act in accordance with the pedagogical plans, knowledge on the adolescent, the current context, the consequences for the other adolescents at the place, what the current situation can facilitate etc. I have termed this a demand for planned spontaneity (Jensen 2010) to stress the seemingly contradictory demands of acting both quickly and spontaneously and still in accordance with plans of treatment and knowledge. Observing social-pedagogical treatment this is in fact realised. This does not mean, that the social worker reflects consciously on all of the mentioned information. Schön (1983) has described the process of reflection in professional work, but where he mainly talks about conscious reflective processes, I would like to rephrase it as ‘reflection by action’ (Jensen 2010 p.172), where the practitioner does not necessarily make conscious reflections but acts and adjusts his actions in relation to the way the situation ‘talks back’ (Schön 1983 p. 95). Understood in this way, Schön’s description can be used in relation to processes outside conscious awareness too. These processes are quite effective in including several factors as described in research on expertise and excellence (Reber 1992; Bransford et al. 2000; Rasmussen 1986). In social work it is often referred to as ‘intuition’ or ‘gut feeling’, which does not clarify the process nor help us in qualifying it further. I will return to this later on, but first bring an example to illustrate the conditions for social work:

Case 2 What Should Peter do? This case is collected from interviews with social workers on the characteristics of their work. In these interviews they often make their points by telling about episodes throughout their professional experiences John, 16 years old was very late, reluctant to get up this morning and sitting at the table for breakfast he seemed ominous. When Tom, another of the adolescents at the place, kept talking to him John finally got up, pushed his plate to the floor, left and went to his room. The social worker Peter had to make up his mind: Should he focus on teaching Tom to leave others alone, when they didn’t want to interact? Or on teaching John to state verbally if he wanted to keep to himself? Or on helping John to cope with disappointment, since he knew, that John was told yesterday evening that his mother didn’t want him home for Christmas Holiday? Or was his reaction influenced by the unstable relation to his girlfriend? Or was it an attempt to avoid going to school today since he had difficulties following the rest of the class academically? And whatever he chose, how would it influence the way the rest of the adolescents would act in the future, and what would his colleagues expect of him? This case shows how social workers are faced with constant choices of which aspects of the development of the adolescents to focus on in the current situation and which aspects of the treatment to prioritise. There is not one single action which can be said to be the best, but several possible trajectories to follow. Some will result in a positive development and some will not, but there is little time to reflect since the situation and the possibilities can change within seconds. There is a need for planned

62

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

spontaneity. In this connection the social workers need concepts, theories and examples which can help them create different understandings of the situation with additional different possible actions. This is an important part of the competence in socialpedagogical treatment, where the social worker constantly adjusts his interaction in order to create the possibility for the adolescent to develop adequate ways of handling his life. My short description of social-pedagogical treatment could cover normal parenthood, but there are a couple of important differences. First of all parents normally have their children from birth which gives opportunities for a bonding beyond any choice. When an adolescent is placed in out-of-home treatment, the social worker has to establish these bonds (or a social-pedagogical fellowship as I call it) and get the acceptance of the adolescent to their mutual cooperation. The adolescent very often is sceptical towards adults and especially adults who are part of the official system, so the social worker faces a challenge to appear reliable. In an educational or socialpedagogical context reliability is often associated with spontaneous actions, because these are perceived as more authentic and revealing the honest opinion of the person, which again stresses the demand for planned spontaneity. To establish the fellowship the social worker has to convince the adolescent that he really cares for him as the specific person he is, which can be a challenge but also be handled quite elegantly, as the following example shows:

Case 3: Do you want to go Surfing? The following case is chosen from one of several interviews with young adults who have been placed at residential institutions for pedagogical treatment. The aims of the interviews were to collect the adolescent’s experiences of being placed at the institutions and their understanding of the development they went through. This can only be seen as one way of collecting the experiences of the placement in a narrative, and the adolescents do not necessarily know of the many factors, which have influenced their development. Chris had been placed at 8 different foster families or institutions of residential care before he came to ‘House at the Heath’ where he stayed and finally succeeded in changing behaviour and taking an education. He was skilled at acting in a way which resulted in being expelled from an institution, if he found them too demanding or didn’t agree in their plans for him. I interviewed him 5 years after he left the place to live by himself, and I asked him “How come you stayed at ‘House at the Heath’, when you didn’t stay at the other places? What was the difference?” He answered, that the turning point came one Saturday, where Mark, one of the social workers said to him “I’m off from work at noon. This afternoon I am going surfing – why don’t you come along and surf with me? That would be fun.” This made him wonder, that Mark in fact liked to be with him even when he wasn’t paid for it. He might even like him for real.

