European Youth Work Developments and Challenges—A Meta-Synthesis

Abstract

Youth work has become a well-developed European field of activity in terms of structure and content, not at least since the adoption of the European Youth Work Agenda (2020). Through a meta-synthesis of three structural studies on youth work in Europe, this article provides three main considerations. Firstly, the article makes an analytical distinction between European youth work and youth work in Europe, thus clarifying the general concept of “youth work”. Secondly, this analytical distinction helps to systematise and classify the topics being dealt with by actors in the field of youth work: youth work as a European framework (role of European documents; transfer between levels; youth work in times of crises), youth work development at the national, regional and local level (youth work legal framework; funding; recognition, quality and professionalisation; innovations), and the multi-dimensional challenges of shrinking spaces for both young people and youth work (youth work as an independent field of action; shortage of skilled labour; austerity measures; young people moving away; rise of extremism). Thirdly, the discursive openings the different concepts and narratives of youth work can offer are outlined. In this way, the article hopes to contribute to the (further) development of youth work theory in Europe.

1. Introduction

The European discourse on youth work has gained considerable momentum over the last fifteen years. Throughout Europe, youth work has developed into a field of work firmly anchored in youth sector policy, operating in the triangle between specialist policy action, practice-oriented research and European-oriented practice. With the development of this discourse, the number of political documents and expert publications dealing with youth work as a contribution to societal issues as well as the structural facets of youth work has multiplied in recent years [1,2]. In addition to the political documents adopted by the Council of Europe [3] and the European Union (EU) [4] and the final declarations of the European Youth Work Conventions [5,6,7], the many publications of the Youth Partnership [8] are also very much worthy of a mention. Most recently, adopted and politically supported by the EU and the Council of Europe, respectively, the European Youth Work Agenda [7] defined eight youth work priority areas, thus providing a framework for the further development and strengthening of youth work in Europe.

The development of youth work into a distinct European field of action and policy can be categorised in four phases. The first phase marked the period up to the 1990s, when youth work received little attention at the European level and was primarily identified as a national practice. As such, youth work was a traditional, yet very heterogeneous work with, for and sometimes by young people, which was based on different practices, principles and pedagogical concepts in the individual countries [9,10]. What these practices have in common is they all providing spaces and bridges for young people [6], by offering young people opportunities to shape their own lives. In doing so, youth work is essentially a local practice, often framed in and funded by municipal, regional and national youth (work) policy.

A second phase started with the European Union’s Youth in Action programme [11], which promoted youth exchanges through youth work projects and study visits for youth workers. Parallel to these EU developments, the Council of Europe launched the so-called youth policy review missions in 1999, in which the youth policies—including youth work offers—of the member states were reviewed [12]. What the first and second phases have in common, however, is that although youth work received more attention at the European level over time, it was at the same time perceived primarily as part of a more general youth policy of the EU and Council of Europe, as well as its function as support and a method for achieving core European values such as intercultural understanding and peace [13].

The organisation of the 1st European Youth Work Convention and subsequent EU Resolution on youth work in 2010 marked the beginning of the third phase, and hence the establishment of youth work as a distinct field of European policy, research and practice [14]. It is characterised by the fact that youth work continues to be discussed as means supporting European values and goals, but at the same time youth work as a distinct profession is also taken into consideration [1]. As such, the focus is particularly on the quality of youth work [15], with reference to debates on recognition of youth work. The latter is expressed in the development of, among others, education and training of youth workers [16,17], ethical standards and practice [18,19] and competence models [20] such as the competence model under the European Training Strategy [21], as well as the impact of youth work [22]. In political terms, the Council of Europe Recommendation on youth work [3], followed 2024 by the EU Resolution on youth work policy in an empowering Europe [23], is the confirmation of this phase. In those documents, youth work is defined as a Europe-wide concept, which marks an independent field of action with its own principles and methods.

In recent years, a new phase in the development of youth work has emerged. Young people are faced with multiple crises and have to overcome them. As a safe space where young people can come together and try things out, youth work can support young people in this regard. At the same time, youth work is also operating in a constantly changing environment, where challenges such as digitalisation and media literacy, mental health and the social, educational and economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic through to climate change and war are directly influencing its design. Against this backdrop, a critical youth work movement is emerging [24,25]. It takes a critical look at existing youth work structures and questions whether they are suitable for dealing with young people’s life situations. This discourse discusses how a youth work profession should be organised in order to do justice to the changed life situations of young people.

