Sociální pedagogika | Social Education 72

Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 72–86, April 2016

ISSN 1805-8825 | doi:10.7441/soced.2016.04.01.05

Czech version/Česká verze

Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work

and Social Pedagogy

Andrej Mátel^1

Andrea Preissová

Krejčí^2

Contacts to authors

1 College of Health and Social

Work of St. Elizabeth,

Palackého No. 1, P.O.BOX 104,

810 00 Bratislava

andrej.matel@gmail.com

2 Palacky University in Olomouc,

Faculty of Education,

Žižkovo nám. 5,

771 40 Olomouc

andrea.preissova@upol.cz

Abstract: The study in hand aims to identify convergent

and divergent aspects of social work and social pedagogy through

the means of content analysis and comparison. The research

sample consists of scientific and specialised texts written in Slovak,

Czech, German, and English with emphasis on defining both

disciplines and prioritizing the Slovak and Czech language area. The

study identifies convergent and divergent aspects of social work

and social pedagogy as two unique disciplines and professions. The

authors incline towards the view that social pedagogy is more

theoretical and general, while social work is a practical and applied

science. However, intensive mutual cooperation is equally

important for both disciplines aiming primarily at preventing

socially pathological phenomena in society and thus leading to a

healthy physical, psychological and social development of the

individual.

Key words: divergence, convergence, social functioning, social

pedagogy, social work

Kontakty na autory

1 Vysoká škola zdravotníctva

a sociálnej práce sv. Alžbety,

Palackého č. 1, P.O.BOX 104,

810 00 Bratislava

andrej.matel@gmail.com

2 Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci,

Pedagogická fakulta,

Žižkovo nám. 5,

771 40 Olomouc

andrea.preissova@upol.cz

Copyright © 2016 by authors

and publisher TBU in Zlín.

This work is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution

International License (CC BY).

Konvergentní a divergentní prvky sociální práce

a sociální pedagogiky

Abstrakt: Cílem studie je identifikování konvergentních

a divergentních prvků sociální práce a sociální pedagogiky

prostřednictvím obsahové analýzy a komparace. Výzkumný soubor

tvoří vědecké a odborné texty slovensky, česky, německy nebo

anglicky píšících autorů, s důrazem na definování obou disciplín

a priorizaci slovenské a české jazykové oblasti. Ve studii

identifikujme konvergentní a divergentní prvky sociální práce

a sociální pedagogiky jako dvou jedinečných disciplín a profesí,

přikláníme se k názoru, že sociální pedagogika je teoretičtější

a všeobecnější, zatímco sociální práce je praktičtější a vědou více

aplikovanou, avšak pro obě disciplíny je důležitá intenzivní

spolupráce usilující předně o prevenci sociálně patologických jevů

ve společnosti a vedoucí k zdravému fyzickému, psychickému

a sociálnímu vývoji jedince.

Klíčová slova: divergence, konvergence, sociální fungování, sociální

pedagogika, sociální práce

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 73

1 Introduction

The act of defining, in terms of linguistic semantic structure, makes an important statement about

the nature of the research object. According to Strieženec (2006, p. 98), a definition is to be as

complete as possible, yet at the same time the content is to be dense, and it should possibly form a

single sentence. The definitions and defining of social work and social pedagogy constitute the

central subject of this research, as they implicitly include the essence of social work and social

pedagogy as perceived by professional and experts.

The most common approach in terms of conceptualisation of contemporary social work and social

pedagogy is their understanding through the terminology used in different countries due to the fact

that they are culturally conditioned. The proponents of this constructivist approach, in which

scientific theories of social work or social pedagogy always depend on the social context, are for

example M. Payne (2005), N. Thompson (2000, 2008, 2010), P. Navrátil (2000, 2001), and others. In

contrast, Göppner and Hämäläinen (2008, p. 28) argue that such an approach tends to ignore the

issues of epistemology and the theory of science.

The presented paper seeks to outline the convergent and divergent elements of social work and

social pedagogy as two unique disciplines and practical activities. As convergent are seen those

elements through which the two disciplines “converge” (from lat. vergo incline, bend, verge + cum

together, with, in relation). The divergent elements are those through which the two disciplines

“diverge”, differ, or deviate from each other (from lat. divertó divert). By examining convergence and

divergence of the two entities above, we will be able to identify, determine and describe the

uniqueness and diversity of both disciplines.

2 Research methodology

The selected research topic is social work and social pedagogy in terms of their convergence and

divergence. The research question was formulated as follows: “How is social work and social

pedagogy defined by the contemporary Slovak, Czech, and selected foreign experts, while taking

current legislation into account, and what convergent and divergent elements can be identified in

the selected fields based on an analysis of their definitions?” The aim of the research is therefore to

identify the convergent and divergent elements of social work and social pedagogy.

Qualitative research was chosen as the research strategy. The research instrument used was an

analysis of documents using hermeneutic methods, mainly the content analysis. As the data selection

method is of significance in a content analysis, and with regard to the research topic and objective,

the following rules were applied when selecting the research sample:

 Literary sources must belong to one of the following types of documents:

- Dictionary or encyclopaedia, which explicitly define the terms “social pedagogy” and/or

“social work.”

- Monographs and textbooks of a collective character and providing the introductions,

basics, theory, methodology and methods of social work and social pedagogy, which is

explicitly stated in their tittle (journal articles, publications focused on selected target

groups of social work, etc., were excluded from the research data sample).

- Legislative documents.

 The text must explicitly provide a definition, or a certain implicit character of defining must be

evident.

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 74

 In terms of content, we chose definitions which the authors of publication explicitly identify

with, i.e., present them as their own (yet nested quotations of other authors´ definitions were

excluded).

 A representative sample with a local focus – primarily Slovak and Czech publications were

chosen. Additionally, international context was also taken into consideration, therefore,

publications from the Anglo-Saxon and German environment were also included in the

research sample.

 As for the time perspective, material created after 1989 was selected due to significant

changes in the socio-political systems of the Slovak and Czech Republics.

