Career interview

Abstract

By reflecting on his career and important influences on his personal and professional development Peter Sommerfeld draws a picture of the societal context of this career as well as of the development of social work (in Switzerland) in a historical perspective. Somehow it is a showpiece how biographical interviews may serve to understand not only the personal biography but also the wider interrelations. And somehow, theory building and scientific developments get a human and this means also a social face.

If someone asked you to summarize your foremost interests, how would you express them?

First I have to say that I have done research in many different fields of social work, from youth work to probation services, from occupational social work to social work in the health sector and there particularly in psychiatry, but also others. This is due to the fact that the universities of applied sciences (UAS) in Switzerland have to finance their research to a huge extent by themselves, that is by realizing projects that are funded by third parties. In some way you have to take what you get or what the thematic conjuncture makes possible.

But the overarching and, in this sense, major interest is and always has been the practice of professional social work, the conditions it takes place in, and the knowledge base developed in and through these practices. Related to this major interest in research work was from early on a more theoretical strand: What is the role of science and later social work science in this endeavour of the professionalization of social work on the one hand, and how can we think about social work as a whole, as a profession constituted by these two interrelated or coupled parts, namely science and practice.

Going back for a moment, with hindsight do you think there were aspects of your early life up to the time you went to university that played a significant part in setting a pathway in your work and life?

Oh dear, that’s a huge question, influence on work and life. Well, of course there is the family and the cultural context of this family. I was born into a working-class family in Germany. My father was a cheesemaker. Later on in life he drove trucks because he earned more money with that occupation. My mother worked in an office doing written work, correspondence for the boss and so on. Because of this, to a great extent, I grew up with my grandmother. There are two characteristics of my socialisation in this family that come into my mind. First my father was a union activist. So social justice and political fight were somehow always present. And I admired my father in this respect. The other point of influence surely is the Protestant Christian milieu I grew up in with both aspects: the quest for the transcendent together with care for the people but also the working ethics (doing things well, working hard, loyalty and so on).

But there was another very important influence in my early life. At the first day at kindergarten at the age of four I met a boy, who happened to become my very best friend and who happened to be the son of an industrialist, a capitalist, if you want to take it that way. And as we were really best friends, meaning that we spent all the time of growing up together as far as possible, I was somehow informally adopted by this family. For example they took me with them to their holidays, going skiing, sailing, playing tennis, driving fast cars, and all that stuff far away from my original family. So, I grew up in two completely different lifestyles and cultural contexts. This, of course, opened my horizon extremely. Maybe, this is one reason why I put so much weight on the social dimension of individual life conduct in my scientific theoretical work. But as a matter of fact I wouldn’t have had the chance of higher education without this friendship. My father was strictly against going to grammar school, believing that this was not appropriate for a worker’s son despite the fact that I was good at school at that time. And my own motivation to go to grammar school primarily was that I could stay with my friend. Because I wanted it so strongly, my mother finally decided and overruled my father, which was at that time and in this cultural context and for my mother, an extraordinary process that went not without conflict. By the way, I was the only pupil in my class (about 30 boys) with a working-class background and I was the first in my wider family to go to grammar school and to university.

After school I went to France, starting my studies in psychology at the university of Grenoble. But after a year I had to go back to Germany because I had to undertake my civil service (as being a conscientious objector). Finally, I worked for almost 3 years as an ambulanceman. I mention this because I think working in the health sector very much influenced my later view on professional work. I immediately learned that it is better to know what is the case and to know what to do in that case and to do it skilfully. I mean you have to know a lot about the functioning of a human body and its possible infringements together with the adequate interventions in order to act in an effective and efficient way in situations of high pressure. Also I was socialized in a professional culture which I didn’t recognize at that time but was a very important experience from today’s perspective. By the way, during school and university, I always did “real work”, as my father would have said, earning my money for my living, by driving taxis, working in factories, and so on.