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

63

This experience influenced his view at the social workers, and he started cooperating with them instead of opposing them. It should be added, that Mark had 4 working hours each month at his disposition, which he could place when he wanted. He could choose to be paid for the afternoon surfing, but the adolescent didn’t know this. In the case Mark manages to establish cooperation – a fellowship – because Chris sees him as genuinely interested in being with him. Mark offers some norms for the fellowship, which are attractive for Chris, and they find a common interest to cooperate on. This facilitates cooperation instead of opposition and it becomes possible for Mark to gradually expand the topics they cooperate on and thereby help Chris handle his life in a better way, which he then gradually can take over. The way Chris tells about his experience in the case is of course an explanation which Chris constructs and there have been several other aspects of his stay, which might have influenced his development too.

Catalytic Approach Above I have characterised social-pedagogical treatment and brought some empirical cases from my research. I will now turn to theories of catalytic processes (Cabell and Valsiner 2014a) in order to investigate whether this alternative can support the understanding and practice of social-pedagogical treatment. In chemistry a catalyser is a substance which influences a process by being present and in some cases participating in the process, but the catalyser is not causing the process to take place. In general a catalyser binds to a substance A and thereby making it possible to connect to another substance B, and when this is accomplished the catalyser is freed and the new substance AB has been created. The important point is that it is hard or even impossible to create AB if the catalyser is not present, but at the end of the process the catalyser remains the same in quality and quantity. In common sense a catalyser is seen as promoting the process, but in chemistry a catalyser can promote, inhibit or influence the direction of the process (Valsiner 2014) and the function of the catalyser is depending on other factors in the context as presence of other catalysers, temperature etc. In other words a catalyser can function differently or even not function at all depending on its context. Using catalyser as a metaphor for social-pedagogical treatment is obvious. Here the social worker establishes cooperation or binds with the adolescent while he is at the institution and this facilitates a positive development for the adolescent, who is changed during this process. When the stay ends, the binding is dissolved and the social worker remains the same – though in this connection he will be more experienced and better qualified for binding with the next adolescent. If we analyse this conceptualisation of catalysers there are some important differences compared with direct causality. The catalytic approach attempts to conceptualise the processes through which the adolescent develops by focusing on factors influencing the process, but it maintains the possibility of various trajectories of development depending on the present catalysers. It weakens the possibility of precise general

64

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

predictions of consequences of a certain intervention, but this just fits empirical data. On the other hand it gives us a list of potential factors, which we then can consider in a specific case, as I will show later. There is still more work to be done in exploring a constructive and consistent meaning of catalysers in social work. In chemistry we have a physical reality but in social work we also have a psychic reality (Ricoeur 1981), which works on different conditions. In the psychic reality it is not only a question of being present or not, but also of being perceived and interpreted and this can be done in different ways even though the physical reality is the same. We can have several interpretations which are equally good, so the question of how an understanding is created is a crucial point. The process of working as a catalyser is therefore more complicated, and will be analysed in relation to social work and the cases mentioned above with the aim of revealing some aspects of catalytic processes in order to clarify the concept within a psychological field.

