Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 17 February 2025

History and Microhistories of Social Education in Spainlocked

History and Microhistories of Social Education in Spainlocked

  • Victoria Pérez de Guzmán, Victoria Pérez de GuzmánUniversidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla
  • Juan Trujillo-HerreraJuan Trujillo-HerreraUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia Tenerife
  • , and Encarna Bas PenaEncarna Bas PenaUniversidad de Murcia

Summary

Social education in Spain has become increasingly popular in recent decades as both a socio-educational action/intervention and as a profession. The history of social education is a combination of various microhistories that have evolved within different areas. In order to understand the “micro” component of these histories, we need a perspective of the “macro,” while also keeping in mind that the microhistories are essential to understanding the true development of social education on a general level. The goals of this research are: to approximate the key historical antecedents that have influenced the development of social education in Spain as both a socio-educational action/intervention and a profession, to demonstrate the importance of analyzing the history of social education through microhistories, and to indicate the key elements and criteria necessary to carry out our microhistory of social education. Our methodology is the state of the field documentary research modality, which facilitated our study of the collective knowledge addressing a pedagogy of social education. This qualitative-documentary and critical-interpretive methodology followed these steps: contextualization, classification, and categorization. The main conclusion will indicate the definition of key points as well as the criteria necessary to be able to carry out a microhistory of social education.

Subjects

  • Education and Society
  • Educational History

Introduction

As several authors have already indicated (Caride Gómez, 2004; Pérez Serrano, 2003; Petrus, 1989; Quintana Cabanas, 1992, 1995), since the 1980s, there has been a resurgence of social pedagogy in Spain (largely influenced by German social pedagogy), thus initiating a series of great contributions to the theoretical understanding and social questions being investigated within the field, and which continue to the present day. From an educational perspective1, its contributions form the foundation for the current degree in social education. This aims to train students and help them develop their own socio-educational competencies and professionalization, the latter term referring to a foundational, reflexive, and planned educational practice.

We can confirm that currently there is agreement among the social pedagogy scientific community (Añaños Bedriñana, 2012; Bas Peña et al., 2010; Caride et al., 2015; Caride Gómez, 2005; Fermoso, 1994; Hämäläinen & Úcar, 2016; Merino Fernández, 1980; Núñez, 1999; Ortega Esteban, 1999; Pérez de Guzmán, 2009; Pérez Serrano, 2003; Petrus, 1989; Quintana Cabanas, 1994b, 1986; Sáez Carreras, 2006; Tiana Ferrer et al., 2014; Torío López, 2006) when it comes to an understanding of social pedagogy as the science of social education—that is, as a field of knowledge, or “a theoretical framework from which we can approach questions concerning social education” (Núñez, 1999, p. 32), which is their object of study. In this sense, Ortega Esteban (1999), in referring to the praxis of social education, argued for “a scientific discipline that theorizes and conceptualizes, investigates, organizes, collects, and systematizes the knowledge involved in this professional practice . . . there can be no science or discipline without theory” (p. 13). Without clearly defined concepts, it is not possible to act.

Social education is an educational practice built and materialized by social educators within organizations and institutions that demand their professional competencies. And it is social pedagogy that studies this educational practice and on which it is founded.

Along these lines, this article aims to:

1.

Provide an overview of key historical precedents that have influenced the development of social education in Spain as a practice and as a profession.

2.

Demonstrate the importance of analyzing the history of social education through microhistories.

3.

Enumerate the key considerations and criteria necessary to produce a microhistory of social education.

Methodology of This Study

In order to meet all of this article’s objectives, it concentrates on a state-of-the-art review as its research methodology. As Jiménez Becerra (2004) noted, “Through a state-of-the-art review we establish the need to revise and refine the research advances made by others, clarify directions for future research, compare provisional findings, and explore new, unpublished perspectives” (p. 33). Molina Montoya (2005) noted that this methodology “is a documentary research modality that facilitates the story of accumulated knowledge (written in texts) within a specific area [of study]” (p. 1). Arboleda Álvarez and Zabala Salazar (2005) contended that it is about finding and demonstrating gaps, trends, and new theoretical perspectives. This qualitative-documentary and critical-imperative methodology (Gómez Vargas et al., 2015, p. 1) allows us to define what a microhistory is, as well as to establish key points and criteria we must account for in order to produce research on microhistories of social education.

This article follows the sequence indicated by Vélez and Calvo (1992): contextualization, classification, and categorization. Its contextualization focuses on the history of social education in Spain, considering documentation that identifies significant events and phenomena in order to understand where the development of social education as a practice and profession and the research developed from social pedagogy as a science all began. Regarding the second step, classification, the information has been organized chronologically, accounting for previous studies and their scope. The third step allows the authors to develop a hermeneutical practice: This step comprises the theoretical findings. The work done in previous studies has laid the groundwork for the authors to situate their own perspectives within the field of study and has allowed them to go further to produce their contribution: the determination of key points and criteria that should be considered when producing a microhistory of social education.