The research sample consisted of 67 sources, 55 were from the Slovak and Czech language area

(26 of which were Slovak and 29 Czech), 9 were of the English origin and 3 of the German origin.

In the first stage, and with regard to research data management, content analyses of the examined

terms “social work” and “social pedagogy” were conducted separately. Individual definitions were

first separated into their elementary building blocks (entries) and semantic content units (phrases).

The main categories were then distinguished within these elementary units and subcategories were

assigned to them. Only in the second stage, did we compare the terms and content. The aim was to

identify the common and different elements of both definitions within the selected categories.

Within the content-oriented defining, five basic categories emerged describing the essence of both

disciplines studied:

1. Nature – What is social work? What is the nature of it?

2. Actors – Who performs it?

3. Object – Who / What is it performed for?

4. The nature of the activity itself – What are its goals, processes and tools used?

5. Field (resort) of functioning and conditions.

3 Research results

3.1 Defining social work

1. In the examined sample, we mainly watched for the terminology which the individual authors

defined social work with, the content, and structure of the definition itself. Given THE NATURE of

social work, it is possible to distinguish four basic subcategories with emphasis on the relationship

among them.

I. Almost all definitions present social work as a profession. Such understanding is supported

by the use of nouns activity, practice, activity and adjectives practical, specialised, professional

a helpful. These often collocated in: practical activity (Matoušek, 2003; Žilová, 2005), practice

(Tokárová et al., 2009), professional activity (Barker, 2003; Pierson & Thomas, 2006; Tokárová

et al., 2009), a form of professional help (OBDS, 2004), professional activity (Strieženec, 2001;

Mátel & Schavel, 2015), specialised activity (Act No. 219/2014 Coll., 2014), helping activity

(Brnula et al., 2011).

II. Many definitions also present social work as a science. In addition to the term science, other

nouns corresponded to this understanding of the term, e.g. discipline as well as a collocation

scientific area (Levická, 2002) and scientific discipline (Žilová, 2005). The adjectives used either

accentuated the scientific character of the discipline: a scientific discipline (Tokárová et al.,

2009), a professional discipline (Strieženec, 1997; Mühlpachr, 2008; Novotná

& Schimmerlingová, 1992; Levická, 2002), or specified the area of science: social science

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 75

discipline (Matoušek, 2003) and its character: applied science (Barker, 2003; Mühlpachr, 2008;

Mátel & Schavel, 2015) applied scientific discipline (Žilová, 2005). The specific nature of social

work as a science was presented by many authors in their multidisciplinary (e.g., Novotná

& Schimmerlingová, 1992), interdisciplinary (Tokárová et al., 2009) or pluridisciplinary nature

(Žilová, 2005).

III. The latest trend is to emphasize social work as an academic discipline, or a field of

education. Internationally, it is to do with the influence of the International Association of

Schools of Social Work, which also reflected in the new global definition of IFSW (2014). Social

work is also represented as an academic discipline in the research sample by Mátel and

Schavel (2015).

IV. Many authors (Barker, Strieženec, Levická, Žilová, Tokárová and Mátel) emphasized the

parallel of the two aspects of the nature of social work as a profession and a science. It is

explicitly expressed by the American Dictionary of Social Work by the term empirical-

theoretical discipline (Barker, 2003), in Slovak by Strieženec (2006) and his theoretical and

practical branch. Other definitions further describe the relationship between the two aspects

of social work in parts of sentences, such as social work applies scientific knowledge into

practical activities (Novotná & Schimmerlingová, 1992; Strieženec, 1997; Mühlpachr, 2008;

Mátel et al., 2011; Gulová, 2011). From the diachronic perspective it is the original idea of

Novotná and Schimmerlingová (1992) that other authors have adopted and reproduced. A

global definition of social work (IFSW, 2014) provides the following wording: social work is a

profession based on the practice, and it is also an academic discipline. Mátel and Schavel

(2015) emphasizes the connection between all three dimensions, namely that it is an applied

scientific and academic discipline, and a professional activity of social workers.

2. With regard to social work as a profession and professional activity, many texts explicitly list

ACTORS who perform this activity. The authors express a certain consensus that the actors can

only be social workers. A classic statement attributed to a British author Neil Thompson (2000)

claims that, “Social work is what social workers do.” Some authors emphasize the professional

basis of their activities (Strieženec, 1997, 2001; Mühlpachr, 2008; Levická, 2002), in Mátel et al.

(2011) their qualifications, and Navrátil (2000) own professional community. Barker (2003)

describes the connection between the scientific basis of the discipline and the work of social

workers as a requirement of cognition or knowledge, and in IFSW (2014) supported by the theory.

Due to the International Federation of Social Workers and its influence, social work has been seen

as a profession based on values (Mátel et al., 2012), with a key role in this respect played by social

workers. It is them who apply values and principles in their professional activity (Barker, 2003). Of

particular principles/values of IFSW (2014) the following are emphasized: social justice

(Thompson, 2010) and respect for human rights, and most recently, shared responsibility, and

respect for diversity (IFSW, 2014). Based on the activity of social workers, some authors also

provide a certain specific scope of their activities (Novotná & Schimmerlingová, 1992; Tokárová

et al., 2009), but for the purpose of this study we do not list the particular activities here.

3. THE OBJECTS of social work are not listed uniformly among the selected authors. Generally, we

can distinguish two categories of objects of social work, which are the clients of social

environments, or the relationship between them, which is often termed as social functioning.