Following the development of a European youth work policy, multiple questions on structure, organisation and content of youth work arise. One particular and returning question is how the ongoing discourse on youth work in Europe relates to local practice. It is a question that involves many others: questions of power and legitimacy, of relevance and significance, all of which are rooted in the distribution of competences between the European and national levels. At the same time, however, it also raises questions relating to thematic areas, co-operation and overlaps, which can be traced back to the diversity of the actors and levels involved. This article is an attempt to systematise European developments in the field of youth work on a conceptual level, gaining new insights from them. It is based on three European overview studies on youth work, in which the author was involved as a researcher (

Table 1. Studies selected for the meta-synthesis.

	State of Play of National Processes within the Bonn Process	Mapping European Youth Work Ecosystems	Review Council of Europe Recommendation on Youth Work CM/Rec(2017)4
Short name	Bonn-Process Study	Ecosystems Study	Review Study
Commissioned by	European Service Centre for the Bonn Process/JUGEND für Europa	Youth Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe	Council of Europe
Goal of the study	Detailed overview of the status of the national processes within the Bonn Process	Systematic overview of actors, linkages and thematic priorities of the European Youth Work ecosystem	Implementation of the Recommendation by member states and other Council of Europe actors
Period covered	April 2022–April 2023	January 2021–September 2023	June 2017–September 2023
Research focus	National implementation of the Bonn Process (25 processes in 23 countries)	Actors at European level (in particular the Steering Group on the European Youth Work Agenda)	National governments, youth department of the Council of Europe, international NGOs
Data collection method	Online survey (response N = 31)	Desk research; qualitative semi-structured interviews (N = 23); observation; validation workshop	Online survey (response N = 41); CDEJ tour de table (N = 46); review seminar; qualitative semi-structured interviews (N = 13)
Characteristics	Longitudinal	Structural focus	Political
Publication date	September 2023 [26]	Autumn 2024 [27]	October 2023 [28]

). While working on the studies, the author observed that all studies dealt with similar topics, albeit reflected upon from different perspectives. After conclusion of the studies, the author proceeded with a synthesis of the research to get new insights. Methodologically, a meta-synthesis approach was followed in the analysis. The main question of the synthesis was which central debates dominate the European youth work discourse from a structural perspective, and which new insights can be derived from that.

In the following, the studies used for the analysis are presented, followed by synthesis as a methodological approach for analysis (Section 2). The results of the synthesis are then outlined, and youth work is conceptualised on the basis of a tripartite division between youth work in Europe, transnational youth work, and European youth work (Section 3.1). This is followed by a discussion of the three main sets of issues according to which the European discourse on youth work can be categorised (Section 3.2). These are the European framework, the national development of youth work, and challenges of youth work. The fourth chapter goes on to examine the results of the synthesis against the background of the discursive openings offered by the different concepts and narratives of youth work. In the conclusion, among others, the methodological approach of synthesising one’s own research is reflected upon.

2. Materials and Methods

This article summarises and reanalyses the results of three European youth work studies (Table 1). The author of the article was involved in all three studies and thus became aware of their overlaps—both in their scope as well as their results. All studies reflected upon similar issues, albeit from different perspectives. What the three studies have in common is, first of all, their European focus. Second, they all analyse structural aspects of youth work, like coordination structures, cooperation and general thematic priorities. Adding to that, none of the three studies discuss the practice of youth work. The thematic overlaps and different angles of the studies raised the question as to which similarities and differences can be recognised with respect to the structural and implementation issues at the various levels (European and national) and what this means for the further development of youth work in Europe. To investigate this question, the author of the article proceeded with a meta-synthesis after the three studies had been completed.

Synthesis as a Method of Analysis

The analysis of the results of the three studies is based on the method of a qualitative meta-synthesis. A qualitative meta-synthesis aims to systematically analyse the data and results of different studies in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of the issues analysed. The aim of a meta-synthesis is thus not to summarise the results of different studies, but to reconceptualise and interpret them in order to gain new insights into the phenomenon under investigation, going beyond the conclusions and results of the individual studies. It thus contributes to theory building, theory explication and theory development. While it is already widely used in health research, initial approaches to conducting meta-synthesis in social work [29] have also been made. Methodologically, a meta-synthesis is closely related to and grounded in meta-ethnography, meta-analysis and grounded theory [30,31].

