 |
 |
The definition of social policy is a complicated business. Can I suggest two approaches? One analyzes the concept of social policy in capitalist welfare societies (in which capitalism is growing more dominant and welfare less significant) and derives an academic discipline from the logic of the analysis. An alternative examines what people who hope to work in the public sector actually choose to study and seeks to construct something that will be attractive to them. I'd like to put in a word for the second (inductive) approach, in the hope that debates about the future of social policy will contribute to the subject actually having a future. One observation is that people who are interested vaguely and generally in the public sector study all sorts of social science and (to some extent) humanities courses at university. An area that is currently gaining a great deal of attention is Criminology. Social Policy should seek to strengthen its identification with this subject. Possible courses of action: 1. Invite distinguished criminologists to give keynotes at the SPA conference and establish conference themes in this area; 2. Invite criminologists onto the editorial boards of our journals and run appropriately themed issues. 3. Demonstrate the link between what we teach and criminological interests in our course design, titling and promotional material This shift might help to sustain social policy as an academic activity facing serious financial problems. It might also be good news for criminology by directing more of our considerable academic and research expertise towards work on topics in then field. There are all sorts of other areas which we might also want to develop within social policy, but casual observation suggests that criminology merits attention because for some reason or other students want to study it. Just a thought, Peter Peter Taylor-Gooby Email: [log in to unmask] Tel: 01227 827514 Fax: 01227 824014 Post: Darwin College, University of Kent, CT2 7NY, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Clark <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:01 PM Subject: Debate on the future of social policy > Dear Member > > This undoubtedly will be a very long message so if you are not interested > in the debate on the current and future situation of academic social policy > please delete now. > > For everyone else this is a response to Prof. Spicker in the latest SPA > news. For everyone who is new to the debate or who don't receive the SPA > newsletter, I'll try to summarise quickly. > > The SPA has set up a working group on the future of social policy to > address some fundamental concerns over the future of social policy. This > party has now met and passed on recommendations to the SPA Executive, who > will, presumably, comment on these in due time and open up a serious > debate. That is not to say that one has not already started! > > I wrote a piece called 'Social Policy: A case of follow what we say, not > what we do', which pretty much sums up the approach I took. Among other > concerns I expressed concern about the 'hollowing out' of social policy as > sub-disciplines broke away and sister disciplines took up interest in > social policy areas. I was concerned about the apparent lack of co- > ordination and co-operation or the 'joined-upness' of social policy and I > suggested we need to reconceptualise and reorganise social policy to > survive and prosper under the present circumstances. I gave several > concrete suggestions including the promotion of the social policy > undergraduate degree as the degree of choice for anyone in the public or > voluntary sector and social policy providing more vocational training for > all sectors of the economy. > > Prof. Spicker has responded to the debate with a piece called 'Social > Policy under threat' and my thanks because Prof. Spicker does much to > establish the opposite pole marking out the spectrum of debate. I believe > he reads this mailbase so I don't want to summarise the response and in any > case you will be able to get the gist from the following. > > There was so much to disagree with it is helpful to begin with the things I > did agree with. It appears that even at this early stage, the debate has > fallen into a predictable pattern. Both positions find consensus in that > they believe social policy is facing significant problems liable to > significantly affect its performance and indeed survival as at present. In > short both agree, to varying extents, that social policy is in some need > of 'baling out'. > > Entirely with tradition, disagreements concern what defines social policy > and what should be done about the problems. > > He begins by reminding me that I said 'social policy has never been well- > defined' and refuting it with 'yes it is'. So in true pantomime fashion I > would like to restate that, oh no it isn't. The reason for Spicker's > rejection is his conception of what social policy is all about. Spicker is > clear that for him, "social policy is not concerned with every aspect of > well-being. While the areas studied [such as communications, consumerism > and the environment] make perfectly good sense for people with a general > interest in politics or society, they do not touch very directly on the > kind of issues which have generally been considered in the field of social > policy". > > Spicker is quite simply wrong on both counts. > > He talks about social policy in terms of what it has studied, not about > what is at the heart of the discipline itself. The living, breathing heart > of social policy is without any doubt, at least for me, welfare, aka well- > being and many other things. It is the reason I came into the discipline > and will be the reason I leave if ever it should not be the case. > > Spicker argues against the inclusion of such things outside 'traditional' > social policy like environmental policy by asking the over used and frankly > ridiculous statement that social policy would then mean it's about > everything and therefore nothing. I have come across this answer many > times and the logical answer is this; > > Social Policy is obviously something, therefore it cannot be nothing, ergo > it must be everything. That for me is exactly right, welfare is about > everything because everything can be done in a way that either promotes > welfare or not. To use Prof. Spicker's examples, agriculture, industrial > production and defence can all be operationalised in such a way that human, > animal and environmental welfare can be better secured. I am incredulous > that anybody cannot see the direct significance of environmental policy to > welfare and social policy, the equation is as simple as it is obvious and > goes like this; > > environment=life > life=welfare > > Therefore, > > no environment=no life > no life=no welfare > > Arguing over the finer points of social security is of little use to > society in the face of environmental destruction, welfare is about > priorities. > > So when Spicker says " The redefinition of the subject area has undermined > the case for the independent study of social policy", and " If Social > Policy is to survive, it has to be distinct from both", I say rubbish and > we are already distinct. > > The branching off and work by other disciplines is necessary and vital > since the difficulties of eliminating social problems and promoting welfare > is complex. However the role of social policy must be to modernise with > the times consistent to our goal of welfare. In other words to ensure the > co-ordination and co-operation of social science to productively work > towards a more welfare orientated society. Digging the ditches deeper and > the walls higher will accomplish nothing. > > The fact that welfare has no boundaries is exactly what makes social policy > so unique and so singularly well-placed to take on the role of co-ordinator > in the pursuit of welfare and this is of course no coincidence. > Furthermore no one, perhaps, has blended together theory and practice as > well as those identifying themselves with social policy. What is great > about social policy is that it is concerned to understand the process and > structure, as with political science and public policy, but also the > outcomes, which is, at present perhaps, our greatest strength. > > We must recognise that globalisation, the environment, in short, > postmodernisation, means that problems such as immigration, crime, > prosperity, the environment increasingly require collaboration not only > between disciplines but between countries. While we excel at understanding > the consequences and complexities at ground level we must integrate that > into it's overall global context. > > Since I am going on a bit I will finish by saying that not for second have > I ever deluded myself into thinking I was training to become a scientist. > While I may possess some abilities associated with scientists, such as data > collection, interpretation and statistical techniques, first and foremost I > see my role as a social policist as an agent of social change. We work to > not only understand social problems better but to provide and effect > solutions. The sooner we reorganise our resources around this the closer > to our goal we will get. > > If you have made it this far I would really like to ask that you post your > feelings so we can get some idea of where people stand and what people > think. Even a few lines of input is useful from anyone- whether or not you > closely identify with the 'social policy community'. >