Key Historical Precedents for Understanding the Development of Social Education

Throughout history, social and educational actions and interventions have been developed to address different population groups. Quintana Cabanas (1994a) noted that social education has origins in social work directed toward disadvantaged children.

Movements for pedagogical revision developed through the 19th and 20th centuries, which were primarily carried out in private centers, sought to change teaching methods. Three schools of thought were developed, which are reviewed briefly here:

1.

The secular-bourgeois school of thought, founded by a group of professors. It is worth highlighting Gumersindo Azcárate, Nicolas Salmerón, and Giner de los Ríos, who founded the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (ILE; the Free Institution of Education) on October 29, 1876. This institution, through its platforms, the Pedagogical Missions and the National Museum of Pedagogy, developed a multitude of cultural solidarity projects. Through the ILE, they began to promote school excursions and visits to museums.

2.

The denominational school of thought. The Ave María schools were created by Andrés Manjón. His objective was to share and spread free primary education. His teaching methods emphasized play and the importance of teaching art, as well as teaching outdoors and facilitating contact with nature.

3.

The labor school of thought. Developed from a secular, rational, and scientific perspective, the modern school was founded by Francisco Ferreri Guardia in 1901. It is worth noting that this school of thought employed the scientific method in its teaching, prohibited coeducation between the sexes and different classes, and promoted physical punishment as well as the elimination of exams and grades.

The first popular education initiatives in Spain were developed in the early 20th century. Their main goal was to bring public education to marginalized social classes in order to better train the popular classes for incorporation into the industrial world. This was groundwork for the subsequent foundation and development of the concepts of social pedagogy and social education. As Delgado Granados (2007) has argued, “The educational spaces in which these initiatives are inserted are characterized by their diversity and heterogeneity, encompassing not just the formal educational system (institutional teaching), but also spaces of informal socialization (impromptu teaching)” (p. 198).

The first time that social pedagogy was included in a curriculum was in the pedagogy unit at the University of Madrid in 1954. Two years later it would be included by the University of Valencia and the University of Barcelona. In 1968, this academic material was replaced by sociology of education in the curriculum. However, it would appear again in the 1970s. As Torío noted (2006): “Both disciplines, sociology of education and social pedagogy, have different histories, different geographical origins, and contrasting sources” (p. 6).

During the Spanish Transition period (1975–1982), social pedagogy gained strength in response to the educational problems facing [Spanish] society. The subject was included in the curricula of the National University of Distance Learning in 1977, the University of Barcelona in 1978, and the University of Complutense in Madrid in 1979. This inclusion began to open up the professional field for individuals working as social professionals with a focus on education.

In other nonacademic environments, there were specialized centers for training education professionals who worked in nonregulated fields, mainly with maladjusted children and teens, as these groups were called at that time. It is worth highlighting the Barcelona Center for Specialized Educators (1969–1980). We should also mention the training centers for sociocultural coordinators and leisure directors/guides, which were environments for the training and development of social educators.

Subsequently, the Organic Law 1/1990 of October 3, regarding the General Organization of the Educational System (LOGSE), approved the title of Sociocultural Activity Technician (TASOC), an upper-level professional training program that was not university affiliated.

By the end of the 20th century, training programs specializing in social education issues were being developed through different training organizations, including universities. Such was the case with the master’s programs in socio-educational intervention at the University of Sevilla, The University Pablo de Olavide in Sevilla, the Complutense University in Madrid, and the Autonomous University of Madrid; as well as the university specialist course in Social Pedagogy: Educational Intervention and Social Welfare at the University of Oviedo. Master’s programs focusing on adults emerged at the universities of Salamanca, Murcia, Valencia, Barcelona, and Complutense in Madrid. The field of marginalized children, adolescents, and youths was the focus of a series of initiatives, such as the master’s in Social Policy for Children at the Complutense University in Madrid, the master’s degree in Child Protection: Clinical Aspects, Prevention, and Treatment at the National University of Distance Learning, and the master’s in Childhood and Adolescent Needs and Rights from the Autonomous University of Madrid (IUNDIA Institute). It is also worth noting the master’s program directed by Doctor Gloria Pérez Serrano in Social Education and Community Organizing, which adopts both a theoretical and a practical approach and trains many professionals who work in different social education environments.

It is also worth noting the interuniversity seminars in social pedagogy that have been developed since 1985 by the education departments of a number of different Spanish universities, primarily within the fields of education history and theory; and also the institution of the Iberic-American Society for Social Pedagogy in 2000 (formerly known as the Iberian Society for Social Pedagogy), whose primary output is the peier-reviewed scientific journal, Social Pedagogy: An Inter-University Journal.