The synthesis carried out for this article differs from a meta-synthesis in that the documents were not selected systematically based on predetermined, neutral criteria, but rather the author’s involvement in all three studies was decisive. In the search for a method of re-analysing the results of the three studies, the meta-analysis was chosen. It has the advantage of offering a method systematically analysing the findings of different studies over and above a mere summary of the results.

The meta-synthesis was prompted by the results of all three studies, which indicated that national, regional and local levels in Europe have varying degrees of difficulty firstly in grasping the European debate on youth work and secondly in using it for their own work and discourses. The question of “why” was the main focus of the meta-synthesis: what indications do the results of the three studies give regarding similarities and differences between national and European debates, and what does this mean for the development of youth work in Europe? This resulted in several specific research questions:

• Why is a distinction made between European and national discourse, and what is its significance?
• Which discourses take place at which level, and what are the similarities and differences between the discourses?
• Where do the different discourses offer opportunities for the further development of youth work in Europe?

The meta-synthesis involved three steps.

Firstly, the central topics common to all three studies were identified. These were the conceptualisation of youth work, expectations, and challenges. The topics were deliberately formulated in such a general way so as to give space to the different layers of the study results. Secondly, the results of the studies, as presented in the respective publications, were classified into these three categories. The results that could not be classified into any of the three categories were collected for later analysis in a fourth category entitled “other”. Thirdly, each category was analysed individually. Finally, as a fourth step, the results of the individual steps were linked to each other. The resulting synthesis provided new insights into the European youth work discourse. These are presented below.

3. Results of the Meta-Synthesis

What the three studies have in common is that they all focus on the field of youth work without discussing or developing this field conceptually. While the review study [28] draws on its own institutional definition and context [3], the Bonn-Process study and the ecosystems study [26,27] take the European Youth Work Agenda [4,7] as their starting point. Combining these starting points offers different perspectives and topics for the youth work discourse. The meta-synthesis twice identified three strands of discussion. In this respect, a first result of the meta-synthesis is that it is not possible to speak of “the” youth work discourse, but rather of several different discourses which are all interrelated. Youth work in non-English languages is often a synonym for the European discourse, and must thus be broken down accordingly, disentangling the various strands of discussion that are implicitly and explicitly addressed in the studies.

Firstly, the discourse on youth work can be viewed from three different perspectives: European, transnational or within Europe. This results in three different concepts of youth work which are decisive for the second line of discussion, that of thematic complexes. The studies reveal three thematic complexes that are the subject of the youth work discourse: the European framework, national development and the challenges. Each of these strands of discourse is discussed below.

3.1. Perspectives on Youth Work

The analysis of the youth work discourse in terms of perspective arises from the discussion of what youth work is conceptually and how European developments can be integrated into the national discourses, concepts and practices of youth work. Whilst many handbooks and best practice examples developed, presented and published at the European level focus on local practice, they remain European publications. What does local youth work actually gain from the adoption of a European Youth Work Agenda or recommendation on youth work and the publications that subsequently appear in the publication offices of the European institutions? The results of the studies show that there are two answers to this question, based on the state of the youth work system in the country it is in. The review study [28] differentiates between established and emerging youth work systems, a dichotomy which is differentiated further still in other research. Tomi Kiilakoski, for example, refers to four types of youth work practice architectures, based on things such as the existence and forms of youth work legislation, education, and associations [32].

Particularly in Western and Central European countries with a long and legally, structurally and institutionally anchored youth work tradition, the question of the relevance of European documents and publications reveals a somewhat defensive attitude, claiming that European concepts and documents have no or hardly any added value to existing (local) youth work traditions. However, this attitude is contrasted with a more welcoming attitude in countries in which youth work is neither enshrined in law nor financially supported by the state. In such “emerging systems” [28], European documents are both frameworks and signposts for the development of local youth work and national youth work policy.

This dichotomy between established and emerging youth work systems and their reactions towards European developments shows the need for a conceptualisation of youth work that goes beyond a common political understanding as set out in the Council of Europe Recommendation on Youth Work [3]. A distinction between the different concepts of youth work helps to clarify the importance of the concept of youth work and the European Youth Work Agenda for different levels and groups of stakeholders, on the one hand, and to systematise and classify the issues that stakeholders deal with, on the other.

The European narrative on youth work is twofold. This became visible in the first [5] and second [6] European Youth Work Convention. Youth work in Europe shares common ground but is practiced diversely. As such, “Youth work” is an English term that now refers to the practices of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe and the other three signatories to the European Cultural Convention. These countries have different understandings of what “youth work” is, and different traditions in which it is rooted [10]. However, over time, the term “youth work” has become the common denominator whenever those who work with young people meet and exchange views on practices using English as their common language.

