Adgangen til ledelsesstillinger er i mange brancher lettere, hvis man er mand, tilhører den etniske majoritet, eller er vokset op i middelklassen eller overklassen. Denne artikel undersøger, om det samme gør sig gældende i velfærdsprofessionerne, der udgør en karrierevej for kvinder, arbejderklasse, og etniske minoriteter og hvor det professionelle ethos er associeret med kvindelighed. Artiklens undersøger om eksisterende dominansforhold inden for køn reproduceres i det velfærdsprofessionelle arbejde gennem ulige adgang til ledelsespositioner, om denne adgang intersekterer med klasse og etnicitet, og om denne adgang har ændret sig for disse grupper i perioden 1980-2020? Dette undersøges for fire kohorter af velfærdsprofessionelle, nemlig samtlige, der færdiggjorde en velfærdsprofessionel uddannelse i hhv. 1980, 1990, 2000 og 2010. Analysen hviler på mikrodata om socioøkonomisk baggrund for de professionelle, og deres professionelle karrierer. Analyserne gennemføres med logistisk regression og viser, at mænd og højere klassepositioner har privilegeret adgang til ledelsesstillinger, med højere sandsynlighed for mænd, og for middel- og overklasserne. Noget tilsvarende er tilfældet for etniske majoritetspersoner, men da den etniske minoritetspopulation i data er meget lille, fortolkes dette som et udtryk for social lukning ved rekruttering til professionerne, og ikke til ledelse.

This article analyses and discusses dilemmas, ambivalences and problematic issues related to research ethics. This is done firstly by making a distinction between procedural research ethics and particularistic research ethics. Such a distinction reflects a theoretical construction and generalization. In practice, there can be a very close correlation between the two types. In the following, the distinction will therefore be used as a starting point for the presentation of a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. The approach is dualist because it draws on the presence of two independent, contrasting understandings, which are essentially different yet equal aspects of good research ethics; it is pragmatic because this dualism is structural and institutional by nature, and designed with an eye to what can realistically and expediently be done in practice. Thus the intention of the article is to both analyze and discuss two different understandings of research ethics and simultaneously qualify a research ethics that draws on both of these understandings. Furthermore, the intention is to visualize a different understanding of research ethics which others can address and elaborate on or qualify. Even at this point, this research ethic can be included in a catalogue of understandings of ethical research practice an can be exploited in ethical research practice.

This paper presents a discussion of what research in professions and professional work means, both generally, and in a Danish context. Initially we present a summary of the origins of the term profession, and the oldest occupations understood to be professions. Central questions when defining this origin is what constitutes the base of professional knowledge and whether such a base is specific to each profession. However, what such knowledge may be has proven hard to agree on, since such knowledge is what research in professions and professional work strive to produce. The paper instead proposes a different way to describe and categorize research in professions, which does not presume any one definition of neither profession nor knowledge. Instead, we suggest summarizing the different research practices found in the field, by way of three axes of difference: 1. Research in professions for – describing the different institutions and agents for whom the research is being produced. 2. Research in professions through – describing the different theoretical perspectives and assumptions upon which the research is based. Finally 3. Research in professions withdescribing the empirical methods and methodologies, which the research employs. On each axis, we exemplify a number of positions found in the field of research in professions. In conclusion, the paper points out correlations between positions on the three axes, which are indicative of the debates and struggles taking place in the field of research today.

This paper examines and compares two models of quality, which are very influential in the professional work in Danish childcare institutions: The database of Nordic Research in Early Childhood Education and Care, NB-ECEC, and the international quality measurement tool for Early Childhood Education, ECERS-3. The empirical data consists in the observation manuals and guides for both models, along with a number of documents from social educational practice, training and administrative, which refer to the two models. I show the two models to have methodological common ground, methodological positivism, which enable them to function as state simplifications, and have constitutive effects in early childhood education and care practice, as well as research. The two models combine in (re)producing methodological positivism as a naturalized methodology in research into professional practices.