I. The clients of social work can be referred to as the primary objects of social work in the

studied texts. In the analysed definitions, these are referred to either in general as clients, or

they are distinguished among. All authors who explicitly included clients in their definition of

social work mean primarily individuals. Besides individuals, the term clients also includes other

social systems (Sheafor et al., 2000; Gulová, 2011), mainly family, group, community. Some

authors also explicitly list institutions (Strieženec, 1997; Mátel & Schavel, 2015), and society is

also listed among clients (Levická, 2002). With emphasis on the individual as the primary client

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 76

of social work, it is necessary to pay increasing attention to human relationships and solving

the related problems (IFSW, 2014; Navrátil, 2000; Mátel et al., 2011; Gulová, 2011). Mühlpachr

(2008) emphasizes the integrity of a human and its preservation, while Navrátil (2000)

introduces the concept of social roles. In addition to the primary objects that are viewed

personally, objects of social work are also identified factually, through the concepts of social

issues (Schilling & Zeller, 2007; Matoušek, 2003), unfavourable social situation (Gulová, 2011),

collision situations (Strieženec, 2006), serious difficulties/obstacles (Pierson & Thomas, 2006),

material and social need (Act No. 195/1998 Coll., 1998), a lack of (Mühlpachr, 2008) and

dysfunctional elements (Strieženec, 2006), fulfilling their daily needs (OBDS, 2004).

II. The newest trend of contemporary social work is the emphasis on social environment

(Barker, 2003; Tokárová et al., 2009; Mátel et al., 2011; Mátel & Schavel, 2015; Sheafor et al.,

2012), which significantly affects the lives of clients, as well as the working environment of

social workers. These can be considered as the second category primary objects of social work.

The term used for these categories are social conditions (Schilling & Zeller, 2007; Matoušek,

2003).

III. The relationship between the clients of social work and their social environment is

conceptualized by the term and the concept of social functioning in the studied definitions

(Navrátil, 2000; Barker, 2003; Sheafor et al., 2012; Mátel & Schavel, 2015), or psycho-social

functioning (Barker, 2003; Mátel et al., 2011).

4. Based on THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY of social work itself, or of social workers´ activity, we can

distinguish the goals of social work, the process and tools by which the selected goals are

achieved.

I. Goals – In this respect there is a relatively wide variety of goals within individual definitions,

also depending on the type of objects of social work which they relate to:

- With regard to clients IFSW (2014) emphasizes strengthening, empowerment (Thompson,

2010; Mátel et al., 2011), liberation and enhancement of prosperity (Thompson, 2010).

Due to the individual function of social work, the German authors Schilling and Zeller

(2007) list assistance in self-determination and self-help, experience and support of one´s

personality. In Slovak conditions, the individuals´ own responsibility is emphasized

(Tokárová et al., 2009), as well as their security (Strieženec, 1997). The Collins Dictionary

of Social Work mentions protection (Pierson & Thomas, 2006). Matoušek (2003) uses help

of social workers towards the clients in order to achieve the client´s return into active life

in the society. Brnula and others (2011), in their definition, work with the concept of

quality of life. According to these authors, the goal of social work is to increase or stabilize

the quality of life of people whose quality of life is threatened or limited, in a humane

manner and so that the process of providing help is in accordance with their needs and

ideas and so that it leads to self-help.

- With regard to social environment Barker (2003), Matoušek (2003) and Mátel et al. (2011)

use creating favourable life conditions or social conditions, Tokárová et al. (2009)

mitigating the environmental impact, and German authors Schilling and Zeller (2007) use

a change in social conditions, or change of environment (Sheafor et al., 2012). In a similar

way, IFSW (2014) and the American Dictionary of Social Work (Barker, 2003) set out social

change as the objective of social work. At this point, it should be noted that German

authors Schilling and Zeller (2007) explicitly mention focus on the European, world and

social perspective, as well as human rights´ perspectives and goals of social work.

- Regarding the interaction of clients with their social environment, their mutual

adaptation, or improving mutual adjustment is accentuated as the goal (Tokárová et al.,

2009). In the context of social functioning, the goal of social work is the improvement of

social functioning (Sheafor et al., 2000; Barker, 2003), its renewal (Mátel et al., 2011),

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 77

achieving its optimal (Mátel & Schavel, 2015), sufficient (Barker, 2003) or maximum level

(Sheafor et al., 2012). In the case of imbalance in social functioning, it is important that

the clients are protected against difficulties (Sheafor et al., 2000).

II. The process of social work activities, or directly of social workers, is best viewed through

identification of the verbs used. From the quantitative point of view, the verb help prevails,

which corresponds with the other used terms of providing social assistance, helping people.

Quite often in the texts, we find the verbs take care/caring (Strieženec, 1997, 2001; Levická,

2002; Pierson & Thomas, 2006; Tokárová et al., 2009; Seithe, 2012), which is related to the

close connection between social work and social pedagogy, especially in German authors.

Therefore, one German definition also contains education (Seithe, 2012). In the newer

concepts of social work, the term accompaniment prevails (Mátel & Schavel, 2015), support

(Pierson & Thomas, 2006; Mátel et al., 2011) and strengthening/empowering (IFSW, 2014;

Thompson, 2010; Mátel & Schavel, 2015), which were cited above also as the goals of social

work. Regarding the secondary objects of social work and in the context of social issues, the

following verbs were detected: determine, identify, explain, mitigate, eliminate and solve

(Matoušek, 2003; Tokárová et al., 2009; Gulová, 2011). The latter is also used in connection

with the notion of conflict situations in the form of need for its solution (Strieženec, 2006). The

term deficiency or lack collocates with removal (Mühlpachr, 2008) and prevention of its

formation/prevention (Mühlpachr, 2008; Levická, 2002). Regarding social environment as

another relevant primary goal of social work, predominately used verbs were: change (Schilling

& Zeller, 2007; Sheafor et al., 2012), improve (Schilling & Zeller, 2007; Tokárová et al., 2009;

Mátel et al., 2012), shape (Barker, 2003; Matoušek, 2003; Mátel et al., 2011), alleviate

(Tokárová et al., 2009), protect (Sheafor et al., 2000; Pierson & Thomas, 2006).

III. Tools – In their definition of social work, some authors also mention the tools to reach

goals, or tools used by social workers in their professional practice. They usually do so by

general naming special working methods (Strieženec, 2001; Levická, 2002; Mühlpachr, 2008).