A common European understanding of youth work, as well as a narrative of a European common ground [6] with respect to youth work, has evolved from the endeavours of the European Union and the Council of Europe, and through their Partnership in the field of youth (hereafter Youth Partnership). Their documents on youth work [1,2,8] have helped to establish a European narrative of youth work as a field of work in its own right, rather than a method to enhance peace, integration or social inclusion, to name just a few of the general goals and principles of the two institutions [1,27,28]. An important conclusion made after synthesising the three studies is that “youth work” has three different conceptualisations. Within each of the conceptualisations, youth work should be seen as a spectrum, as an umbrella that endeavours to find a common concept for work with, for and by young people and to advance the quality of this work in Europe, with the various challenges that all this entails.

3.1.1. Youth Work in Europe

Firstly, there is the diversity of youth work policy and practice within Europe that characterises the concept of “Youth Work in Europe”. This concept is based less on a universal definition than on a spectrum of subject-oriented work by, with and for young people, which aims to create opportunities for young people to shape their own future. The concept “Youth Work in Europe” refers to the diversity of national infrastructures, traditions and perspectives within Europe which are described, for example, in the History of Youth Work series of the Youth Partnership [9]. Even though the three studies in the meta-synthesis often refer to national youth work, the concept of “Youth Work in Europe” is by no means limited to the national level. Youth work takes place primarily at the local level, and the discourses that take place in Europe are accordingly located at the national, regional, municipal and local levels.

3.1.2. Transnational Youth Work

The second concept of youth work is “transnational youth work”. This is the result of countries or regions coming together to exchange views and participate in peer learning activities. Firmly anchored in the wide diversity of national infrastructures, traditions and perspectives, transnational youth work looks for synergies between them and develops new, transnational approaches and methods through exchange. In contrast to Youth work in Europe, it leaves the purely national level to develop new methods and approaches in comparison and co-operation with other countries. It is rooted in transnational youth organisations [33], but also often based on peer learning activities, it goes beyond these and focusses on collaborative development of youth work. At the same time, transnational youth work differs from European youth work in that it does not necessarily refer to the European concept of youth work. Such approaches can for example be found in transnational projects funded by the EU Erasmus+ programme on youth. A particular example is the research project on the impact of youth work, which in 2018, based on a study in five European countries, presented a qualitative participatory method measuring the impact of youth work on the lives of young people [22].

3.1.3. European Youth Work

The third concept is that of “European youth work”. It describes the youth work discourse taking place both within and between the European institutions and their European partners. It includes national governments as members of the Youth Working Party (EU) and the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ of the Council of Europe). These debates are expressed in policy documents of the EU and the Council of Europe, as well as in the publications and activities of these institutions, their partners and their projects. In this sense, European youth work is primarily intended as a particular approach to policy, although it provides studies, manuals, toolkits and trainings to contribute to the development of youth work practice. What is important in this distinction between European youth work and youth work in Europe is that the debate takes place at the European level and has no direct interaction with national discourses, apart from in the examples cited above. This also explains the difference between transnational and European youth work: while transnational youth work is initiated by individual countries or regions, European youth work is decisively driven by the European institutions and pan-European organisations.

These three conceptualisations of youth work are all logical and, as such, nothing new. They even overlap at their edges. However, together and in relation to each other, they form a European youth work cosmos or ecosystem which on the one hand is closely interrelated, but on the other hand is also characterised by the distinct differences between them. The distinction between these three concepts of youth work therefore helps by positioning different discourses in Europe at different levels, interlinking them with each other (cf. Section 3.2), both in relation to demarcation and to harmonisation (cf. Section 4). It thus forms a first conceptual framework for the development of a cross-level youth work theory, which includes not only practice-orientated but also political aspects.

3.2. Content Complexes of Youth Work Discourse

The youth work discourse has evolved considerably over the years. Under the influence of European developments, including the adoption of the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Youth Work [3] and the European Youth Work Agenda [4,7], the pan-European significance and approaches, which each country may also implement on their own, have become increasingly clear. Each of the three studies attempts to provide an overview in their own way. Nevertheless, three sets of issues could be identified as dominating the youth work discourse at the European, transnational and national level.

3.2.1. A European Political and Professional Framework

The first set of issues understands youth work as a political and professional framework for European, national and transnational developments. It is accompanied by three discussions that are different at the European level and within Europe.