Catalytic Processes and Social-Pedagogical Treatment We can analyse case 3 mentioned above with concepts of catalysers and catalytic processes like this: At the institution they have several cultural artefacts among which equipment for windsurfing is one. These artefacts facilitate activities for adolescents and social workers, and these can be seen as catalysers for interactions which open possibilities of development. There are also norms for social interaction which encourage activities in which social workers and adolescents participate on equal terms. The work-conditions for Mark are organised with four available hours, which promote activities as such surfing Saturday afternoon. The suggestion from Mark can be seen as an event which facilitates the development of Chris. All of these aspects of the current situation can be described as catalysers – cultural artefacts, social norms, organisation of work, events as the surfing – they facilitate the development of a social-pedagogical fellowship and thereby the development of Chris, but they do not cause the development, and they do not (necessarily) change during the process. On the other hand if these catalysers were absent or there were instead some inhibiting catalysers the development would likely not happen. Even in this short version of an episode different factors can be seen as catalysers of the development of the adolescent. Whether these will function as catalysers depend on the match between adolescent, social worker and the context. Another adolescent at another time might not be interested in surfing, might be too suspicious to rely on the social worker or might have other plans for the afternoon etc. It is impossible to generalise a particular catalyser since it depends on a match between adolescent, social worker and the context including the moment of intervention. In the following I will analyse three different aspects of social-pedagogical treatment. The Adolescent Aspect From developmental psychology we learn that individuals follow different trajectories and these different backgrounds sometimes make people interpret and act in different ways in the same situation. How you perceive, interpret and handle a situation is partly

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

65

a function of your personal trajectory and the match between this and the specific situation. When we are considering catalysers we therefore have to see them as relational phenomenon. Their meaning depends on this personal match (Da Silva 2014) and cannot be generalised to all adolescents (Beckstead et al. 2009). What can be generalised is the process of catalysing: in a situation phenomenon will to a smaller or greater degree function as constraints on the interpretation and thereby the learningprocess of the adolescent. When we introduce the concept of catalysers we get a new distinction to systematically analyse and plan social-pedagogical treatment. We can consider the different conditions and constraints at the institution in relation to their potentiality as catalysers and establish a range of possible catalysers or a “field of opportunities” (Young 1978) which we think might fit the target-group for the institution, but this is not enough. Where catalysers in chemistry have to be present and some contextual conditions as temperature, pressure etc. too, then catalysers in psychic reality depends on the process of interpretation. In case 3 Mark suggests to go surfing, which can be described as activating potential catalysers at the place (cultural artefacts as equipment for surfing, norms for activities on equal terms, organisations frames for the work etc.), but the result depends on Chris’ interpretation of this suggestion. He has to realise the catalyser. In case 1 the possibility for activating catalysers will be very different concerning common topics and professional topics. Of course different developments can be connected with different catalysers, but moving a topic from professional topics to common topics may bring some catalysers into play that are excluded when placed as a professional topic, so this might be an easier way than trying to influence development while still placed as a professional topic. To sum up: social-pedagogical treatment includes several activities for the social workers. They should establish a repertoire of catalysers which they see as potentially efficient for the adolescents placed at the institutions. Not every adolescent will benefit from every potential catalyser, so a program getting everybody through everything is in-efficient and counter-productive. Then the catalysers have to be activated in a specific situation, but they should fit both the situation and the adolescent in that specific context. Some catalysers will fit one adolescent and not the other or fit one context and not the other. Here the social worker has to judge from his knowledge of the adolescent and his specific background. Finally the adolescent has to react to the suggestion of the social worker in a way which makes the catalyser function. He has to realise it. In case 3 Chris has to see the invitation to go surfing not just as a separate incident, but as a sign of the social workers wanting to relate to him as a specific person and not just as part of his work, so he ‘decides’ whether the catalyser should work – even though the adolescent often will not be conscious of this decision as a decision. The Social-Pedagogical Fellowship In human development the individual has agency to influence his own development – if not in any other way then to refuse and sabotage the plans of other people such as social workers. This is described in the characteristic of the fellowship as an intransitive hierarchy. Considering this in the cases throws some light on an aspect of the cooperation in the fellowship. In Maria’s case she cooperates enough to maintain the fellowship concerning professional topics, but she does not change. She decides which topics