In Spain, university degrees in social education evolved through the integration of three occupational traditions (Julià i Bosch, 1995; March, 1998): sociocultural leadership, adult education, and special education, fields of practice that the Royal Decree 1420/91 of August 30 (BOE October 10, 1991) consolidated into a degree in social education. Currently, the fields of practice and intervention for social educators are many (and varied). In her research, Trujillo-Herrera (2015, p. 92) identified the following such areas: community organizing; cooperation/education for development; physical-mental disability-diversity advocacy; integration and adoption; socio-environmental integration; intercultural education; local development; seniors; family and childhood; women (violence prevention, gender equality, etc.); the homeless population; sociocultural and ecological tourism; minorities and social inclusion; immigrants and refugees; adult education/continued learning; social exclusion; addictions; penitentiary centers; socio-laboral integration; social movements; volunteering; participation; leisure and recreational education; heritage, dissemination; cultural management; mediation (social, family, and so on); cultural management; and promotion.

Professionals in different fields are trained at universities to improve their socio-educational competencies. We should remember that the ultimate goal of the degree in social education, in 1991, was to train qualified professionals capable of working in informal educational contexts. However, currently, in some autonomous state communities, social educators also carry out their professional work within formal contexts, or the regulated educational sphere.

The Development of the Profession

The Royal Decree creating a degree in social education identified three very different historical figures: the special-needs educator, the community organizer, and the adult educator, each corresponding to one of three fields of intervention with specific characteristics:

1.

Specialized social education works to promote the social integration of individuals and groups who have been marginalized and/or find themselves in a situation of social conflict or exclusion, as well as to prevent such situations from occurring among communities classified as being at social risk.

2.

Community organizing is characterized by paying attention to the sociocultural and developmental needs of a specific community, population, or place. It developed as a method of socio-educational intervention for social progress and transformation (Pérez Serrano & Pérez de Guzmán Puya, 2006).

3.

Adult education addresses the formative needs of the adult population regarding their personal development and their sociolaboral integration. It encompasses much more than literacy and basic recovery, basic development, and is, in fact, a continuing educational process, lifelong learning.

The profile of an educator or social educator is, then, that of an education professional who works in direct intervention with people using a variety of resources, and promoting human relations whith the community, in order to facilitate satisfactory and complete social integration for individuals, groups, and communities. Therefore, this profile is not just defined by the professional functions that social educators have, historically, carried out, but also by those that, in response to present-day social demands, have been attributed to them. The specialization within this professional profile is the educational nature of their intervention, which takes a social pedagogy framework as reference, as both a science and a disciplinary matrix (Sáez Carreras, 2004).

Thus, the profession focuses on social environments; environments that are by definition lively, dynamic, plural, heterogeneous, and complex. This explains why, in 1988, profiles such as adult educator, special-needs educator, and sociocultural organizer were called “historical” professional profiles and were integrated within the more general profile of educator or social educator. The collective of professionals that worked within this field encompassed an extensive trajectory of occupations that fell under different names: educators, street educators, prison educators, family mediators, adult educators, organizers or community organizers, leisure/recreation directors, and so on, with different levels or kinds of basic training; and with varying levels of qualifications, ranging from a formal teaching degree to those without an academic title. As a result, the professional associations of educators or social educators were created in all of the autonomous communities after the approval of the degree, the consolidation of the university programs within the European framework of higher education, and the creation of professional colleges in Catalonia, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Murcia, Andalusia, Valencia, Castilla-La Mancha, the Canary Islands, and so on, where the autonomous communities of the state are currently located.

As March has argued (1998, p. 56), “The creation of the degree, despite its insufficiencies and deficiencies, not only acknowledges the history and reality of the profession, it also acknowledges the possibility of a livelier, more dynamic, and permanent development of the profession.” To which he added:

if, before the degree in social education was approved, this profession has had a plural, contradictory, and inconsistent training, it follows then that as a result of this approval, training should be grounded in a homogenous approach, everything from the foundational curriculum, to training spaces, to internal communications, to areas of practice, to social and professional recognition with the potential for a Professional College, etc.

(March, 1998, p. 56)

Delving into this debate, Professor Ruiz Berrio (1999) defended the creation of the degree in social education because it responds to a reality that scholars in particular and society and general have been demanding since the 1980s, given that there is an authentic and modern “social education” being carried out thanks to new economic structures, new levels of democratization, the availability of extensive leisure and free time, and the first development of a “welfare state” (p. 5).

The resulting shifts have created a need for trained professionals capable of responding to the new demands of the population. Additionally, some studies (Cacho Labrador, 1998; Casas, 1991; López-Arostegui, 1995) confirmed the potential demand for the degree.