An initial discussion centres on European documents—in particular the European Youth Work Agenda [4,7] and the Council of Europe Recommendation on Youth Work [3]—as a political framework. At the European level, these frameworks lead to implementation issues, i.e., the question as to what contribution the European level can and should make [27,28]. The thematic focus of the European level is taken into account (which topics can be dealt with at the European level) as well as an actor-centred debate, where questions arise about competences (who does what?), cooperation, and also demarcations.

In the interaction between the levels, the question of the relevance and significance of European documents for youth work processes in Europe also plays an important role [26,28]. The question of relevance is addressed in national processes in particular. With regard to the European Youth Work Agenda, “making the Agenda known” seems to be a common expression for the preliminary stage of implementation. In many countries it is less a question of implementing the Agenda than of publicising the Agenda in the first place. The complexity of the Bonn Process as the implementation process of the European Youth Work Agenda is perceived as an obstacle to the actual implementation [34]. At the same time, national actors criticise the fact that on the one hand the implementation of youth work processes is nationally bound, while on the other hand there is often a lack of political interest within the country to engage more intensively with (European) youth work processes [26].

This leads to the second discussion which deals with the transfer between the levels. In European countries there is a debate about how European institutions and developments can influence the actions of national, regional and local authorities, and to what extent this is desirable and acceptable [35,36] for youth policy [37]. At the same time, the question arises as to how European institutions and developments can support the lobbying work of local non-governmental organisations. In the European discussion on transfer, the main focus is on how European developments can provide impetus down to local level youth work [26,27,28].

The third discussion that is taking place within the European framework can be roughly summarised under the heading “Youth work in times of crisis”. In the countries of Europe, the consequences of the various crises of recent years (the Great Recession, climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and its consequences, etc.) are being discussed primarily in terms of the impact of these crises on young people on the one hand and youth work as a profession and social structure on the other (for example on COVID-19, see [38]), both positively and negatively. At the European level, the discussion tends to take place at a meta-level. The consequences of these crises for youth work are discussed, as are forms of European support. Particular emphasis is placed on finding ways in which youth work can be made more visible in times of crisis [28].

3.2.2. National Development of Youth Work

The second content-related set of issues deals with the (further) development of youth work. This set of issues has both a structural and a thematic component. The structural component consists of three topics: the legal framework, funding and the practice-oriented discourse on recognition, quality and professionalisation. Within Europe, the diverse development of a legal framework for youth work is evident. On the one hand, this consists of youth work as a structure and youth workers as a profession being enshrined in law. In Eastern and Southeastern Europe in particular, there are movements to promote the introduction of laws relating to youth work at the national level based on European policy documents [39,40]. On the other hand, efforts are being made throughout Europe to develop youth work strategies. At the European level, these efforts are supported by the development of guidelines and other forms of support, such as the policy advice missions of the Council of Europe. European policy documents serve as an example and an incentive to push for legal anchors and are often used by non-governmental organisations as an advocacy tool at the national level [27,28].

Closely related to this is the discussion about recognising youth work as an independent field of work [41]. This is structured differently in the European countries due to the above-mentioned distinction between emerging and established youth work systems (see Section 3.1) [28]. The meta-synthesis shows that the recognition of youth work in youth work systems that are in the process of being established is primarily discussed in the context of legal anchoring. Political and social recognition is made possible by the fact that youth work is mentioned as a field of work within a legal framework and that specific principles and strategies are developed for this field of work. In many established youth work systems, this political and social recognition is often already in place. Here the meta-synthesis identifies a different debate in which the recognition of youth work is discussed with respect to its demarcation between and cooperation with other policy fields. The focus here is on the recognition of the performance and effects of youth work and its importance for the development of young people, not only by politics and society, but by the sectors that work directly with young people (i.e., education, employment and health) in particular. The European level supports both approaches by promoting a discourse on the quality and professionalisation of youth work [26,27,28]. Competence models for youth workers are being developed and criteria and practices of youth worker education are being discussed [32]. Recently, this has also included the categorisation of existing competence recognition models, the development of new models and the definition of ethical standards for youth workers [18].