Some authors emphasize a specific method, for example counselling (Strieženec, 2001; Levická,

2002; Mühlpachr, 2008; Seithe, 2012); group work (Seithe, 2012), community work (Pierson &

Thomas, 2006) and advocacy (Pierson & Thomas, 2006). The second group of instruments are

services, whether organized social services (Levická, 2002), tangible services (Barker, 2003),

social services (Barker, 2003; Gulová, 2011) or facilities (Seithe, 2012).

5. As for the FIELD or scope of action of social work, we can distinguish several areas where the

profession of social work is exercised. In the Slovak Republic the primary area of social work is the

field of labour, social affairs and family, which falls under the agenda of the Ministry of Labour,

Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. Act No. 219/2014 Coll. (2014) regulates the

exercise of the profession of social work exclusively in this area. The same holds true in the Czech

Republic, where social work falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and Social

Affairs and its exercise in the absence of professional Act is regulated by partial laws, especially

the Act on Social Services (Act No. 108/2006 Coll., 2006).

In addition to this area, social work also pertains to the field of healthcare, justice, and to a limited

extent to education, in both Slovak and Czech Republics. In the health sector it is still true that, “If a

medical facility is providing healthcare in the paediatric, geriatric, aftercare, psychiatric, drug

addiction, gynaecology and obstetrics, or long-term care units, there must be a social worker

employed in order to alleviate or remove the social consequences of the patient´s health situation in

connection with their hospitalization and release” (MZ SR, 2012). However, the above is a regulation

whose status is below an act, therefore, it is often ignored in the Slovak and Czech practice.

As a result, the presence of social workers in health care facilities is still largely administrative, if they

are present at all (Kuzníková et al., 2011, p. 20). In the Slovak Republic, social work is also performed

in the field of justice, which covers mainly Corps of Prison and Court Guard. According to the

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 78

regulation in force, “The performance of social work with the accused and sentenced is ensured by a

social worker or a pedagogue authorised to perform social work” (Collection of orders, 2008). By this

regulation, the social worker is understood as a qualified expert in the field of social work. However,

the resort itself also allows other university educated professionals, including social pedagogues.

In the Czech Republic and under the Ministry of Justice, social work is performed both in detention

facilities (e.g. regulated by the Regulation of Director General of the Prison Service of the Czech

Republic, Decree No. 109/1994, 1994) and as a probation and mediation service (defined by Act No.

257/2000 Coll., 2000). The least favourable situation is in the Slovak education system, where a social

worker is not officially included in the relevant legislation on pedagogical employees and professional

employees, unlike a social pedagogue (Act No. 317/2009 Coll., 2009). In the Czech Republic, the

position of a social worker in school facilities is most often legally recognised in counselling centres or

in facilities for institutional and protective education (e.g. Children's homes, children's homes with

schools, residential educational institutions and diagnostic institutions), while the profession of a

social worker is not recognised by the Act on Educational Staff of the Czech Republic.

3.2 Defining social pedagogy

In the process of defining social work above, five basic categories emerged. The same categorization

was applied when analysing texts concerning social pedagogy in order to allow for a comparison of

both disciplines.

1. As for its NATURE, social pedagogy is seen either as a profession, science, academic discipline, or

its theoretical and practical complements are also reflected within the definitions.

I. Social pedagogy is often associated with science in the analysed publications. In this sense,

the following terms are used: discipline (Procházka, 2012), scientific branch (Bakošová, 2005),

professional discipline (Matoušek, 2003). Its pedagogical side was usually accentuated:

pedagogical discipline or teaching science (Kolář et al., 2010; Kraus, 2008; Kraus et al., 2001).

However, emphasis was also placed on its interdisciplinarity: a multidisciplinary field (Sekot,

1997), an interdisciplinary scientific branch (Soják & Čech, 2010), trans-disciplinary science

(Kraus et al., 2001), the science bordering between pedagogy and sociology (Tománek, 2013).

II. Social pedagogy rarely appears as a profession in the analysed definitions. As for the terms

used, the following nouns correspond with this notion of social pedagogy: activity, process,

practice, and collocations such as an educational process (Kraus, 2008), public care (Schilling,

1999), socially significant practice (Hrdá & Šíp et al., 2011), leisure activities (Kraus, 2008;

Lorenzová & Poláčková, 2001), preventive action (Kraus, 2008).

III. The nature of social pedagogy also defines its concept as an academic discipline, field of

study or academic activity. As with social work, such a characteristic is more of a recent trend

and is characterized, for example, by definitions of L. Gulová (2011), M. Procházka (2012)

or J. Němec et al. (2010). In Slovakia, social pedagogy in not a separate study programme, as

opposed to social work, and is taught as a subject within the study programme of pedagogy. In

the Czech Republic, although “some universities have programmes of social pedagogy, most of

their subjects draw from social work” (Gulová, 2011, p. 71).

IV. The authors of the analysed texts in their definitions most often emphasize the parallel

theoretical and practical parts of social pedagogy. Social pedagogy as a member of humanities

has its theoretical and practical sides that cannot be separated (Manniová, 2005; Gulová et al.,

2012; Hrdá & Šíp et al., 2011). Similarly the Dictionary of Andragogy defines social pedagogy as

a discipline of pedagogical science and at the same time as a field of practice (Průcha &

Veteška, 2012, p. 232).Terminological glossary of social pedagogy defines social pedagogy as a

science examining the social objectives of education and also as a socio-educational and

preventive action (Bakošová et al., 2013; cf. Hroncová et al., 2000). Other authors speak of

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 79

applying the expertise of social pedagogy in practice (Klíma, 1993) or an analysis of social

factors and implementing procedures (Matoušek, 2003).