66

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

to develop. In case 3 the adolescent is the one who interprets the invitation to go surfing in a way where it catalyses his development. In both cases the adolescents at the bottom of the formal hierarchy have never the less power to decide. A catalyser becomes a catalyser by the meaning the adolescent attach to it – invitation to surf becomes a catalyser because the adolescent interprets it as expression of the broader meaning that the social workers would personally like to spend time with him – and at later instances this is hopefully confirmed. All the catalysers mentioned in case 3 remain the same during the whole process but the adolescent’s interpretation of them changes their meaning for him (Klempe 2014). Without this interpretation they would in this context remain an episode, a cultural artefact, social norms at the institution, an organisational arrangement etc. It is the adolescent who realises them as catalysers. This discussion raises an interesting question and a possible connection to personality psychology regarding what will make an adolescent interpret phenomenon as catalysers and what would hinder this. Concepts on a secure base and exploratory behaviour, resistance and dynamics of personal development are obvious places to start, but also elaborations from cognitive psychology as discussed in the next paragraph. The Social Worker Aspect When the social worker is standing in a situation together with an adolescent, he needs to create an understanding, which helps him act in order to further the situation in a way which gives optimal possibilities for the adolescent to develop. This understanding must include influential factors in the developmental dynamic of the social situation and in the development of the adolescent. As mentioned earlier the adolescents are very often quickwitted and try to influence the situation in a well-known direction, so the social worker has to be quick and creative too in order to develop new trajectories for the adolescent. He needs to be creative, but how can experience and concepts aid him in this? When the social worker perceives a social situation and creates an understanding of it, he does not perceive this exhaustively. He selects those elements, patterns or processes, which are needed to create a meaningful understanding in relation to his intentions in the current situation. Concepts, models and theories can in this connection function as signs (Valsiner 2007; Cabell 2010), which can guide him because they point to patterns in the context, relations between elements and dynamic processes and thereby highlight the most important aspects to include in an understanding of the situation. Most situations can be understood in several different ways, so these signs are not used as a finished understanding or explanation, but as suggestions for interpreting the situation, and the social worker can then consider these in relation to his intentions in the situation and to the possible actions for each understanding. This implies that these signs can both limit and facilitate the range of possible understandings depending on the available repertoire of signs, but humans can deliberately try to create new patterns and thereby new understandings. Furthermore the social worker does not act on the past experience, but uses it to create an understanding of the current and specific situation, which he then acts upon. His understanding is then evaluated in relation to intentions in an on-going “reflective process,” as described by Schön (1983), but this process can go on outside conscious awareness as mentioned above. Actions which at first seem unhelpful can in the long run be beneficial because

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

67

they convey a better understanding. The important point here is how the process of creating an understanding of the situation is facilitated by the signs the social worker sees in the situation. These signs are developed through the social workers professional education, but they are also part of his personal history, where he through the ontological development learns the signs of the culture which are adapted with a stronger or weaker personal note through his personal experiences. They function as social representations (Marková 2003), which are developed in cooperation in social groups in society, where the group of professional social workers in pedagogical treatment is one. Members of the social group need a common understanding of phenomenon in their daily life, and they need a common sign in order to communicate about this. Still the single member has his own special experiences with the phenomenon, so in his version the sign will have a personal twist. This description of the social worker’s creation of an understanding retains the responsibility of the social worker for the achieved understanding and the possibility to deliberately develop his understandings. It is the social worker who is the agent producing an understanding although this is constrained and facilitated through culture, education, personal experience and emotional engagement etc., and it can sometimes be hard work creating new signs for new understandings of situations you have experienced often before. Similar analysis can be made concerning the adolescent’s concepts, signs and narratives which often are learned growing up in inappropriate contexts. These catalysers will facilitate certain ways of understanding the episodes, the adolescent experiences and the choice of actions, so part of the pedagogical treatment considers the learning of new ways of interpreting their lives. Different sets or repertoires of signs will catalyse different creations of understanding. Here it is of vital importance in pedagogical work which understandings are enhanced, since these processes determine the pedagogical interventions. Case 2 will be interpreted very different by the social worker if he leans on concepts as upholding social norms, reinforcing good behaviour, correcting mal-behaviour or if he leans on the concepts of learning to handle a difficult life/situation, containing emotional reactions, developing self-esteem. This analysis points to the development of a repertoire of signs, which enhance understandings supporting cooperation between adolescent and the social worker, and which makes it clear which developmental trajectories in accordance with the values of the institution are possible both for the situation and for the adolescent. This repertoire of signs can be seen as a parallel ‘field of opportunities’ for the social worker, and if a social worker has a broader repertoire with different associated actions, he is better off in handling unpredictable situations. Signs are of no use, if the social worker does not use them, when he creates an understanding of his experiences. You can have very advanced humanistic values and theories, which are described in official documents of the institution and maybe used in discussions of principles, but if the social worker never experiences situations where he sees them as relevant, they never influence his work. In order to be useful signs have to be appropriated by the social workers in a way, where they actually experience with and through them. It is therefore important to develop them in relation to actual contexts to learn to perceive with and through them (Jensen 2010). Again this is in accordance with a bi-directional model of cultural transfer (Valsiner 2007).