The third structural component is the question of how youth work is funded. This is seen as a challenge in the countries of Europe (see Section 3.2.3). The meta-synthesis reveals that in many European countries there is a lack of funding for youth work or, in countries where the structures are not well established, there is no national funding for youth work at all. An important issue is therefore the search for sources of funding that go beyond national, regional and local funding. European youth funding programmes such as Erasmus+ can play a role here [42]. At the European level, the role that Erasmus+, the European Youth Foundation and other funding programmes such as the European Social Fund can play in the further development and strengthening of youth work is also being discussed [27,28].

A final thematic component of the set of issues on national youth work development is often referred to as “innovations” [43], particularly in the context of the European Youth Work Agenda [26,27]. Digitalisation and the development of artificial intelligence are the main “new” topics being discussed [44]. In Europe, new forms of youth work and the influence of these forms on existing forms of youth work are discussed against this background, while at the European level the focus is primarily on knowledge processing and the subsequent development of new policy documents such as recommendations and conclusions. Other topics that make up the thematic component of discourse but are only given an individual mention in the three studies are the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for youth work (including mental health) [38,45], sustainability and green youth work [46,47] and the consequences of the war in Ukraine [48] as well as other political crises for youth work [49].

3.2.3. Multi-Dimensional Challenges

The third set of issues identified in the meta-synthesis is the multi-dimensional challenges of shrinking spaces for young people and youth work. These challenges are multi-dimensional and show an interaction between youth work in Europe, where the challenges are named and addressed, and on the European level, where they are taken up, responded to and addressed through measures. All these challenges can be grouped under the heading “shrinking spaces”. These challenges are created by both the shortage of spaces for youth work to offer programmes and the shortage of spaces for the young people themselves to take up the offer of youth work programmes.

The first major challenge that the meta-synthesis identifies across all three studies concerns the recognition of youth work as an independent field of action. It is neither just a part of social work, nor is it merely a method of achieving larger societal goals such as inclusion, although it can contribute substantially to such goals. There are still major differences in Europe, despite the fact that the 1st European Youth Work Convention was held almost fifteen years ago. This has led to discussions as well as developments relating to legal anchoring, recognition of the profession of youth worker, and communication and cooperation with other sectors. It is hoped that the search for and development of qualitative and quantitative indicators [26] will help answer the question as to whether the impact of youth work can be used as an argument for the importance of youth work for young people on the one hand and society as a whole on the other.

The second related challenge is the shortage of skilled labour [26,50]. This covers a range of issues, all of which are connected with the difficulty of finding and retaining both paid and volunteer youth workers. This challenge begins with the fact that although the term “youth worker” is defined at the European level [16,17], in many countries it is not recognised as an independent occupational group, or it is used to describe a collection of different professions that involve working with children and young people [32]. A related discourse is found in the problem of the high turnover of youth workers, many of whom are turning to teaching professions due to the increased workload during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of recognition, which is often reflected in relatively poor pay, reinforces this dynamic, as do the austerity measures being implemented in many social services areas, including the youth work sector.

These austerity measures represent the third challenge faced by the youth work sector [51]. Although the reasons for implementing austerity measures vary greatly—from neoliberal arguments in favour of less state involvement to the simple fact of having to close public meeting places during the COVID-19 pandemic and the observation that some youth centres have since remained closed—the impact is the same in most places. There are fewer opportunities for young people to meet, try things out and develop their personalities.

The fourth challenge facing youth work also concerns closures, but for different reasons. Particularly in rural areas, youth work programmes are closing or being shut down because young people are moving away and there are simply not enough young people who could attend such programmes. At the same time, this situation could open up new paths, for example the development of mobile programmes for young people in the different countries [52].

The fifth challenge limiting the scope of youth work reflects a very worrying trend. It is the rise of extremism and autocratic tendencies. This leads to conflicts, for example between politics and youth work, about what youth work can achieve and what it should be used for. Youth work can either become a place where the principles of democracy are learnt, or a place where young people are educated in civic obedience. At the same time, youth work is increasingly having to deal with social conflicts between groups of young people which, in turn, have an impact on youth work programmes [53]. On the one hand, this means that more attention is given to the role of youth work in the context of conflict transformation. On the other hand, it means that in countries that have taken in refugees, youth work has to deal with conflicts within the services it offers [49], e.g., conflicts between young Russians and Ukrainians or between Jewish and Muslim young people.