2. The definitions of social pedagogy are formed with respect to its ACTORS. Across the analysed

publications, an actor is a social pedagogue, distinguished from a social worker (Kolář et al.,

2010). A social pedagogue is seen as a graduate in the given field, who is professionally prepared

to work in different areas of the social sphere (Bakošová et al., 2013; Soják & Čech, 2010). Some

authors placed social pedagogues in schools where they serve as assistants and advocates of

students (Lorenzová & Poláčková, 2001), contributing to a healthy socio-psychological climate of

the school (Kraus, 2008), professionally supporting teachers in schools at the level of education,

prevention, intervention, etc. (Soják & Čech, 2010) and providing social assistance with

pedagogical orientation (Hrdá & Šíp et al., 2011).

3. Social pedagogy is delineated by its OBJECTS. As in the case of social work, objects can be both

clients (individuals and groups) or the social environment and the relationship between them.

Children are usually considered clients of social pedagogy with various adjectives often added:

vulnerable children (Matoušek, 2003), children of poor and young people (Schilling, 1999),

disadvantaged children, Roma children or children of immigrants (Gulová et al., 2012), children

from vulnerable families (Průcha, Walterová, & Mareš, 2001; Průcha & Veteška, 2012). Some

authors, however, point out the need to view children/pupils as members of various social groups

(Hradečná, 1998). Different social groups thus become clients of social pedagogy: family, peer

groups, interest groups of extracurricular activities, school (Přadka et al., 1998; Hroncová

& Emmerová, 2004). Therefore, in addition to children and adolescents, adults are then

considered clients, including the endangered population as well as the whole society in terms of

creating a balance between the needs of the individual and society (Bakošová et al., 2013; Kraus

et al., 2001). In the broadest sense, every human can become the object of social pedagogy

(Balvín & Prokaiová, 2013; Strieženec, 1999).

Due to the position of social pedagogy within pedagogical sciences, all participants in the

educational process tend to be labelled as clients of social pedagogy, i.e. not only students but

also teachers, school headmasters and other staff in the school. Regarding the social environment,

its impact on education becomes an object of social pedagogy (Průcha & Veteška, 2012), social

factors threatening human development (Matoušek, 2003), pedagogically valuable stimuli

(Bakošová, 1994), the social aspects of education and personality development (Hroncová et al.,

2000), generally termed as conditions of education (Kolář et al., 2010) or a wide range of issues

“connected with the educational influence on risk and socially disadvantaged group of youth and

adults: dysfunctionalities in family and parenting, foster care, the issue of abused, neglected, and

sexually abused children, social deviation including delinquency and aggression, drug abuse, child

prostitution, pornography and the like.” (Průcha, Walterová, & Mareš, 2001, p. 217).

4. The NATURE of the activity of social pedagogy itself, can be analysed with regard to its goals,

processes and tools.

I. The most important factor in determining the goals of social pedagogy is a prerequisite of a

relation between the social environment and education. Social pedagogy is to deal with the

negative social phenomena that threaten the society (Manniová, 2005). Emphasis is placed on

rectification or optimisation of relation conditions between the client and the environment

(Bakošová et al., 2013; Bakošová, 2008; Balvín & Prokaiová, 2013; Kolář et al., 2010; Průcha,

2009; Strieženec, 1999), assistance in various social problems (Bakošová, 2008, 1994; Kraus et

al., 2001). More specifically, the goals of social pedagogy can be seen in activation of the

socially disadvantaged groups (Gulová et al., 2012) or in interdisciplinary research (Hrdá & Šíp

et al., 2011). Most authors logically emphasize the goals connected with the educational

process, e.g. changing people through education (Bakošová, 2008), analysis of the conditions of

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 80

education that help or hinder the achievement of the goals of education (Kolář et al., 2010), or

professional training of social pedagogues for school practice (Gulová et al., 2012).

II. Similarly to social work above, in the case of social pedagogy an analysis of verbs will be

used to help understand the process of activity of social pedagogy. As for frequency, the most

important activities of social pedagogy are: preventing negative social events or prevention

(Schilling, 1999; Hroncová et al., 2000; Sekot, 1997; Němec & Vodičková, 2010; Kraus, 2008;

Soják & Čech, 2010; Bakošová et al., 2013). Equally important are educational and re-

educational activities (Sekot, 1997; Soják & Čech, 2010; Průcha, Walterová, & Mareš, 2001;

Gulová et al., 2012), as well as resocialization (Procházka, 2012; Průcha, Walterová, & Mareš,

2001; Hroncová & Emmerová, 2004; Kraus, 2008), integration (Bakošová, 1994, 2008; Tokárová

et al., 2000; Sekot, 1997) and intervention (Hroncová & Emmerová, 2004; Bakošová et al.,

2013). Social pedagogy purposefully influences humans (Kolář et al., 2010; Strieženec, 1999;

Bakošová, 1994). In relation to negative social phenomena, the following verbs are used:

protect (Schilling, 1999), compensate (Bakošová, 1994), create balance and stabilize (Kraus et

al., 2001; Bakošová, 2008), educate and utilise the goals of education (Kolář et al., 2010; Klíma,

1993; Kraus, 2008; Bakošová, 2005, 2008), deal with crisis situations (Hroncová & Emmerová,

2004), influence or initiate changes (Matoušek, 2003; Schilling, 1999; Soják & Čech, 2010),

clarify (Bakošová, 2005).

III. Among the tools of social pedagogy mentioned in the definitions rather less frequently, are

the procedures and methods that are to balance the adverse effect of social influences

(Matoušek, 2003), such as various preventive and curative measures (Schilling, 1999).

According to Z. Bakošová et al. (2013), the following instruments belong among the tools of

social pedagogy: education, re-education, self-education, counselling, prevention, intervention

and management.