In Spain, legal recognition of the degree in social education represented a milestone in the professionalization process of two fields: social pedagogy as a field of theoretical knowledge, and social education as a field of professional practice. Among the reasons that may explain these events, we highlight what we consider to be the most important from a professional standpoint, which is the philosophy that in large part guides the European Higher Education Area, in Spanish (EEES) (Sáez Carreras, 2004) and meets the standards for academic quality as demanded by the report published by the National Evaluation Agency (Alonso et al., 2009):

1.

Royal Decree 1420/91 recognized and mapped out a future for social education; [it] posited that it contributes evidence to social pedagogy as a science, a disciplinary matrix, and a discipline; since a community of scientific professionals, educators, and researchers has been developing around it since the 1980s, [the decree] tried to rationalize the existence of an educational practice [that is applicable] in different work environments. Thus, a professional degree was created, and the need to train the professionals who have done this work for years was met and fully integrated into a university setting.

2.

The decree recognized social education as a profession, as had already happened in other European countries. And, with the approval of the professional colleges, the profession of social educator was increasingly affirmed and recognized within the professional sphere.

3.

The two fields, the scientific and the professional, whose respective trajectories present their own peculiarities and developments, have found one another and have entered a phase of joint professionalization, as social education professionals are asked to collaborate on improving and standardizing the training carried out within and among classrooms, departments, and faculties. This setup fosters a closer relationship between universities and the real needs of the labor market and their demand for qualifications.

Upon approval, each university developed its own curriculum. Analysis of the implementation of these degree programs demonstrates the heterogeneity of the foundational, optional, and elective objects of study. The logic is that, in light of rapid changes within the field of practice, educators and social educators should be continuously creating and discovering new scenarios in which they can shape the educational practices of social education professionals (Bas Peña et al., 2010), scenarios that account for diverse spaces and setups, resources, and action plans, as well as the different sections of the population that they will be engaging with in a professional setting.

As Caride et al. (2015) noted:

Rather than focusing on the disciplinary content of knowledge, both social pedagogy and social education fix their attention on the social, cultural, political, civic, etc., dimension, of who and with whom they work, as well as where, why and who do they work for; that is to say, [both focus on] contexts and the individuals and communities who operate within them as subjects or agents of a specific educational practice, without assuming or labeling them—necessarily—as students, recipients, users, beneficiaries, clients, etc. (p. 7)

On the other hand, it is important to note the importance that the national organizations who shape this profession have had and continue to have. These include the General Council of Colleges of Educators and Social Educators (CGCEES) and, at one time, the State Association of Social Education (ASEDES); the goal of both these organizations was to build and develop the profession. Among other tasks, this included the production of professional documents, such as a document defining social education, a code of ethics, and a code of professional operations and skills. Additionally, the Council is an integral and active part of the organizations that form part of the International Association of Social Educators (AIEJI). Within and among different territories, social education has continued to develop its own idiosyncrasies, which have (in turn) shaped its microhistories.

Key Points and Criteria to Account for When Studying a Social Education “Microhistory”

The history of social education in the Spanish state, is made up of other histories; that is, of “microhistories” of social education within different territories. It is a bidirectional construction that builds from the general to the specific or local, and vice versa; it has not been a unidirectional or mimetic process. There are reciprocal factors that impact history in both general and specific terms. In order to elaborate on the microhistories of each context, we must start from five key points: identity, regarding projection, historiographical production and construction, agencies, and the historical-educational past:

1.

Beginning with identity, Ferraz Lorenzo (2005) indicated its importance with the following definition:

In showing dialectically those social and educational indicators of the most recent past, that is, of a historical present that already spans several decades, with the desirable intention of not forgetting, to demystify, reflect and act, claiming a substantive role to historical memory as constructor of collective identities. (p. 292)

In the “search for the steps and historical events of social education,” we can identify some common themes:

a.

the collective feeling of belonging to a profession.

b.

the value and relevance of society to a general collection of professional practices, in this case specific social and educational practices, and

c.

the question of identity. Within the profession, identity constitutes, in many cases, its struggle, its cause, and its goal. The profession continues to question and reflect on the theme of identity within itself. This is a line of inquiry that appears never-ending, a path that interrogates identity continuously and constantly, in relation to the rest of the professions within the social and educational environment; possibly, this has to do with its being a pioneering profession, always changing and ready to respond to change.

Although it might seem redundant, it bears repeating again and again that the identity (of the profession, as a process) is constructed, is changing, is fluid, is not limited, is sometimes linear and sometimes cyclical. There is no single identity. Instead, these are varied, different, heterogeneous, and in some cases, in opposition or contradictory. What has been achieved thus far are generic, foundational milestones that identify and strengthen us through shared principles. Mini-identities, in the form of microhistories of individuals, programs, services, curricula, agencies, and socio-educational policies, are what make up collective global identities. These mini-identities become social and educational indicators of the past of this history of social education.

2.

