Friendship: The ‘Achilles Heel’ of European Youth Work Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this paper have academically discussed a key factor in youth work, friendship, with implication for any profession working with the youth, including social work profession. It has seemingly provided a very good foundation for conceptualizing work with the youth in any ramification.

The paper seems to have introduced well the focus and subject matter of the discussion. And it looks adequately concluded.

However, can the number of Keywords be increased? Can the author(s) avoid sentences or phrases in their formation of keywords?

Author Response

Thank you for the review. 

We have amended the key words as requested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: The abstract provides a foundation for the manuscript; however, it stands to benefit from a more explicit elucidation of its contribution to youth work policy, with a particular emphasis on the role of friendship.

Introduction: An effective academic article necessitates a well-organised structure. Prior to delving into the discussion on friendship, an introduction is imperative. The initial remarks demonstrate the author/s' grasp of the concept of friendship. Nevertheless, it is crucial to bear in mind that this is an academic paper, and as such, adherence to academic integrity is paramount. The first statements lack in-text referencing, which may compromise the scholarly credibility. It is recommended that the author/s substantiate the opening statements with appropriate references. In the introduction, the meaning of friendship within the purview of youth workers should be expounded upon. Is the reference to friendship among youth within the ambit of youth work practices, or does it pertain to the friendship among youth workers in the context of youth work? This distinction should be clearly delineated in the introduction. Furthermore, it is imperative to expound on the significance of integrating friendship within youth work policy within the European context.

Between pages 198-205, the author/s employ lengthy sentences without adequate grounding in scholarly literature. While the study holds the potential for significant contribution, the author/s have omitted a comprehensive review of relevant sources. The structure of the paper deviates from the standard format of an academic article, resembling more of a book chapter. I find the structural integrity of this work lacking.

The inclusion of authors in the appendix serves to indicate the absence of friendship within youth work policy; however, the manuscript falls short in adhering to the fundamental tenets of an academic paper. For instance, the authors provide minimal insight into the methodology employed and the sources of data collection. It remains ambiguous whether this was a scoping review paper or a conventional secondary data collection procedure; such information ought to be explicitly stated. Furthermore, it is imperative to delineate the implications of this study for youth work practices and the professionalisation of youth work within the European context. I propose the inclusion of a section where the authors elucidate how the present study advances youth work theory.

Author Response

Thank you for the review and your comments, please see the responses below:

We would like to point out that whilst this is not an article that is associated with the collection of primary data and its associated methodology/findings sections etc - this is most definitely an article – many published articles, particularly those associated with policy critiques (or indeed theoretical insights) do not involve primary data and therefore take a different format, as you yourself acknowledge. The article is analytical and uses a historical and philosophical framework to offer a detailed critique of the formation of European youth work policy and notably the absence of friendship within it. It provides a comprehensive review of contemporary European youth work policy documents and associated reports.  It also draws on a variety of secondary sources to support the argument that friendship is both an important attribute of youth work and therefore ought to be incorporated into European policy on youth work. This may not be a traditional article based on primary research BUT this doesn't mean that this article, which uses a wide variety of important secondary sources, and offers new and important insights and critiques, does not have merit and we suggest therefore it is worthy of academic publication.  

Your review correctly points out however that the paper leaves much of the approach taken implicit and it does therefore need an introduction to explain the approach taken and this has been added.

Furthermore, it is beyond the scope of the article to provide a detailed explanation of the practice implications of embracing friendship in youth work. Plus, this is to a large extent an empirical question However, the paper evidences the importance of friendship to young people in a variety of extensive studies and provides an extensive historical and philosophical grounding of the importance of friendship to youth work and this is sufficient to argue that this is something missing in contemporary European youth work policy.

All substantive sections of the article have been adequately referenced.

Reviewer 3 Report

When we look at friendship as a concept, it is a mutual relationship that is basically egalitarian in that it only can be sustained if both parties agree and remain committed to it, and it is based on shared positive emotional experiences.  As such it is in many ways a reflection of primary ties, or ties within what Durkheim might term Mechanical Solidarity that provides a firm sense of self, and in maintaining such relationships we reinforce our sense of self and self worth as being worth maintaining a committed relationship with.  The absence of friendships can then be seen as lacking this value of self and being, and can easily be seen as leading to isolation, lack of self worth, and loneliness becomes a symptom of this lack.  This lack then disassociates the person from the community within which they reside which creates a lack of social control.  The bonds of mechanical solidary and repressive laws is the basic universal norms that everyone is supposed to abide by and directly connects us to one another, making us a part of the community.  Hence friendship can be seen in modern times as an essential component of tying individuals to the community in a positive fashion.  By making youth work more bureaucratically defined and seen as purely functional in a client defined manner, this makes it Organic solidarity, which does not have the emotional foundation, and makes the person a type or category rather than a person who shares a community in common with direct ties.  Secondary ties while useful do not serve to define the core self, but rather are manifestations that support the core self without defining it.  As such the argument for the importance of friendship might be related back to Durkheim's notions of solidarity, or White's notions of identity and control.  This can also be related to Hirschi's Social Control Theory and the need for commitment and engagement as preventative to deviance by creating a pressure or force for conformity and belonging through positive social ties.  Friendship involves this commitment and engagement by its nature and hence can be seen as an important component of connecting youth to community.

Author Response

This is a very thought-provoking and insightful observation utilizing a sociological frame of reference to analyze friendship.  Our article is however based on a detailed historical and philosophical framework and it is beyond its scope to further incorporate this additional approach, This would no doubt offer a very interesting paper to add to the critique of the absence of friendship in European youth work and would present an interesting basis from which to argue for its further importance, considerably adding to the debate. I wonder if the editors of the special edition would be interested…?