I hope that I am not going into too much detail, but there is another important influence which is the post 1968 German society with still a lot of emphasis on authority (the Nazi history was still working underneath the surface of a capitalist regime with liberal democratic institutions). This was foiled by the outbreak of freedom with the student revolt and above all the cultural transformation that followed. The underlying idea was that we would be able to change society and the world by just doing it in a different way. We believed that we would be the generation to do so. New music, completely different music, was everywhere, long hair as an expression of freedom, new ideas concerning gender, race, and religion too, the obvious nonsense of war, military in general and even the construction of nations, the revolt against all authorities, fathers, teachers, professors, politicians, priests that represented the old order really was something that occupied us and our discussions in a way that deeply influenced my whole life. Again, this was a far-reaching social experience. Even though I came to realize that many of these idealistic ideas didn’t work immediately, many of them are still present in my thinking. Probably the choice of social work as the field where I spent my professional life is deeply influenced by these experiences.

How did your study and general life experience while at university influence your directions in your subsequent career?

Again, it was important for me to be free. That means first of all, in those days that we could live as we wanted with little money but in a comfortable way. More important, for the first time in my life I could learn in a free way, driven mainly by my own interests and in my rhythm without limits. For the first time I experienced how deep you can get into the knowledge about human beings and society and how it feels when you get through it, when you “get to the other side” to speak with “The Doors”. I mean, when your cognition widens and comes to another level so to say. At a certain moment you can see the interrelations and the structuring questions of the whole subject - in my case - sociology. In consequence, I was deeply fascinated by science and scientific work, and by pursuing this growing interest finally I arrived at being a scientist myself, which for a very long time had never been the plan.

At university once again there were a lot of friends, other students. We had self-organized seminars and reading groups beyond the official curriculum on themes that were missing in our opinion. One of those friends became my girlfriend and later my (first) wife and mother of my daughter. It goes without saying that she had a major influence on my life. Her support was particularly important when I wrote my PhD thesis. The adventure of having a child together and at the same time moving to a foreign country (Switzerland) was an intensive life experience, difficult in many respects too.

But talking about my time at university again: of course there were also the official seminars and contents. I have to say that I did a Master in sociology with two minor subjects, namely science of education and psychology. This combination built the fundamentals of my thinking. Thematically it condensed in the interest in individuals and their functioning together with the social environment. This dynamic interplay has become and still is the center of my work, along with the question of how to influence these dynamics in a positive way.

I want to highlight two teachers I had. The first is Tilmann Allert, a scholar of Ulrich Oevermann who was one of the most influential authors on professions in German sociology at that time with an enormous influence on social work and he was the inventor of a qualitative research method called “objective hermeneutics”. Allert directed the research laboratory on “children’s consciousness”, in which I participated. This was my first personal experience with research and I was lucky to get a very good training in qualitative research methods. But even more important, Allert shared his own fascination for qualitative research with us and took us on the boat so to say. And we had a very interesting reading of Freud and Piaget. Both authors became important sources of my own approach in doing research. So, with Allert, research came into my life and again I was overwhelmed by the experience of how deep you can get into the material and how it is fascinating to forge your own little theory on the basis of interpreting the data in a methodological way.

The second teacher to be highlighted here is Hans Thiersch, probably the most influential thinker of German social work. I didn’t know that when I first met him. Science of education at that time was not in the focus of my studies and interest. Anyway, I think it was in the second year of my studies, I went to his main lecture, and I didn’t miss 1 minute of this lecture (which was unusual for the way I was practicing my studies). He opened my eyes to social work (social pedagogy, which he used as a synonym at that time). It was not only the content but above all his brilliant way to perform, the way he developed his ideas on the spot, without manuscript and in a flow of absolutely clear arguments. With him there also came another section of literature into my scope: the German humanities and philosophical considerations. With this lecture my drift from sociology to social work began and I spent more and more time there. This process culminated in my PhD thesis on adventure pedagogics (Sommerfeld, 1993) which was supervised by Hans Thiersch and Ludwig Liegle, another professor at the institute to whom I owe much. A last word to Hans Thiersch. He was and still is an example for me concerning integrity, dignity and respect, and in his case these personality traits are completely congruent with his scientific work, these three qualities being central for his vision of professional social work.