Regarding projection, Fontana (1982, p. 247) noted that “from what we know and what we have studied about our past, which has brought us the present moment we are currently living in, we can make a projection into the future.” From this quote we can extract a reflection about the importance of projection; of the studies within this field as a “seed” for debate, and scientific and empirical discussion about the recent past in social education. Thus, the level of projection of any research plan focused on historical phenomena necessarily becomes an important topic in the context of the professional and academic contours of the field, which have yet to be resolved.

3.

Considering identity and projection (within the field of the history of social education), lead us to another key factor: the production and construction of history. Basically, if somewhat obviously, “what isn’t there” (written, published, recorded, etc.), does not exist. And, as a result, such information tends to be forgotten, manipulated, or presented in a biased manner. These absences and lacunas in knowledge, historical in this case, are challenges for the professional field of social education as well as for the academic field. Caride Gómez (2004) contended that in light of these gaps in the evidentiary record, it becomes necessary to:

Construct a space for historical reflection, production, and construction in order to . . . build a historiographical discourse around social pedagogy and its object of study (social education), unique in its methods of engaging with and interpreting its origins, initiatives, and achievements. (p. 123)

Obviously, historical construction is not only achieved through studies like this one, but also through the use and management of a plethora of tools that allow one to grasp collective memory and keep it alive (forums, debates, workshops, photographs, life histories, news, the press, etc.). But it is no less obvious that the systemization of the “historical account” opens up the possibility to reproduce it, to complete it, to want to contribute to it, or to posit other “historical realities,” with other implications and possibilities. Production, in this case of the History of social education in whatever context, does not occur on its own. It has to be encouraged and stimulated in order to contribute to local-global knowledge, and to the practical-theoretical knowledge about its origins, genesis, and antecedents, for the benefit of students during the training process, and, of course, for the benefit of the profession’s future.

4.

Regarding agencies, we should take into account that for a historical analysis of the realities of social education, it is necessary to have an understanding of the public and private agencies that have contributed to it as a socio-educational practice, degree, and profession. In addition to the roles of agencies that have already been mentioned, and as Sáez Carreras (2006) has argued, agencies make up a sphere of actors that are shaping the way into the profession and are becoming the key to initiating the development of historiographical research plans, especially when no other sources are available or when it is necessary to complement historical sources and narratives. Agencies are the resources that authenticate and confirm the reliability of data, and as such they allow for comparison between data sets. They are the “baseline” sources for the triangulation of information within studies. As Ortega Esteban et al. (2013) noted:

None or very little of what we would like to understand today as the academic, scientific and professional achievements of what we have, with a clear influence, been calling “social education” can be understood could have been understood without the help of the people and organizations who have advanced the field in universities, in educational reform movements, the initiatives of collectives and social organizations (unions, nongovernmental organizations, associations, education and social centers, public administrations, etc.), or the daily practices of instructors, educators, teachers, organizers, etc. (p. 2)

5.

Finally, with respect to the historical-educational past, it may be helpful to consider the words of Peirats Chacón et al. (2011) regarding recovery and reconstruction:

This obsession with a pure present that ignores causality obviously rooted in the past, as well as consequences that will inevitably shape the future, runs the risk of falling into the trap of forgetfulness, the disappearance of memory as reconstruction and recovery of a collective historical-educational past in which the most innovative pedagogical ideas and practices of our time were forged. (p. 2)

Several facets of this quote invite further reflection. However, there are three key terms to consider: reconstruction, recovery, and collectivity. From a processional point of view, discourse around historical reconstruction and recovery necessarily implicates the collective or communal. The community and its participation in this historical-educational process is more than just key; it is fundamental and necessary. Without the collective there is no identity, projection, production, or construction of the microhistories and of social education history.

One of the general considerations to take into account about the study of the history of social education is to assume the diverse and complex character that comes with it, a process of investigation of historical characteristics. Specific research plans and studies of facts or events connected to historiographical processes require additional care and painstaking attention to detail throughout the research process. Ortega Estaban (1987) has already described the process of approaching the history of education, or whatever other kind of history is being constructed, within the parameters of “nation, regional, or local” space and time, as one that is fraught with difficulties (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Key points for writing microhistories.

Source: Author’s illustration.

Complexity, diversity, and difficulty are factors that must be accounted for during the process of approaching historiographical events and facts in order to research a microhistory. Three models have been used to determine these criteria:

1.

The proposal by Badanelli Rubio et al. (2014) regarding the historical periodization of social education is referred to as the use of time-based criteria.

2.

The model developed and proposed by Sáez Carreras and Molina García (2006), which is grounded in the identities of key actors as organizing criteria in order to study professions, is referred to as actor-based criteria.

3.

