Knowledge of how professional youth work might prevent individual and social problems in socially vulnerable youngsters is poorly developed. This article presents a conceptual framework that clarifies the implicit methodical process used by professional youth workers and focuses on what stakeholders regard as the potential of professional youth work as a preventive service. A qualitative research synthesis approach was used to combine the findings of six practice-based studies conducted in six European countries. This synthesis revealed that professional youth workers employ a multi-methodic approach in their prevention efforts, strengthening the social skills and self-mastery of youngsters, reinforcing their social network, enhancing their civic participation and helping them find additional social or health services. Twelve methodic principles were identified as contributing to achieving these prevention efforts, shedding light on the process taking place between youngsters and youth workers. This conceptual framework provides essential information for future evaluation research.
In our work as lecturers, teachers, researchers, coaches or managers in a university of applied sciences, we do feel that the amount and variety of societal challenges on higher vocational education (HVE) is growing. Institutions in HE are in a process of transforming from traditional ‘either or’ research or education institutions into more complex hybrid knowledge institutions. Nowadays, universities of applied sciences (as institutions for HVE) in The Netherlands have three main objectives: providing education, conducting practice-oriented research to add to the professional knowledge base, and contributing to innovation in the professional fields of work. Education, research and innovation form the three pillars in the strategy of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences (Educational Council of The Netherlands, 2015). These changing societal demands form an impetus for educational reform and innovation at both organizational and individual employee levels (Cummings & Shin, 2014). Changes in context and roles lead to questions: As a teacher/lecturer/researcher, how do I relate to the different stakeholders? What is the real meaning of being a ‘good’ lecturer or researcher in creating added values, and for whom? Some propose that the new challenges concern everybody and thus should be everyone’s job. But when everything becomes everyone’s job, how can we really realize the required added values? Others promote a more differentiated approach of accurately fitting talents and tasks to create the flow and employee satisfaction that is needed to realize the desired outcomes. But then how do we work together and cooperate with such an individualistic approach? These opposing positions in the discourse concern the question of how to define the ‘professional me’ amongst the ‘we’. In other words, the challenge is how we define and navigate our professional identities within the context of a dynamic multiple-identity organization with increasing pressures for professional diversity (Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Aangenendt, 2015).