5. Regarding the FIELD of action of social pedagogy, several areas can be distinguished for this

profession to be exercised. The primary areas of the activity of social pedagogues in Slovakia, is

the area of education. According to the Act No. 317/2009 Coll. (2009), a social pedagogue belongs

in the category of professional staff. According to this law, a social pedagogue “carries out

professional activities in prevention, intervention and counselling especially for children and

pupils at risk of socio-pathological phenomena, from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, drug

addicts or otherwise disadvantaged children and pupils, to their legal guardians and pedagogical

representatives of schools and educational facilities. A social pedagogue fulfils the roles of social

education, support of pro-social, ethical behaviour, socio-pedagogical diagnostics of environment

and relationships, socio-pedagogical counselling, prevention of socio-pathological phenomena,

and re-education of behaviour. They also perform expert and public educational activities” § 24

(Act No. 317/2009 Coll., 2009). Furthermore, they may also act in the field of labour and social

affairs and family in execution of the selected activities, such as when exercising socio-legal child

protection. Relatively large competencies can be gained in the area of justice, particularly in the

penitentiary practice. In the current Slovak penal and judicial system, a person on a position of a

“pedagogue” amasses a fairly high level of competences and responsibility when dealing with the

accused and convicted.

Among other activities, a pedagogue proposes a treatment program, provides the convict with

a list of activities that are organized in the facility; coordinates and facilitates the treatment of

convicts in the selected area, while managing a comprehensive agenda with decision-making

rights regarding disciplinary action against the convicts (Decree No. 368/2008 Coll., 2008). In the

Czech Republic, a similar delineation of the scope of activity of a social pedagogue is missing. It is

defined only in the area of social services, namely under § 110 (Act No. 108/2006 Coll., 2006),

which states that it is sufficient for the professional competence of a social worker to complete an

educational programs focused on social work and social pedagogy.

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 81

3.3 Comparison of convergent and divergent elements

Convergence in terms of nature. Social work and social pedagogy are interdisciplinary-oriented fields,

independent helping professions and academic disciplines.

Divergence in terms of nature. In terms of the scientific nature, social pedagogy is a more theoretical

and more general discipline, while social work is a more practical and applied discipline. Social

work in Slovakia is a separate scientific and study field, while social pedagogy is rather a

subspecialty of pedagogy and is taught at universities merely within a study programme of

pedagogy. Social work belongs among social-behavioural sciences, social pedagogy among

pedagogical sciences.

Convergence in terms of actors. Social work and social pedagogy are performed exclusively by

qualified staff.

Divergence in terms of actors. In most countries, social work is exclusively carried out by social

workers with a university degree in social work. Social pedagogy is performed by social

pedagogues with a university degree in social pedagogy. The qualification requirements, however,

are socio-politically conditioned, and in certain cases, rather vaguely set. For example, in the

Czech Republic social work can be performed by persons educated in social pedagogy, and even

without university education (Act No. 108/2006 Coll., 2006) as the professional competence of a

social worker is: higher vocational education, university education or completion of accredited

training courses with particular focus, for example in the following fields: social policy, social and

humanitarian work, social pathology, special education, etc.

Convergence in terms of objects. The objects of the action of the two disciplines are not just clients

(individual, family, group, community, institution), but also the influence on the social

environment in which they exist.

Divergence in terms of objects. The individual disciplines have different preferences of clients, yet the

range of both is very wide. Social pedagogy prefers school and non-school environment, and in

terms of age, it works mainly with children and youth. Social work is provided to a greater extent

to adults and seniors, and in addition to its field or outreach forms, it is exercised in the natural

environment of the clients (in the family, community, open environment), as well as in the

outpatient and residential settings, especially in social service facilities. Matoušek differentiates

between both disciplines on the basis of their target groups as follows: social work as work with

adults, while social pedagogy as prevention of social failure among children and youth (Matoušek,

2003), while Machalová through the concept of “preventive social work” sees educational social

work as a border discipline of findings and methods intertwined with social pedagogy and social

andragogy. The concept of educational social work and counselling is seen as a lifelong process, as

a sub-discipline of social work, which aims to “develop and cultivate individual spiritual, mental

and social potential of individuals” of the target groups of social work (Machalová, 2013,

pp. 24–25).

Convergence in terms of the nature of the activity. For both professions, it is rather symptomatic to

cover a broad spectrum of different activities and to manifest a holistic approach, using various

yet common methods and procedures, especially prevention, re-socialization, counselling and

mediation.

Divergence in terms of the nature of the activity. Social pedagogy prefers mainly socio-educational,

preventive and re-educational activities. Social work uses various, own methods of work, such as

case, group, and community social work, street work and family social work.

Convergence in terms of the field or scope of activity. Both professions operate in several areas. The

common areas are labour, social affairs and family, and justice.

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 82

Divergence in terms of the field or scope of activity. The primary areas of activity of social work is the

resort of labour, social affairs, and family. The primary areas of activity of social pedagogy is

education. While in the Slovak Republic social workers work in education, they do so without

legislative anchoring. Unlike social workers, social pedagogues do not work in the healthcare area.

4 Discussion and conclussion

The relationship of social pedagogy and social work is historically and culturally conditioned.

According to the German professor Johannes Schilling (1999), we can distinguish several models from

the historical perspective:

- Subordination – the proponents of this model argue which is a superior term, social pedagogy

or social work.

- Substitution – arbitrary interchangeability of the two terms, i.e. no distinction between them.

- Identity – identical disciplines as in “two sides of the same coin”.

- Alternative – both expressions are well established and can be used as alternatives.

- Convergence – mutual approximation of both disciplines while preserving their own identity.

- Subsumption – a double concept of social pedagogy/social work, or seeking an umbrella term

for both, e.g., social services.

Schilling (1999, p. 140) inclines towards convergence: “Social pedagogy and social work are not two

completely different fields, but they are neither completely identical. We can imagine them joined

together into one unit. Such convergence does not refer to tasks, decomposition, or a composition of

the areas. Instead, it refers to a joint development of social pedagogy and social work towards a

growing agreement, while taking into account their independence and individuality.” In German-

speaking countries in the area of education, it has been acknowledged for decades, that the areas of

Sozialarbeit (or Soziale Arbeit) and Socialpädagogik were very closely linked, to the point of being

identical.

According to Kraus (2008, cf. Ondrejkovič, 2000), there are three main views on the relationship

between the two disciplines in our settings:

- Identifying – practically means identification of both disciplines, metaphorically expressed as

“two sides of the same coin,” typical for German-speaking countries.