68

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

Catalysers and Catalytic Processes The Quality of Catalysers In the cases mentioned above catalysers have been of many different kinds: cultural artefacts, social norms, organisational arrangements, personal relations as fellowships, concepts and theories, narratives etc. This is a rather heterogenic category, but the common quality is their function as factors influencing development of individuals, of the acts of individuals or social interaction. It is this function that qualifies them as catalysers. This function depends on the persons involved, since they have to be part of their psychic reality to function as catalysers and they have to relate to their agenda in the situation. This implies that catalysers are a relation phenomenon which can only be understood in relation to a specific situation with intentional persons involved. I will return to this relational aspect in a little while. The Catalytic Process From the analysis above the catalytic processes and catalysers can a little schematic be described temporally in three phases, but often these phases will overlap in one. Here they are illustrated with both the aspect of the adolescent and the aspect of the social worker. 1. Establish (potential) catalysers In chemistry a catalytic process is depending on physical presence, temperature etc. In human sciences and in psychic reality the process of interpreting and creating a meaning is crucial and a catalytic process becomes more complicated. The potential influence depends on the perception of them but first of all they have to be established in the psychic reality of the actors. & &

The social workers arrange artefacts, patterns of interaction, events etc. in a way where they are accessible in the daily life of the adolescents and social workers. They organise a ‘field of opportunities’. Through education, courses, readings and through discussions with colleagues, supervision, systematic evaluations of the pedagogical treatment the social workers develop concepts, metaphors, models and narratives which support their dialogue and develop their competence to perceive, interpret and understand adolescents and situations in different ways. In cooperation with colleagues they develop a repertoire of social representations (Marková 2003) which function as catalysers for different interpretations and actions.

2. Activate catalysers This can be seen as a suggestion of binding. Where binding in chemistry depends on physical relations as contact, temperature etc. the corresponding processes in psychology depends on perceiving and interpreting, so the social worker should activate the catalysers by introducing or pointing them out in the current situation.

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

&

&

69

The social worker activates potential catalysers when they try to bring them in or raise attention to them as part of daily life with the adolescents. This can be by suggesting activities, by reacting differently on the adolescents, by arranging events, etc. In specific situations the social workers can – depending on the situation and the possible demand for quick action – deliberately consider new ways of perceiving, understanding and new ways of acting.

3. Realise catalysers This corresponds to realising the binding process. &

&

The adolescent realises catalysers by responding on them in a way where the catalysers are allowed to influence his development. This can be by the interpretation of them, by participating in activities, by involving in a relation/fellowship with social workers and rely upon this when they run the risk of interpreting and acting in new ways etc. If the adolescent realises a phenomenon as a catalyser, this can be contradicted by later experiences, and the catalyser loses its possible influence. Here is an aspect of temporality. To realise concepts, metaphors and narratives as catalysers the social worker has to recognise them as relevant possibilities in the actual situation. They should be able to perceive their everyday experiences with the aid of or through these concepts, metaphors and narratives and to see the different possibilities for acting, which these new understandings facilitate. This demands an interest and resources needed for managing this in “seeing things in new ways”, in experimenting with different ways of acting etc.