Each of these challenges is reflected directly or indirectly at the European level. At this level, youth work has only been considered an independent field of action and its position cemented by promoting its quality and professionalism since the 2010s. Financial cuts (or the threat of them) in the youth sector are a real danger at the European level, especially in the Council of Europe, as shown by the 2019 contingency plan [54]. However, since the war in Ukraine, the issue of youth work in war zones has received special attention in the work of the Youth Partnership, which is the co-operation between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of youth. Nevertheless, the meta-synthesis shows that the role of the European level in the challenges mentioned here is primarily one of counteraction and support. The challenges are addressed and often dealt with through political measures such as recommendations and conclusions. The Council of Europe also deploys policy advice missions which support countries in the further development of their youth work [28]. By commissioning research and offering various massive open online courses, training and further education are also supported, while networking, for example within the Alliance of National Youth Worker Associations, supports the professionalisation of the field. Last but not least, all three studies emphasise that the European funding instruments, which finance projects as well as courses and, in some cases, even structural organisations, are an important building block in the further development of youth work.

Overall, the findings of the meta-synthesis show how youth work has developed into a policy field in its own right over the years, not only in European countries but also at the European level. In practice, it is distinct from social work, and in policy from more general social policy and youth policy approaches. In research, it shows clear boundaries to youth and youth policy research. The identification of three concepts of youth work and how these concepts discuss different content and challenges contributes in two ways to advance the theory in the field of youth work. Firstly, the findings show that a professionalisation of the field is taking place at different levels, in which both existing, developing and emerging practice in Europe is supported by (European) policy. The result is a European framework of reference emphasising the unique nature of the field at the European, transnational and national level. Secondly, the differentiation of topics and challenges according to levels helps to visualise different approaches and to examine them from national, trans-national and European perspectives. However, it remains to be seen how the different circumstances within countries will affect the cross-level discourse. The results of the studies only provide initial indications of this. The following section provides exemplary evidence of how this complexity of a cross-level youth work discourse can contribute in different ways to strengthening national youth work narratives. In this sense, the conceptualisation presented here should be understood as a framework that can be sharpened and expanded with further research.

4. Demarcation and Harmonisation in Youth Work Narratives

When the different perspectives and topics are brought together, a complex discourse emerges. This begins with the fact that, on the one hand, different topics are on the agenda at one level, and on the other hand, the similar topics are discussed on different levels. This means that the youth work discourse has a horizontal and a vertical dimension interlinked at certain points. The result is a narrative that makes “youth work” more than just an English-language collective term for work with, by and for young people. European youth work has developed into an independent field of action and exists alongside and in dialogue with national fields of action.

At the same time, this narrative also leads to demarcations which can be visualised using Germany as an example. Germany is a country that is categorised as “established” in the review study [28] and as having a “strong practice architecture” in Tomi Kiilakoski’s study on the practice architectures of youth work [32]. The differentiated practice is accompanied by established research and policies that are legally anchored. What “youth work” is and what forms it takes is specified by law. Youth work offers “should tie in with the interests of young people and be co-determined and co-designed by them, empower them to self-determination and encourage and lead them to social co-responsibility and social commitment” [55] (p. 11). It differs from youth social work which “offers young people who are in need of increased support to compensate for social disadvantages or to overcome individual impairments socio-pedagogical assistance within the framework of youth welfare, which promotes their school and vocational training, integration into the world of work and their social integration” [55] (p. 13).

However, the distinction between “Jugendarbeit” (youth work) and “Jugendsozialarbeit” (youth social work) is not made in the European youth work discourse, nor is it in many other European countries. In order to make the different discourses clearly visible and to differentiate between them, many decision makers, researchers and practitioners in Germany have switched to using the English term “youth work” for the European discourse, adopting the definition of youth work as used in the EU [4] and the Council of Europe [3], rather than using translations. As explained above, its direct translation “Jugendarbeit” is traditionally defined more narrowly in Germany.

The attempt to distinguish national and European practice along linguistic and definitional lines may perhaps be a peculiarity of the German discourse. At the same time, this example shows that a discourse on the demarcation, delimitation and independence of existing concepts can also be enriching. This is because it forces decision makers, youth workers and researchers alike to scrutinise used concepts and develop them further where necessary. In fact, this is the ongoing situation in Europe: in the (further) development of youth work, both in practice and conceptually, there is a constant negotiation between the understandings and concepts of the different countries. These negotiation processes take place not only at the political level—e.g., in the Youth Working Party of the EU or the European Steering Committee for Youth of the Council of Europe—but also in practice. This is where the diversity of different methods and approaches is not only accepted, but often discussed as providing “best practice examples”.

