Thinking Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Thinking practice: A conceptualisation of good practice in human services with a focus on youth work A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Michael Emslie MSS (Research), RMIT University; GC FSP&FT, Latrobe University; GC TT&L, RMIT University; BA (Youth Affairs), RMIT University School of Global Urban and Social Studies College of Design and Social Context RMIT University August 2019 Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Michael Emslie 1.2.19 ii Preface Chapter 1 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2018. ‘Not So Straightforward: Achieving Good Youth and Community Work’, delivered to the The Fifteenth Humanities Graduate Research Conference ‘Where do we go from here?’. 12 - 14 November 2014. Curtin University. Perth, Australia. Chapter 2 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2016. ‘‘One-eyed hobby horses’, practice theories and good youth work’. Journal of Applied Youth Studies. 1 (3), pp. 5-23. Chapter 3 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2016. ‘The entanglement of the stuff and practice of human service work: The case for complexity’. Social Work and Social Sciences Review. 18, pp. 25 – 42. Chapter 4 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2017. ‘Social enterprise and the paradox of young people and risk taking: A view from Australia’. Youth & Policy. 117, pp. 1-5. Chapter 5 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2019. ‘Using allegory to think about youth work in rich countries that fail some young people’. Journal of Youth Studies. 22 (3), pp. 363-379. Chapter 6 is an edited version of the published papers: Emslie, M. and Watts, R. 2017. ‘On Technology and the Prospects for Good Practice in the Human Services: Donald Schön, Martin Heidegger, and the Case for Phronesis and Praxis’. Social Service Review. 91 (2), pp. 319-356, and, Emslie, M. 2014. ‘Conceiving good practice in the caring professions’. Developing Practice: The Child Youth and Family Work Journal. 38, pp. 64-73. Each author iii contributed equally to the co-authored publication titled ‘On Technology and the Prospects for Good Practice in the Human Services: Donald Schön, Martin Heidegger, and the Case for Phronesis and Praxis’. Chapter 7 is the published paper: Emslie, M. 2014. ‘‘Enabling young people to live the good life’: Orienting youth work to proper ends’. Youth Voice Journal. 4, pp. 1-33. Chapter 8 is the published paper: Bessant, J. and Emslie, M. 2014. ‘Why University Education Matters: Youth Work and the Australian Experience’. Child & Youth Services. 35 (2), pp. 137-151. Each author contributed equally to the publication. Chapter 9 is the published paper: Bessant, J., Emslie, M. and Watts, R. 2013. ‘When things go wrong: A Reflection on Students as Youth Researchers’. te Riele, K. and Brooks, R. eds. Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research. Routledge. New York, pp. 31-42. Each author contributed equally to the publication. iv Acknowledgments Thanks first and foremost to my primary supervisor Prof Rob Watts for supervision, support, advice, editing, help, encouragement and co-authoring articles in my thesis. Thanks Prof Charlotte Williams for joining and supporting me in the journey. Thanks Prof Judith Bessant for advice, help, support, and for co-authoring articles in my thesis. Thanks Dr Michael Crowhurst for support, advice, help, ideas and inspiration. Thanks Assoc Prof Deb Bateman for support and encouragement. Thanks RMIT for funding PhD completion leave. Thanks Mum, Dad, Richard, Hayden and Ryan. Thanks Paul for being a terrific friend and housemate and putting up with me constantly taking over the dining room table, and thanks to your mum and family. Thanks Nat, Pip, Chris, Liz, Shane, Lindsay, Katrina and Andrew and family, Rys, Marisa, Andrew, Cathy, Brian, Garry, Fee, Eran, Ofer, Stevie, Peter, Paul, Brendan, Nathan, Greg, John, Murray, Angie, Scott, Peter, David, Val, Chris, David, Steve, Robbie, Wayne, Morgan, Beth, Paul, Stuart, and many others I spoke with about my PhD, who offered encouragement, ideas, feedback and support, and who I also didn’t speak about my PhD and provided timeout and something else to think about. v Table of Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 4 Chapter 1: No so straightforward: Achieving good youth and 48 community work Chapter 2: ‘One-eyed hobby horses’, practice theories and good 69 youth work Chapter 3: The entanglement of the stuff and practice of human 88 service work: A case for complexity Chapter 4: Social enterprise and the paradox of young people 108 and risk taking: A view from Australia Chapter 5: Using allegory to think