Where catalysers in chemistry are functioning by being present in the physical reality their function is more complicated in psychology because of the different conditions in psychic reality. Here the process of interpretation and meaning-making is involved. A Relational Concept As mentioned in relation to case 3, different catalysers work differently for different adolescents and in different situations. The quality of catalysing is not an inherent quality but relational (Da Silva 2014): Catalysers are catalysers for somebody in some context for some purpose. In case 1 Maria worked hard in school, but for other adolescents school is negatively associated, so they cannot concentrate on schoolwork at all. Even for Maria school could be excluded if for example the group of adolescents at the place strongly opposed school and in order not to be expelled from the group she had to oppose schoolwork too (Stokholm 2006). For some phenomenon to be a catalyser depends on the context including the persons involved and their biographical background. In the description of the catalytic process the adolescent’s interpretation of the catalyser is stressed as crucial and this interpretation is later on reinforced or weakened by later episodes. This emphasizes the relational aspect of the concept where the meaning of the catalyser is negotiated in the asymmetric relation between the

70

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

adolescent and the social worker. Here the notion of power is elaborated. Generally the social worker is seen as the one in power, but the conceptualisation of the catalytic process brings a different understanding of this relation. In the discussion of the aspect of the social worker the function of a concept or a theory as supportive and catalysing in practice is depending on the social worker seeing them as yielding an interesting interpretation, and this is to ‘realise’ them as described in the 3-phase process above. This touches upon a classic dilemma in teaching, where students sometimes learn theory without being able to apply it. This learning process could be studied by focusing on factors facilitating the realisation of the theory, which in a way is already done in some studies on transfer of knowledge (Tennant 1999). Catalytic Processes and Causality When we turn to the catalytic approach we are not denying causality. The point is to conceptualise in a way which facilitates an understanding of variability and complexity with many factors at play in time (Cabell and Valsiner 2014b). Looking back we might be able to see some causal connections explaining why we ended up here in a specific developmental trajectory for a specific adolescent, but at least for practical purposes, as in social-pedagogical treatment, we cannot in general terms prescribe a certain intervention and know the effect for all adolescents. We can use experience taken from both professionals and researchers as preliminary suggestions, but the optimal intervention is reached when we consider a specific adolescent in a specific context since here we have the knowledge of which factors could facilitate development in this context. Instead of searching for causal connections we change our focus to researching the processes of development. When we understand the conditions and constraints influencing these processes we develop a knowledge about these processes, which allows us to plan for them and intervene in systematic ways in the specific case. We can arrange a field of opportunities and systematically collect knowledge on conditions for their functioning, and understanding the developmental processes we can search for catalysers for specific adolescents. Evaluation becomes a little more complicated, because with a variety of developmental trajectories we have to collect evidence along the trajectory and afterwards judge whether we should have been quicker at activating catalysers, better at finding appropriate catalysers for the specific adolescent or inventing new catalysers. The evaluation becomes individual but contributes to the understanding of the developmental processes in their variability so we can do better the next time. The results will not prescribe intervention for the next adolescent, but will support the development of an optimal adjusted intervention for this specific adolescent.

Conclusion Applying the concepts and theories of catalysers and catalytic processes within social work and here specifically within social-pedagogical treatment emphasizes some of the processes in complex empirical reality. I have tried to show that this will improve our understanding of the processes in the cooperation between the social worker and the adolescent. The three phases of the use of catalysers – viz., establish a field of opportunities, activate

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

71

catalysers in a specific situation and realise them as catalysers – gives us better opportunities to both plan social-pedagogical treatment and evaluate where the problems lie for specific adolescents. Concerning the social workers we get a way of understanding the use and advantages of concepts, theories, models and narratives including some of the conditions for being beneficial. The theories of catalytic processes also retain the human agency for both the social worker and the adolescent, and give us a clearer understanding of the processes of decisions about how activities should be planned and interventions decided. As another advantage, variability of trajectories of development are not at problem, but built into the theory and the way of understanding the treatment. This leaves us with opportunities to systematically plan for individually adjusted treatment for each adolescent and should make an optimal treatment easier where we benefit from the specific conditions and constraints for each adolescent and in each context.