What have been the particular sources of influence on your life and work?

I realize this is a big question, so perhaps you could think of the following, but in whatever way and order you wish:

• Those who have had a personal influence through your career relationship with them

• Key collaborators

• Those ideas and books that have influenced your work

Well, these are big questions indeed. There were so many influences. So maybe I will start with the books. Of significant influence were, as I mentioned, the work of Sigmund Freud (e.g. 1972) and of Jean Piaget. Specially the later offered me a solid basis for my understanding of individual development and its social structuring (The Child’s Conception of the World (1988)); The Psychology of Intelligence (1984)). From Sociology there were Karl Marx (Capital (1962)), George Herbert Mead (Mind, Identity and Society (1934)), Norbert Elias and his understanding of a close linkage between individuals and social “figurations” (What is Sociology? (e.g. 1978)), Pierre Bourdieu, his conceptions of social space, habitus and the different forms of capital (1983); Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1989) and finally Niklas Luhmann because he offered a systems theory approach in sociology (Social Systems (1984)). I later left Luhmann beside because I discovered better systems theories. Hans Thiersch’s early book Die Erfahrung der Wirklichkeit was an eye opener (Thiersch, 1986). Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology (Conditio Humana (2003)) opened the possibility to deepen my understanding of basic questions concerning human beings and their social constitution. The further development of my qualitative research approach was very much influenced by Anselm Strauss and his different co-workers (for example The Social Organization of Medical Work (1997) and Grounded Theory (1990)). Grounded theory and its adaptation to systems theory actually was finally my way of doing qualitative research, always still mixed with Objective Hermeneutics (Oevermann et al., 1979) when I wanted to go deep into the structures behind the observations.

Later important discoveries of relevant literature were often linked to encounters with persons and enduring relationships with them. Konrad Maier, a professor at the UAS of Freiburg (Germany), was one of those who became a close friend and opened the most interesting field of community work to me and with whom I first practiced cooperative forms of practice research (Maier and Sommerfeld, 2005). With Günter Schiepek “Synergetics” (Synergetics and Psychology (Haken and Schiepek, 2010)) came into my thinking. I discovered a different systems theory that fitted so much better with my own developing theoretical framework that it was clear from there on that this would be an orientation to be pursued for the rest of my scientific work. Furthermore, his methodological developments of “resource interviews” and “real-time monitoring”, for example (Schiepek et al., 2003), were fundamental for the research project that was at the beginning of my main theoretical work (Integration and Life Conduct 2011). When I came to Switzerland I made the acquaintance of Silvia Staub-Bernasconi. The first time I met her was when we together had to take the intermediate examinations of the social work students at the university of Fribourg. A third of the students didn’t succeed (which was a very tough experience for me as a young teacher with an anti-authoritarian habitus). From there we started a never-ending discussion on teaching and professionalization of social workers and on social work science and social politics. Silvia Staub-Bernasconi was the grand dame of Swiss social work, who is also internationally well known. Her writings offered me a very self-confident view of social work as a “human rights profession” (2019) and on social work science as an “action science” (2009). By the way, the book Action Science by Chris Argyris, Robert Putnam and Diana McLain Smith (1990) was an important inspiration for my own conception of social work science.

Silvia Staub-Bernasconi was important in another respect. She had developed a systems theory approach for her conception of social work in theory and practice. She recommended me to contact Werner Obrecht, the systems theory thinker in her environment (e.g. Obrecht, 2000). The acquaintance and then friendship with him opened the whole universe of Mario Bunge’s work to me, particularly his fundamental systems theory ontology (1979) but also his Philosophy of Science and Technology (1985). The intensive, sometimes challenging debates with Werner Obrecht forged my thinking in a very particular way. With Bunge the last cornerstone of my systems theory thinking was achieved. And thinking social work as a science was always the main convergence of Obrecht’s work and my own thinking as well as the importance of building up a systematic knowledge base of professional social work.