Hvordan vurderer studerende på pædagoguddannelserne deres undervisning – og hvordan skal man fortolke deres eventuelle kritik eller utilfredshed? I en lang række evalueringer, undersøgelser og forskningsprojekter der beskæftiger sig med professionsuddannelserne i Danmark, kan man finde visse gentagne kritikpunkter fra de studerende. De er især utilfredse med uddannelsens tilrettelægning og med deres medstuderendes engagement. I denne artikel vil vi prøve at anlægge en teoretisk ramme for at forstå sådanne kritikker i lyset af professionsforskningen, kritisk læringsteori og historisk uddannelsessociologi. Vores påstand er, at de studerendes kritik skal forstås som et udtryk for de særlige læringsprocesser man gennemlever som studerende på en professionsuddannelse og som et aspekt af det, man kan kalde semi-professions-problematikken; den særlige begrænsede professionelle status og anerkendelse, der bliver velfærdsprofessioner til del i den danske velfærdsstat. Denne artikel vil også vise, hvordan manglende anerkendelse af professionen manifesterer sig i de studerendes studierefleksioner og -praksis på pædagoguddannelsen. At forsøge at forstå brok i lyset af disse læsninger er, mener vi, et vigtigt bidrag til den aktuelle debat om pædagoguddannelsen og de pædagogstuderende, fordi brok ikke bare er udtryk for den enkelte studerendes oplevelser, men også har med profession og uddannelse som strukturelle fænomener at gøre. Abstract25 years of complaining – social educator training in the intersection between student expectations and institutional framing How do social educator students evaluate their training, and how should we interpret their dissatisfaction or critique? In several evaluations, studies and research concerned with professional training, we find certain complaints repeating. These concern the organization of the training, and the level of commitment from other students. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for interpreting these complaints, in the light of theories of professionalization, critical learning theory, and historical educational sociology. We argue that the complaints must be understood as both an aspect of the kind of learning one must encounter in such a training program, and as an aspect of what one might call the problem of semi-professions, the limited professional status and recognition welfare professions obtain in the Danish welfare state. The paper also shows how limited professional recognition also manifests in the student’s reflections and study practices. To understand complaints with such theoretical tools is, we suggest, an important contribution to current debates about social educator training, since such understanding emphasizes structural aspects related to professions and education as part of complaining.

ResumeHvilke forståelser af pædagogik cirkulerer i facebook-diskussioner af pædagogiske forhold som opdragelse, børnehave, skole og familieliv? Hvordan formuleres de, og hvordan spiller de med på forståelsen af hvad pædagogik og pædagoger er og kan?Med udgangspunkt i et kvalitativt materiale fra et antal facebook-grupper, der har pædagogik, pædagoger og pædagogiske forhold som omdrejningspunkt, analyserer jeg de pædagogiske forestillinger om pædagogisk videns karakter, de pædagogiske professioners kompetencer. Et centralt fund er at pædagogik stort set aldrig diskuteres neutralt. Pædagogik og pædagogiske forhold dukker op enten i form af værdimæssigt nødvendige opgaver, der skal løses; situationer, der kalder på forargelse eller vrede; eller politisk/administrative indgreb i det pædagogiske arbejde der kalder på kritik eller begejstring. Tilsvarende virker de argumentationsformer og vidensformer, der henvises til i disse facebook-diskussioner, som socialt lukkende for pædagogprofessionen. Abstract Within debates on Facebook concerning social education, childrearing, kindergarten, schools and family, certain interpretations of social education circulate. This paper explores how such interpretations manifest, and how they affect ideas of social educators and their work. Analyzing a corpus of texts extracted from several social education-related Facebook groups, I illuminate implicit interpretations of social educational knowledge, work and professionalism. One important finding is that social education is never discussed as a neutral endeavor. Social education-related topics are spoken of as valuable task of necessity, as situations and observations that may elicit indignation or anger, or as political and administrative interventions that may elicit critique or praise. Similarly, the arguments and concepts of knowledge which the Facebook debates refer to, function as devices of social closure in relation to the social educator profession.