about youth work in rich 116 countries that fail some young people Chapter 6: On technology and the prospects for good practice 139 in the human services: Donald Schön, Martin Heidegger, and the case for phronesis and praxis vi Chapter 7: ‘Enabling young people to live the good life’: 188 Orienting youth work to proper ends Chapter 8: Why university education matters: Youth work and 207 the Australian experience Chapter 9: When things go wrong: A reflection on students as 223 youth researchers Conclusion 238 References 246 vii Abstract In this thesis I argue that what we tend to see in contemporary accounts of human service practice in the relevant literature is a ‘common-sense’ informed by a complex mix of neoliberal political and policy imperatives and various kinds of technical-rational styles of administration and management. These accounts of practice can inadvertently contribute to the problems they are meant to address and can do more harm than good. Common-sense accounts of practice also align with how human services are typically regulated and they align with prevailing ways the education of human services takes place, including in universities. Consequently, the same types of problems that take place with human service practice also take place with the institutionalisation and reproduction of human services. If we are serious about achieving good practice in human services, then we need to think more clearly about what practice in human services is. There is a good case for articulating a theory of human service practice to inspire new and better ways of achieving good practice. The theory of good practice outlined here draws on the philosophy of Aristotle and neo-Aristotelian accounts of practice. It draws especially on Dunne who argues that a theory of practice should offer a defensible account of how we should conceptualise the stuff that human services deal with, and the sorts of knowing, action and ends that best accord with such conceptualisations. I argue that the beings at the centre of human services should be understood as complex, emergent, unpredictable, and ‘wicked’ in the sense that Rittel and Webber talk about. This highlights the possibility that the people, problems and practices of human services can be revealed in multiple and contrary ways. Accordingly, human services hold both promises and 1 dangers for people and good practice is far from self-evident and is highly contestable in each individual case. I argue that phronesis (practical wisdom) is the way of knowing that best corresponds to and is most suited to deal with the uncertain, messy, contingent and context-dependent beings of human services, which require and deserve ongoing deliberations and good determinations on each occasion that are at the same time always tentative and remain open to other suggestions and modification especially because our knowledge may be erroneous and incomplete. I argue that good practice also requires reflexivity and value rationality to help identify and alleviate the problems associated with neoliberal approaches to practice and as an alternative to technical rationality and value neutrality. I make the case for praxis (good action) along with a range of other human activities including value-rational deliberation as the forms of action that best align with and are most appropriate for dealing with the ever-changing, often inexplicable and always difficult beings of human services. Praxis is in accordance with phronesis and can be understood in part as durable practice and in part as responding to each case in new ways. In particular, it involves figuring out and enacting the most desirable course of action in each instance of practice while at the same time remaining receptive to other possibilities and to doing things differently particularly because we might not always be immediately aware of what we are doing, and our actions could be doing more harm than good. I show that clarity about our telos will help to re-orient human services to pursuing preferred ends and securing goods that are better suited to the entities of human services compared to instrumentally designed relations between widely applicable and transferable techniques and 2 pre-determined outcomes. I argue for the telos of youth work to be enabling young people to live the good life. Following my accounts of phronesis and praxis this orientation of human services towards more desirable and ethical purposes takes the form of a commitment that is always carefully reconsidered at the same time as determinedly pursued. However, unlike outputs that can be wholly predetermined, efficiently sought after and completely achieved, this is an end that is never fully attained.