And, finally, the development and theoretical justification that Ortega Esteban (1987) have constructed to address national, regional, and local historiographical processes are here referred to as “criteria of integrated local history,” This method requires the establishment of a series of criteria for the analysis of a microhistory (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Criteria for writing microhistories.

Source: Author’s illustration.

In accordance with the figure above, the aforementioned “demarcative” criteria must be taken into account when designing an analysis of a microhistory of social education in Spain.

Regarding the temporal factor, within the history of social education, one must keep in mind that the period from 1983 to 2001 was one of “emergence and acceleration” for social education in Spain.

Badanelli Rubio et al. (2014) have established a key period that runs from “[the return of] democracy to the end of the century (1982–2000)” (p. 250). It is important to note that:

This was a period of “change” in terms of the structures and systems inherited from the old dictatorship: It saw a process of transitioning from policies grounded only in welfare and charity, to social and educational policies within the matrix of social education.2 In other words, from a holistic perspective, this was the stage at which policies, services, programs, regulations, laws, and documents related to the social welfare state—and consequently, social education—made the greatest qualitative and quantitative advances.

In 1983, the transfer of specific powers connected to social and cultural services from the state to the autonomous communities began.

It was a period of rebirth and development within a process of professional evolution. During this democratic period, individuals, institutions, entities, public and private organizations, regulations, programs, services, and professional literature all appeared and contributed clearly and purposefully to the “decisive drive.” These advances became, in turn, social education frameworks within different state territories.

Public policies were consolidated as a result of the emerging welfare state, a fact that precipitated the birth, resurgence, and consolidation of a whole host of institutions, organizations, entities, and public and private agencies. Hence, the appearance of services, plans, programs, socio-educational projects, and plans of action and intervention, as well as the production and flourishing of public policies that focused not just on healthcare, but also on education, prevention, information, awareness, consciousness-raising, therapy, and so on.

The year 2001 marked the close of the process consolidating basic socioeconomic structures and practices within the agencies and institutions, and a shift toward the beginning of a formalized training process through the degree in social education.3

With respect to the “actor-based criteria,” one should consider the development model proposed by Sáez Carreras and Molina García (2006). Based on professionalization theory, it is grounded in the identification of the key actors as the organizational schema as a means of studying professions. In this model, the authors highlighted six actors that are relevant to the professionalization of social education: the professionals themselves; the state and its administrative bodies; universities; the market(s); users/clients; and other professions. It is interesting to highlight here some key, fundamental actors that are included in this model but not in others. These include actors who analyze microhistories of laws and public policies related to social education; and public and private agencies (institutions, organizations, nongovernmental organizations, entities, foundations, enterprises, and religious congregations) that develop socio-educational plans of intervention; and the management centers of public administrations which provide social education services, plans, programs, and projects.

On one side are the agents of socio-educational intervention, and, on the other, the public state agencies and their administrations, which have developed the primary points of access to professional relationships and collaborations. As Sáez Carreras and Molina García (2006) have highlighted, the role that the state has played—both as a user or client of educators and social educators—has been fundamental to the professionalization of social education, and is an indication that without state support and he social policies that have contributed to that professionalization, social education would not have developed as fully as it has. Additionally, the growth in “social services” as a resource provided by the state must be taken into account regarding the construction of the professionalization process of social education.

Regarding the third element that was mentioned, integrated local history, authors such as Tiana Ferrer (1988), Ledesma (2000), and Moreno Martínez (2008) all pointed out that there was a key period in the history of education that saw the revision of methodologies, themes, and forms of exposition, and that went beyond the traditional models of producing history (positivist paradigms and historicist trends). It is also important to note, as indicated by Ortega Esteban et al. (2013):

With respect to the historical journey of social pedagogy and social education, it is possible to confirm that its disciplinary identity has been structured according to a diversified range of theories, trends, and foci: on one hand, those which are a “natural” consequence of the plurality of themes, problems, concepts, rational theoretical models, methodologies, etc. that run through it; on the other hand, those that dwell in the cultural, political, and ideological alternatives, which are mobilized within intellectual debate and within processes of social change and transformation. (pp. 6–7)

Likewise, Ortega Esteban (1987) explained that:

The “boom” of regional or “national” historiography of the present Hispanic moment is clearly due to the current political situation in Spain in relation to the political structure of the Spanish regions and nationalities, precisely in a moment of internalization and universalization for international historiography. Never have the diverse social formations, regions, and nationalities of Spain been more united and intertwined than they are today, and yet, never have the specific origins, histories, and cultures of each of these regions and nationalities been so thoroughly sought out as they are today. (p. 27)

Conclusions

The changes in social education over the last few years have transformed professional practice into a pioneering profession that is continuously and constantly changing. For this reason it is clearly necessary to respond to the evolution of this transformational process with a range of different studies. Such research is also an exercise in academic responsibility and compromise: Its goals are to produce an objective profile of the reality of social education by studying its microhistories, moving away from inaccuracies, clichés, and outdated and nostalgic perspectives, and instead, supporting practices that stimulate, dynamize, and foster interest in these themes, while approaching them with scientific rigor and in collaboration with practicing professionals.

