The June session this year was
fantastic. In deed really good. Somehow had a feeling that we finally took off
on the right scale. That something had moved. Was it a new format, new people,
thinking of common projects, new people taking initiative or something else
that was new between us. Yet, it had most (if not all) the good things that we
used to enjoy in Dubrovnik: time to discuss, time to hang together, beautiful
environment, people worth knowing and kind to get near too, good atmosphere
with a lot of laughs and going to an island. Could say there was a good mixture
of new adventure and the firmness of knowing where we were.
Some of us were a bit apprehensive
how the new format will work. First, we had not tried it. Second, some people
need programme in advance (both: for formal reasons to present it to funding
authorities and personally to feel safe). And the question was – what is now
the function of courses and course directors? However, when it started the
anxieties went away, thing functioned and they functioned well (even though at
the end there was some criticism voiced).[2]
Probably one of the reasons for
feeling well was a greater number of people gathered.[3]
In fact, this was more of an impression, since there were about 33 of us (which
is average of eight per course that is not essentially more in the past years).
So, it was more the impression of crowd having gathered, which was previously
dispersed. More true is that we were happy to be together, not to have
boundaries of the courses, being able to react with variety of people. More
opportunity to establish contacts and form relationships (cliques, networks,
etc.) than in a course based structure.
A part of the greater number effect
was that we had e.g. more doctoral students present. This not only bolstered
the importance of the event, it also gave them an opportunity for exchange,
compare notes and for other to present the process of nascent thought.
Transversal topics have contributed
to this feeling. We were not there to discuss just kids and families, theories
and methods nor community work and conflict with the law (delinquency). New
topics maybe also attracted some people who would not come otherwise, thus gave
an extra width to our proceedings.
But, did the transversal topics
function transversally indeed? Yes and no. Management, law, families facing a
lot of challenges are transversal in themselves to the topics of the courses
and thus interesting for the theory, working with kids and families, community
work. They are also strong, management and law – also controversial topics to
the social work. They evoke resentment, and ideally, we often think that social
work could fare better with them than under their thumb. But on the other hand,
this is precisely why we should discuss them. And maybe, at least in social
work environment, change their neoliberal paradigm. More so, if social work is
to perform its own, very needed paradigmatic change, it has to deal with the
issues how to establish rights, how to establish what is right and wrong, and
has to have the material power of organising better life for users and
communities that it deals with. The contributions related to the transversal
topics did raise these issues, but they did not function as a fille rouge through the whole week.
Probably to have three such topics it is to many for one week, they get diluted
and we should have one or two in the future? On the other hand, there is a will
and a need to carry on formulating the relationships with the law and
management. Maybe we can do this in intensive workshops, organised as satellite
events (before or after the whole session). Another suggestion was to make key
presentations on the transversal topics on the onset or maybe first days in
order to provide the fille rouge for the week (having the law as a topic on the
last day was clearly a mistake if we wanted some transversality – but the
reality constraints are stronger than the logic).
A very noted problem of implementing
the new format was that we co-constructed the programme first day so that there
were just few parallel events. Looks like in the initial session people were too
anxious to claim the time (and attention) of their own. So, the contributions
we somehow glued together like cats fur in its throat. It was hard to break
them apart – which, looking back, we should do even more. It is good to be
together, to listen to many topics, but we loose on the side of having small
groups discussions and try to go to the jist of the thing at hand. What to do?
Do we need to encourage people to place topics autonomously, or should we from
the scratch provide a minimum of three parallel slots per session to be filled,
or should we have a special editor to take care about this in the initial
programming session? Alternatively, maybe the chairperson of the session should
be appointed to care about the time and opportunity for the discussion?
The opportunity for discussion is a
central imperative in order to foster the ethics of inclusion and imperative of
non-exclusion, but is also of utmost importance to have a space for polemics. This important feature of
academism and formulating the scientific reasoning is often neglected in such
gatherings where on the human, personal note we want to be nice to each other,
create friendships and alliances. The art of voicing (and listening to)
criticism without offending and being offending. Sometimes we were successful
in doing this, but still the criticism, critique and polemic must have a
statutory right and need to be encouraged.
For this, I was happy that there was
a greater share of critical remarks in the final sessions. They did not ruin
the feeling of happy of being together, the feeling of accomplishment. They
made this more real and provided good suggestions for the future. I will convey
them also to the organisers of the September sessions in order to improve.
I am not sure about the role of the
courses in this format. The role was designed for them to function as reference
groups, places to digest, reflect (maybe to voice the critique ;) ). For our
group I think I did the job. But I do not know how it was for other groups. Having
only three sessions is probably not enough for a group to form. There
definitely was not enough feedback from these basic groups to the plenum – the
whole group at session.
A positive development is also that
there are palpable initiatives for common projects, that people are creating
consortia to do something together. It is important to do things in social work
and not just talk. There might be opportunity to do some work in Dubrovnik (not
only visiting institutions, but to provide some training and fieldwork), this
we will discuss with Marko from the municipality during the September session
(social policy, old age, spirituality and deinstitutionalisation courses with
long-term care, activism and SW in political conflict as transversal themes).
I hope that Martina’s presence and
contribution will give a boost to the journal. This is a necessity. We are
progressing, rather slowly, but we do. One thing that we missed the chance to
do is editing on the spot. One feedback that speakers should get is also have
to make their presentation more publishable.
Also I have missed some people that
were supposed to be there but could not come (again Tilo is right on the issue
of redistribution of time): Joe, Jim, Marsi and many others who said that they
will come but couldn’t.
These were some immediate thoughts
after the do. I will probably have more to say on the content later when I read
the pieces produced for the journal. But will save that for the editorial. Also
more there will be more to say when you answer my questions and after we look
at the issues in the final feedback.
Many people said that it was an
experience of charging their batteries. For me too. But I was exhausted at the
end too. But content. Of the work, of meeting new people and of meeting old
friends and taking our friendship onto another level. Thank you!
[1] To write something before it
vanishes from my head. To convey my thought and get some feedback.
[2] The need for more structure, for
more interaction and more small group work, of course. Is the open space too
open?
[3] This session from: Norway,
Netherland, Germany, Moldova, Kosovo, Croatia and Slovenia.