Have there been key moments - epiphanies as Norman Denzin expresses them - that anchored or shaped your career?

As a systems theory thinker I reflect more in terms of processes, structures and dynamics than in terms of epiphanies that are somehow outstanding events if I understand the term well. There were basically two windows of opportunities that I had the chance to participate in.

The first was my post doctoral tenure at the university of Fribourg in Switzerland. The conditions at first sight were not good at all. The professor who appointed me, left a few months after my start. This made social work vulnerable in the faculty of social sciences and there were some professors of other but related subjects (sociology, science of education, psychology, curative pedagogy) who contested that social work ought not to be taught at university level. Of course there were other interests in the background (fighting for resources for example) but this challenge led to a very remarkable process inside the scientific and teaching body as well as on the side of the students. Because the other professors impeded the appointment of a new professor as long as they could (almost 4 years), we gained an extended time spot and we were free to build a deep understanding of social work as a scientific discipline and even more important a deeply rooted identity as professionals in social work. The tensions the other professors created for us and the students led to a dynamic of solidarity. Building on that we were able to transform the tensions in action (teaching and learning together freely), defending the right of social work being taught at the university of Fribourg and everywhere by demonstrating that this was a really serious academic endeavour. The atmosphere of cooperation and solidarity in the political fight forged students and academic staff together and created a dynamic of learning together that was unique in my experience. So, in the end, we had an extraordinary and wonderful time, even if I have to take in consideration that the professor finally appointed, destroyed everything and we all (12 out of 13) lost our jobs.

However, it can be stated as an epilogue that a huge part of the later teaching staff at the universities of applied sciences in Switzerland were recruited from among these students. A common understanding of social work science in Switzerland has a root in this dynamic and the foundation of the Swiss Society of Social Work (SSSW) was driven by many of these former students. Others of them became leaders in professional social work in Switzerland. To relate this story back to the question how this shaped my career, it is obvious that the part of my work that deals with the conception of social work science was shaped through this experience, and the part of my work that consists in participating in and driving forward the foundation of organizations of academic social work (the above mentioned Swiss Society of Social Work and also the European Social Work Research Association) obviously is in part a consequence of this story together with my socialisation as the son of a union activist.

The second window of opportunity has already been mentioned. The Swiss federal government and finally the national parliament decided the foundation of universities of applied sciences (UAS) and that social work should be one of the subjects taught on this level. The corresponding law prescribed “research and development” as being one of four pillars of these UAS (together with teaching, continuous formation and “services”, which actually meant counseling). As another important precondition, the authorities decided that there had to be initial funding of these research activities at UAS before these newly built research departments could compete in the regular science funding. So, after having worked as a freelancer back in Germany after the loss of my job at the university of Fribourg, a very interesting offer came up to me (through the recommendation of former students of Fribourg). I was invited to develop the research department at a small school in Solothurn. I had a very clear vision of how this could work and demanded four collaborators as a condition sine qua non and I got them (out of the blue and to my surprise). Solothurn was one of the first schools of social work in Switzerland to go for research and development and with this relatively huge investment they set a standard. We were quite successful in realizing my vision and even were able from the beginning to get into national research programs showing that we were able to compete. Nevertheless the starting package in funding was important to create a certain volume of research projects in all schools of social work.

Returning to Switzerland opened a new chapter in my life. All of a sudden, I had the chance to realize many of my ideas on research and social work and many new ones emerged. An important factor was, that I had two great directors of the school of social work at the university of applied sciences Nothwestern Switzerland, Luzia Truniger and Agnès Fritze. Above all they both understood and practiced that the competence has to be where the competence is, meaning that they provided a strong infrastructure and guidance but let the researchers do their work. Another important part of that new chapter and of my “system of life conduct” was (and still is) that I met my second wife, who of course is a main factor of my subjective quality of life. And moreover, she is an important partner in reflecting and discussing social work affairs.