References Beckstead, Z., Cabell, K. R., & Valsiner, J. (2009). Generalising through conditional analysis: systemic causality in the world of eternal becoming. Human Mente, 11, 65–80. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school (expanded version). Washington: National Academy Press. Cabell, K. R. (2010). “Mediators, regulators and catalysers: a context-inclusive model of trajectory development”. Psychology & Society, 3(1), 26–41. Cabell, K. R., & Valsiner, J. (2014a). The catalysing mind. Beyond models of causality. New York: Springer. Cabell, K. R., & Valsiner, J. (2014b). Systematic systemics: Causality, catalysis and developmental cybernetics. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalysing mind. Beyond models of causality (pp. 3–13). New York: Springer. Carr, A. (2006). The handbook of child and adolescent clinical psychology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Da Silva, M. S. (2014). Semiotic Catalysts’ Activators: An Early Semiotic Mediation in the Construction of Personal Syntheses. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalysing mind. Beyond models of causality. New York: Springer. Dixon, R. (2007). Systemic thinking: a framework for research into complex psychosocial problems. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(1–2), 145–166. Fischer, K., Ayoub, C., Singh, I., Noam, G., Maraganor, A., & Raya, P. (1997). Psychopathology as adaptive development along distinctive pathways. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 749–779. Gustavsson, A., Hermansson, H.-E., & Hämäläinen, J. (2003). Perspectives and theory in social pedagogy. Göteborg: Daidalos. Hundeide, K. (2005). Socio-cultural tracks of development. Opportunity Situations and Access Skills Culture & Psychology, 11(2), 241–261. Jensen, M. (2010) Det ufærdige arbejde [The never-ending work] PhD-thesis defended at Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University. Jensen, M. (2011a). Socialpædagogisk behandlingsarbejde [social-pedagogical treatment]. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik, 27, 3–10. Jensen, M. (2011b). Development of self in an institutional context. In K. de Lopez Jensen & T. Hansen (Eds.), Development of self in culture. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Klempe, H. (2014). Calalysis, Functional Explanations and Functionalism in Psychology. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalyzing mind. Beyond models of causality. New York: Springer. Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 51, 164–179. Mathiesen, R. (1999). Sosialpedagogisk perspektiv [socialpedagogical perspective]. Norge: Sokrates AS. Poddiakov, A., & Valsiner, J. (2013). Intransitivity cycles and their transformations: How dynamically adapting systems function. In L. Rudolph (Ed.), Qualitative mathematics for the social sciences. Mathematical models for research on cultural dynamics (pp. 343–391). London: Routledge. Rasmussen, J. (1986) Information processing and human-machine interaction. New York: North Holland. Reber, A. (1992). An evolutionary context for the cognitive unconscious. Philosophical Psychology, 5(1), 33– 51.

72

Integr Psych Behav (2015) 49:56–72

Ricoeur, P. (1981). The question of proof in Freud’s psychoanalytic writings. In P. Ricoeur (Ed.), Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rolf, J., Masten, A. S., Cichetti, D., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Weintraub, S. (1990). Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith. Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 251–268. Stokholm, A. (2006) Anbragte børn mellem kammerater og pædagoger. En antropologisk analyse af socialitet og identitetsdannelse på døgninstitution [Children in residential care between friends and social workers. An anthropological analysis of sociality and identity-creation at residential institutions] PhD-thesis Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and Linguistics, Aarhus University. Tennant, M. (1999). Is learning transferable? In D. Boud (Ed.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 165– 179). USA: Routledge. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in Minds and Societies. Sage Publications. Valsiner, J. (2014). Breaking the Arrows of Causality: The Idea of Catalysis in its Making. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalysing mind. Beyond models of causality. New York: Springer. Valsiner, J., & Cabell, K. R. (2011). Catalysis: cultural constructions and the conditions for change. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–12. Young, N. (1978) Field of opportunity songtitle on the cd Comes a time Reprise Records Mogens Jensen From 1980–86 the author worked as teacher and social worker with adolescents and from 1991 as consulting psychologist at institutions for pedagogical treatment. Since 1998 he has been doing research within the same field including a PhD on 2010.