- Differentiated – both disciplines are clearly separated historically and on the basis of the

objects of their research. It is typical for the Anglo-Saxon area, and also applies in the Czech

Republic. In this regard, Kaplánek (Matoušek et al., 2013) states that mutual “passing by” of

social pedagogy and social work in the Czech theory and practice is not only due to different

theoretical approaches. The fundamental problem is the strict separation of social work and

pedagogy in practice on the basis of valid legislation.

- Convergent – means integration, while maintaining a certain uniqueness of both disciplines.

According to Kraus, it is practiced in Slovakia and Poland. Yet, in this respect we disagree with

Kraus. We believe that the current Slovak social work practice is dominated by the Anglo-

Saxon differentiation model, with the exception of schools (e.g., UMB Banská Bystrica) and

representatives, who professionally originate from social pedagogy and therefore at least

theoretically strive for convergence of both disciplines (e.g., Ondrejkovič, Bakošová, Hroncová

and Machalová).

Based on the study, we are inclined to think that it is possible to distinguish between convergent and

divergent elements of both professions that are understood as separate (differentiated) professions,

disciplines and fields of study in the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. We agree with Hroncová

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 83

(In Kraus, 2008) according to whom, social pedagogy is more theoretical and more general, while

social work is more practical and a more applied science.

Due to many convergent elements, intensive cooperation between the two is crucial. A relationship

between the two disciplines is described as cooperative, for example by Žilová (2005). Both

disciplines have their own field of exact development and scope of activity in relation to the joint

entity of their subject that is defined by the specificity of their goals in relation to the target focus

– a healthy physical, psychological and social development of the individual. Naturally, this requires a

reciprocal use of theoretical knowledge, findings, generalization of empirical researches and mutual

adaptation and utilization of methods of work, i.e. cooperation on the principle of acceptance,

mutual respect and cooperation with other border disciplines. Due to interdisciplinary collaboration

between social pedagogy and social work in the area of prevention of socio-pathological phenomena,

Bakošová (In Ondrejkovič, 2009, p. 489) aptly notes that “the two disciplines will fare better if they

offer effective prevention programmes that are systematic, planned, long-term and will lead not only

to new behaviour practice, but also to their internalisation.”

Literature

Act No. 108/2006 Coll., on social services. (2006). Retrieved from

http://www.mpsv.cz/files/clanky/7372/108_2006_Sb.pdf

Act No. 195/1998 Coll., on social help.

http://www.noveaspi.sk/products/lawText/1/46814/1/2

(1998).

Retrieved

from

Act No. 219/2014 Coll., on Social work and of the conditions for the exercise of certain professional

activities in the field of social and family affairs, and on amendments to certain acts. (2014).

Retrieved from http://www.zbierka.sk/sk/predpisy/219-2014-z-z.p-35788.pdf

Act No. 257/2000 Coll., on probation and mediation service. (2000). Retrieved from

http://aplikace.mvcr.cz/sbirka-zakonu/ViewFile.aspx?type=c&id=3462

Act No. 317/2009 Coll., on professional and pedagogical employees and professional employees and

on the change and supplement to some acts. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.zbierka.sk/sk/predpisy/317-2009-z-z.p-33092.pdf

Bakošová, Z. (1994). Sociálna pedagogika (Vybrané problémy). Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského

v Bratislave.

Bakošová, Z. (2005). Sociálna pedagogika ako životná pomoc. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského

v Bratislave.

Bakošová, Z. (2008). Sociálna pedagogika ako životná pomoc. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v

Bratislave.

Bakošová, Z. (Ed.). (2013). Terminologický výkladový slovník zo sociálnej pedagogiky. Trnava:

Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave.

Balvín, J. & Prokaiová, J. (2013). Pedagogické a filozoficko-etické aspekty sociální práce, sociální

pedagogiky a andragogiky. Praha: Hnutí R.

Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary. Washington, DC: NASW.

Brnula, P., Gabura, J., Labáth, V., & Vaska, L. (2011). Sociálna práca – dve dekády existencie

študijného odboru sociálna práca. In Quo vadis, univerzitné vzdelávanie, veda a výskum na

pedagogických fakultách? Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.

Collection of orders of the General Directorate of the Corps of Prison and Court Guard. The order No.

60 on Social work in the Corps of Prison and Court Guard. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.zvjs.sk/dokumenty/legislativa/2014/legislativnenormy/RGR60_2008.pdf

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 84

Decree No. 109/1994 Coll., Decree of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. (1994). Retrieved

from http://www.vscr.cz/client_data/1/user_files/19/file/PDF/V%C3%BDkon%20v%C4%9Bze%

C5%88stv%C3%AD/109-1994.pdf

Decree No. 368/2008 Coll., Decree of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. (2008). Retrieved

from http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/print/zz/2008-368/znenie-20160101.pdf

Göppner, H. J., & Hämäläinen, J. (2008). Rozprava o vede o sociálnej práci. Hľadanie prvkov pre

programatiku. Bratislava: VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety.

Gulová, L. (2011). Sociální práce. Praha: Grada Publishing.

Gulová, L. (Ed.). (2012). Aktivizace sociálně znevýhodněných skupin v pedagogické praxi a výzkumu.

Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Hradečná, M. (1998). Vybrané problémy sociální pedagogiky. Praha: Karolinum.

Hrdá, M., & Šíp, R. (Eds.). (2011). Identita v sociálně pedagogickém výzkumu. Role napětí, změn a

začlenění. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Hroncová, J., & Emmerová, I. (2004). Sociálna pedagogika. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela

v Banskej Bystrici.

Hroncová, J., Hudecová, A., & Matulayová, T. (2000). Sociálna pedagogika a sociálna práca. Banská

Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2014). Global definition of social work. Retrieved

from http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work

Klíma, P. (1993). K epistemologickým a metodologickým zdrojům sociální pedagogiky. Éthum, 3–11.

Kolář, Z. (Ed.). (2010). Sociální pedagogika. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze.