So, from then on and for about 10 years I was doing a lot of research myself but also I was an organizer of the research infrastructure inside the developing structures of these new UAS. All this, of course, was only possible with competent and engaged collaborators. There are so many that I cannot mention them all here, and I don’t want to pick out just one or two names. If you have a look at my publication list they are all co-authors in one or the other article or book. How has this shaped my career? Well, it was a great opportunity to participate in the building of a strong academic social work with a strong research strand and it boosted my individual possibilities in a way that I could not have dreamed of. Today social work is one of the most active research subjects in Swiss social sciences, and this was an important precondition for becoming an official and recognized member of the Swiss Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities which is the case since 2016. After these 10 most intensive years I realized that I could not anymore do scientific work and science management and politics. As a consequence, I quit my job as head of the institute. So, for the next and last 10 years I concentrated on teaching and writing and doing some more research projects.

A last point is still missing. At one point along my way, I realized that the international dimension was lacking, and then another window of opportunity opened in form of the Inter-Center Network for Evaluation of Social Work. The idea of bringing research centers of different countries together, continuously represented by their leaders and by changing members of their staff, who did interesting research projects, was brilliant. I was admitted in this circle and had the chance to know great personalities of social work research like for example Ed. Mullen, Ian Shaw, Inge Bryderup, Mike Fisher, Ilse Julkunen, Mikko Mäntysaari, Peter Marsh, Haluk Soydan, Elaine Sharland together with their corresponding research units and the different conditions for research in different countries. Once again there was an atmosphere of freedom, cooperation and solidarity which made possible to exchange on a high academic level and to test ideas without retention which opened my horizon once again. Out of this experience finally the idea was born to enlarge the exchange on the international level which led more or less directly to the foundation of the European Social Work Research Association (ESWRA).

I realize you may already have answered this already, but how did you come to have a settled view about where you stood on research methodology?

So after these long stories shedding some light on my career I can be brief here. As I mentioned before my initial contact with research was a very exciting experience with qualitative methods together with a very good introduction into qualitative research methodology and practice. So for a long time, I was not interested in other methods and I deepened my knowledge and competence in qualitative research methods.

I always find it hard when someone asks me what I think my achievements have been - but have there been parts of your work that have been particularly satisfying?

Well, it might be obvious already, but it is particularly satisfying for me that with the institutionalisation of ESWRA and SSSW and their success I made a contribution that will last for a long time and that makes a difference for social work and notably social work science.

With Integration and Life Conduct and all the subsequent work - research and conceptual work - I think that I made a contribution that has a potential for the understanding and conceptualization of social work in the future. It has proven fruitful in the small context of our UAS, our institute and may be in Switzerland and the Germen speaking part of the world. Anyway, it has been a fascinating path I have been walking on, starting from a research project in a national research program on “integration and exclusion” to the formulation of a general theory of social work on the basis of systems theory and its application on different fields of social work in many research and development projects.

I asked earlier about influences on you - but how in turn do you wish your work would influence others?

Well, as I said in response to your former question, I think that there is a potential for the future. This potential could be realized if more and more researchers would relate their research projects to the theory of social work (our approach or another) so that in consequence there would be more and more interrelated (dense) knowledge. The further development in terms of the professionalization of social work depends on a sound body of knowledge. If some people would be influenced through my work to understand that to get there needs a strong coupling of science and practice and cooperative forms of development together with a shared systematic of the knowledge base I really would be satisfied.

Would you want to include any final points about social work and your career? Are you working on something that catches your interest at the moment?

My work, particularly my theoretical work, has been published predominantly in German. My last research project was on the demanding question of how social work produces effects. When I was writing on the report of that research project I realized that this could be a chance to publish it in English. The project is built on the theory of “integration and life conduct” and therefore, it is also a chance to introduce this theoretical approach in English. Finally, I wrote a chapter on implications for professionalization. So, you see, it is really a final work, having retreated 2 years ago, that spans the bow over huge parts of my work again. Once accepted by the publisher, it will be called “Social Organization of Social Work” which, of course, is a reference to the seminal work of Anselm Strauss and his co-workers. So also in this sense, the methodological one, things will be rounded up in the end.

Interview by Dr Ian Shaw