This article has reviewed key historical precedents to the development of social education as a practice and as a profession, in order to clearly situate the importance of microhistories as a part of this broader history. The key points and criteria it has indicated establish a foundation for fostering research into microhistories within the diverse territories where social education has been growing, developing, and standardizing by way of both research and practice.

It will be necessary to encourage new projects, goals for the future, and new directions for the field through professional, ethical, and educational development. The key will be to begin with, and to work from a “scientific foundation.”

References

  • Alonso, L. E., Fernández Rodríguez, C. J., & Nyssen, J. M. (2009). El debate sobre las competencias. Una investigación cualitativa en torno a la educación superior y el mercado de trabajo en España. Revista de Educación Social, 13, 135–139.
  • Añaños Bedriñana, F. T. (2012). Pensamiento y acción socioeducativa en Europa y España. Evolución de la pedagogía y la educación social. Revista Historia de la Educación Latinoamericana, 14(18), 119–138.
  • Arboleda Álvarez, O. L., & Zabala Salazar, E. (2005). La economía solidaria en Antioquia. Estado del arte 1960–2003. Catholic University Luis Amigó.
  • Badanelli Rubio, A. M., Mahamud Angulo, K., & Milito Barone, C. C. (2014). La educación ocial en España en la segunda mitad del siglo XX: tardofranquismo (1959–1975). In A. Tiana Ferrer, M. Somoza Rodríguez, & A. M. Badanelli Rubio (Eds.), Historia de la educación social (pp. 249–290). UNED.
  • Bas Peña, E., Campillo Díaz, M., & Sáez Carreras, J. (2010). La educación social, universidad, estado y profesión. Laertes.
  • Cacho Labrador, X. (1998). L’Educadora i l’educador social a Catalunya. APESC.
  • Caride, J., Gradaílle, R., & Caballo, M. (2015). De la pedagogía social como educación, a la educación social como pedagogía. Perfiles educativos, 37(148), 4–11.
  • Caride Gómez, J. A. (2004). ¿Qué añade lo "Social" al sustantivo "Pedagogía"? Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 11, 55–85.
  • Caride Gómez, J. A. (2005). Las fronteras de la pedagogía social. Gedisa.
  • Casas, P. (1991). L’Educador social. Problemática i formació [Unpublished doctoral thesis] (3 vols.). Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
  • Delgado Granados, P. (2007). Una mirada histórica a la educación popular en España: Educación y prevención. Cuestiones Pedagógicas, 18, 197–205.
  • Fermoso, P. (1994). Pedagogía social: Fundamentación científica. Editorial Herder.
  • Ferraz Lorenzo, M. (2005). Repensar la historia de la educación: nuevos desafíos, nuevas propuestas. Biblioteca Nueva.
  • Fontana, J. (1982). Historia: análisis del pasado y proyecto social. Crítica-Grijalbo.
  • Gómez Vargas, M., Galeano Higuita, C., & Jaramillo Muñoz, D. (2015). El estado del arte: una metodología de investigación. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Sociales, 6(2), 423–442.
  • Hämäläinen, J. & Úcar, X. (2016, January–June). Presentación la pedagogía social en el mundo social. Pedagogía Social: Revista Interuniversitaria, 27, 13–18.
  • Jiménez Becerra, A. (2004). El estado del arte en la investigación en ciencias sociales. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
  • Julià i Bosch, A. (1995). El educador social: una figura profesional surgida de diversas prácticas e identidades profesionales. In Congreso Estatal de Educador Social (Ed.), Presente y futuro de la educación social (pp. 31–47). FEAPES.
  • Ledesma, M. (2000). Acercamiento a la evolución más reciente de la historiografía educativa en el Estado español. Témpora: Revista de historia y sociología de la educación, 3, 215–260.
  • Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo [Organic Law 1/1990, of October 3, on the General Organization of the Educational System] (LOGSE). BOE, núm. 238, de 4 de octubre.
  • López-Arostegui, T. R. (1995). El perfil profesional del educador social y la educación social en Euskadi. Gobierno Vasco.
  • March, M. (1998). El educador social: una figura profesional surgida de diversas prácticas e identidades profesionales. In Congreso Estatal de Educador Social (Ed.), Presente y futuro de la educación social (pp. 49–67). FEAPES.
  • Merino Fernández, J. V. (1980). Educación social. In Enciclopedia nueva acta 2000 (pp. 103–110). Ediciones Rialp.
  • Molina Montoya, N. P. (2005). Herramientas para investigar: Qué es el estado del arte? Ciencia y tecnología para la salud visual y ocular, 5(July–December), 73–75.