Kraus, B. (Ed.). (2001). Člověk – prostředí – výchova: K otázkám sociální pedagogiky. Brno: Paido.

Kraus, B. (2008). Základy sociální pedagogiky. Praha: Portál.

Kuzníková, I. (Ed.). (2011). Sociální práce ve zdravotnictví. Praha: Grada Publishing.

Levická, J. (2002). Teoretické aspekty sociálnej práce. Trnava: ProSocio.

Lorenzová, J., & Poláčková, V. (2001). Specifika pomáhání v podmínkách školy. In B. Kraus (Ed.),

Člověk – prostředí – výchova: K otázkám sociální pedagogiky (pp. 190–198). Brno: Paido.

Machalová, M. (2013). Preventívna sociálna práca: Edukačná paradigma v sociálnej práci. Prešov:

Prešovská univerzita.

Manniová, J. (2005). Úvod do pedagogiky. Bratislava: Axima.

Mátel, A. (Ed.). (2012). Etika sociálnej práce. Bratislava: Vysoká škola zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce

sv. Alžbety.

Mátel, A., & Schavel, M. (2015). Teória a metódy sociálnej práce I. Bratislava: Spoločnosť pre rozvoj

sociálnej práce.

Mátel, A., Oláh, M., & Schavel, M. (2011). Vybrané kapitoly z metód sociálnej práce I. Bratislava: VŠ

ZaSP sv. Alžbety.

Matoušek, O. (2003). Slovník sociální práce. Praha: Portál.

Matoušek, O. (Ed.). (2013). Encyklopedie sociální práce. Praha: Portál.

Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic (MZ SR). (2012, December 27). Bulletin of the Ministry of

Health of the Slovak Republic. Retrieved from

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 85

http://www.health.gov.sk/Zdroje?/Sources/dokumenty/vestniky_mz_sr/2012/vestnik-39-60-

2012.pdf

Mühlpachr, P. (2008). Úvod do sociální práce. Brno: VŠ ZaSP sv. Alžbety v Bratislave.

Navrátil, P. (2000). Úvod do teorií a metod sociální práce. Brno: Národní centrum pro rodinu.

Navrátil, P. (2001). Teorie a metody sociální práce. Brno: Marek Zeman.

Němec, J. (Ed.). (2010). Výzkum zaměřený na...: Základní směry výzkumu Katedry sociální pedagogiky

PdF MU. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Němec, J., & Vodičková, M. (2010). Výzkum zaměřený na základní oblasti sociální pedagogiky. In J.

Němec (Ed.), Výzkum zaměřený na...: Základní směry výzkumu Katedry sociální pedagogiky PdF

MU. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Novotná, V., & Schimmerlingová, V. (1992). Sociální práce, její vývoj a metodické postupy. Praha:

Karolinum.

Ondrejkovič, P. (2000). Príspevok k otázkam vzťahov sociálnej pedagogiky a sociálnej práce.

Pedagogika, 50(2), 181–191.

Ondrejkovič, P. (Ed.). (2009). Sociálna patológia. Bratislava: Veda.

Österreichischen Berufsverbands für SozialarbeiterInnen (OBDS). (2004). Berufsbild der

SozialarbeiterInnen. Wien: OBDS.

Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory. Basingstoke: Palgrav Maccmillan.

Pierson, J., & Thomas, M. (2006). Collins dictionary of social work. Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Procházka, M. (2012). Sociální pedagogika. Praha: Grada Publishing.

Průcha, J. (Ed.). (2009). Pedagogická encyklopedie. Praha: Portál.

Průcha, J., & Veteška, J. (2012). Andragogický slovník. Praha: Grada Publishing.

Průcha, J., Walterová, E., & Mareš, J. (2001). Pedagogický slovník. Praha: Portál.

Přadka, M., Knotová, D., & Faltýsková, J. (1998). Kapitoly ze sociální pedagogiky. Brno: Masarykova

univerzita.

Seithe, M. (2012). Schwartzbuch Soziale Arbeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-

92271-3_6

Sekot, J. (1997). Sociální pedagogika jako vědní disciplína a studijní obory v ČR. Závěrečná zpráva

programu PHARE. Praha: VPŠ.

Sheafor, B. W., & Horejsi, Ch. R. (2012). Techniques and guidelines for social work practice. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Sheafor, B. W., Horejsi, Ch. R., & Horejsi, G. A. (2000). Techniques and guidelines for social work

practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Schilling, J. (1999). Sociálna práca. Hlavné smery vývoja sociálnej pedagogiky a sociálnej práce.

Trnava: SAP.

Schilling, J.,& Zeller, S. (2007). Soziale Arbeit. München: Ernst Reinhard Verlag.

Soják, P., & Čech, T. (2010). Cesta do školy aneb Výzkum potřebnosti a uplatnitelnosti sociálního

pedagoga ve škole. In J. Němec (Ed.), Výzkum zaměřený na..: Základní směry výzkumu Katedry

sociální pedagogiky PdF MU. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Strieženec, Š. (1997). Slovník sociálneho pracovníka. Trnava: AD.

Mátel & Preissová Krejčí / Convergent and Divergent Aspects of Social Work … 86

Strieženec, Š. (1999). Úvod do sociálnej práce. Trnava: AD.

Strieženec, Š. (2001). Úvod do sociálnej práce. Trnava: Tripsoft.

Strieženec, Š. (2006). Teória a metodológia sociálnej práce. Trnava: Tripsoft.

Thompson, N. (2000). Understanding social work: Preparing for practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Thompson, N. (2008). Practising social work: Meeting the professional challenge. Basingstoke:

Palgrave.

Thompson, N. (2010). Theorizing social work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tokárová, A. (Ed.). (2009). Sociálna práca. Prešov: Akcent print.

Tománek, P. (2013). Základy andragogiky a rodinnej výchovy pre sociálnych pracovníkov. Brno: Tribun

EU.

Žilová, A. (2005). Úvod do teórie sociálnej práce. Badín: Mentor.