  • Moreno Martínez, P. L. (2008). Instituciones y actuaciones circumescolares en la historia de la educación social: reflexiones y propuestas metodológicas para su enseñanza. Cuadernos de Historia de la Educación, 4, 23–42.
  • Núñez, V. (1999). Pedagogía social: cartas para navegar en el nuevo milenio. Santillana.
  • Ortega Esteban, J. (1987). Hacia un modelo historiográfico de las historias de la educación nacionales y regionales. Historia de la Educación. Revista interuniversitaria, 6, 353–370.
  • Ortega Esteban, J. (1999). Educación social especializada, concepto y profesión. In J. Ortega (Ed.), Educación social especializada (pp. 13–41). Ariel.
  • Ortega Esteban, J., Caride Gómez, J., & Úcar Martínez, X. (2013). La pedagogía social en la formación-profesionalización de los educadores y las educadoras sociales, o de cuando el pasado construye futuros. Revista de Educación Social, 17, 1–24.
  • Peirats Chacón, J., Tarín Ibáñez, J., & Barberá Ortega, A. (2011). Las voces de la memoria. Recuperación de un pasado colectivo a través de una exposición pedagógica. Revista muescas, 7, 1–12.
  • Pérez de Guzmán, V. (2009). Aportaciones innovadoras de la pedagogía social. In M. L. Sarrate Capdevila & M. A. Hernándo Sanz (Eds.), Intervención en pedagogía social. Narcea.
  • Pérez Serrano, G. (2002). Origen y evolución de la Pedagogía Social. Pedagogía Social: Revista Interuniversitaria, 9, 193–231.
  • Pérez Serrano, G. (2003). Pedagogía social—educación social: Construcción científica e intervención práctica (2nd ed.). Narcea.
  • Pérez Serrano, G., & Pérez de Guzmán Puya, M. V. (2006). Qué es la Animación Sociocultural. Epistemología y valores. Narcea.
  • Petrus, A. (1989, January–April). La formación universitaria del Educador social. Menores, 13–14, 39–53.
  • Quintana Cabanas, J. M. (1986). Pedagogía social. Dykinson.
  • Quintana Cabanas, J. M. (1992). La educación social en Europa. In Cuestiones actuales sobre educación (pp. 181–195). UNED.
  • Quintana Cabanas, J. M. (1994a). Educación social: Antología de textos clásicos. Narcea.
  • Quintana Cabanas, J. M. (1994b). Pedagogía social (2nd ed.). Dykinson.
  • Quintana Cabanas, J. M. (1995). Trabajo social y pedagogía social: relaciones entre sus campos y competencias profesionales (pp. 275–289). Segundas cuestiones actuales sobre la educación. UNED.
  • Ruiz Berrio, J. (1999). Bibliografía sobre historia de la educación social en España. Historia de la educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 18, 373–388.
  • Sáez Carreras, J. (2004). Cambio de rumbo en la construcción de la pedagogía social: revisión y propuestas. Pedagogía Social: Revista Interuniversitaria, 7, 35–43.
  • Sáez Carreras, J. (2006). La reorganización conceptual del campo de conocimiento de la pedagogía social. In P. Ribera & J. Vilar Martin (Eds.), La pedagogía social en la sociedad de la información. UOC.
  • Sáez Carreras, J., & Molina García, J. (2006). Pedagogía social: Pensar la educación social como profesión. Alianza Editorial S. A.
  • Tiana Ferrer, A. (1988). La investigación histórico-educativa: enfoques y métodos. UNED.
  • Tiana Ferrer, A., Somoza Rodríguez, M., & Badanelli Rubio, A. M. (2014). Historia de la educación social. UNED.
  • Torío López, S. (2006). Evolución y desarrollo de la pedagogía social en España: hacia una pedagogía social en construcción. Estudios sobre educación, 10, 37–54.
  • Trujillo-Herrera, J. F. (2015). Historia de la educación social en Tenerife (1983–2001) [Doctoral thesis]. Universidad Pablo de Olavide.
  • Vélez, A., & Calvo, G. (1992). Estado del arte maestría en educación. University of La Sabana.

Notes

  • 1. Topics like prevention, exclusion, inclusion, abuse, violence, reintegration, delinquency, addictions, gender and women’s situations, leisure and free time, sociocultural involvement and community development, quality of life, human rights, cultural of peace, environmental education, migrations, the development of objectives for sustainable development, governance and leadership, childcare, adult and continuing education, etc.)

  • 2. In fact, the welfare state was engaged in a process of consolidation from the 1960s up until the first decade of the 21st century, as shown by the appearance of more or less organized socio-educational practices over this period.

  • 3. However, this process actually appears to have concluded with the appearance of the diploma in social education at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (1998), which marked the end of a concrete and specific project in the Canary Islands aimed at developing social education.