In contrast to the practice of demarcation, there is a practice of harmonisation. Although both the EU and the Council of Europe have no legislative powers in the field of youth or youth work, which is particularly emphasised in the ecosystem [27] and review [28] studies, a practice of approximation and harmonisation can indeed be observed. The result is not only the emergence of a European youth work narrative, but in many countries also a stronger orientation of national youth work practice towards the European level.

Both the Council of Europe Recommendation on Youth Work [3] and the European Youth Work Agenda [4,7] are prime examples of tools for such harmonisation. The Recommendation set the tone on a definition level, unifying an otherwise quite scattered field through the definition of a common ground and principles. It has often served as an implicit guideline and a reference document, and in some cases, like in Serbia, even as an explicit framework for the future shape of the country’s national youth work policy [12,28]. This was followed by the European Youth Work Agenda, which mainly involved the formulation of eight priority areas of youth work. In many countries, these eight priority areas serve as a checklist for youth work development [26,34,50].

Against the background of the observed practice of demarcation and harmonisation on the one hand, and the observed division of Europe between established and emerging youth work systems on the other, the following assumption can be made. Demarcation takes place primarily in countries with an established youth work system, while harmonisation is particularly evident in countries with emerging youth work systems. Considering the European Youth Work Agenda as an overarching umbrella, the assumption can be substantiated to the extent that, in addition to the example from Germany given above, countries with a pronounced—albeit very different—youth work structure, such as Finland, the United Kingdom and France, have little in common with the Agenda [26]. Countries that are categorised as belonging to Southeastern Europe and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus tend to have emerging or developing youth work structure, using European documents as a reference for the development of national legislation and practice [28,39,40].

By and large, however, this boundary between demarcation and harmonisation runs not only between established and emerging youth work structures, but also, although less visible, between EU and non-EU countries. Countries in the EU have long been supported in the further development of youth work through funding programmes such as Erasmus+ and its predecessors. EU frameworks, such as those found in the EU Youth Strategy, strive for cooperation that will ultimately contribute to European cohesion. At the same time, such frameworks enable reflection on the opportunities and challenges of and even demarcations from such European frameworks against the background of national youth work. Nevertheless, a trend has been visible in recent years, whereby, on the one hand, the EU promotes youth work developments beyond EU borders and, on the other hand, the cooperation between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in their Partnership in the field of youth (Youth Partnership) places a focus on non-EU countries. Both trends strengthen harmonisation rather than demarcation.

With its Eastern Partnership, the EU aims to strengthen and deepen political and economic relations between the European Union, its member states and six Eastern European and South Caucasian “partner countries”. Among other things, it is focussing on society, in which individual mobility opportunities are created, especially for young people and youth workers. Within the EU funding programme Erasmus+, the strategic cooperation project of the network of National Agencies “Growing Youth Work” describes itself as supporting and enhancing national processes at the implementation of the European Youth Work Agenda, in order to strengthen the recognition and further development of youth work throughout Europe. Its events and offers are explicitly aimed not only at the countries with a National Agency, but also at the “neighbouring partner countries” [56]. In addition, as one of the coordinating bodies for the implementation of the European Youth Work Agenda in Europe [23,27], the Youth Partnership focuses on the regions of Southeast Europe and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. This focus also stems from the different starting points for youth work after the post-socialist transition. In comparison to most EU countries, fundamental European principles of youth work, like democracy and participation, do not have a long-standing tradition in these regions. In some countries, the authorities are heavily involved in the provision of youth work, while in others youth work is the task of civil society. In some countries, youth work is now anchored in law, while other countries have neither a definition nor a concept of what youth work entails. However, the development of European youth work has in many cases triggered policy initiatives regarding youth work law and strategy, standards for youth work delivery as well as educational and occupational standards of youth workers [16,17]. By using European developments as a reference, a certain European cohesion, reflected in national practices and laws, can emerge.

Intentionally or non-intentionally, the development of European youth work leads to national discourses developing into new—transnational and European—discourses, ideally empowering existing ones. Against the backdrop of the multi-dimensional challenges of shrinking spaces for young people and youth work (see Section 3.2.3), this offers the opportunity to forge new alliances or reinforce existing ones, thereby strengthening the political and social position of youth work, both in Europe and at the European level.

5. Conclusions

Youth work has arrived at the heart of European youth policy. The results of the meta-synthesis show that, on the one hand, youth work has developed into a distinct practice with its own structures, challenges and issues. At the same time, the studies also show that youth work has established itself as an independent field of research. This article contributes to this by firstly making an analytical distinction between the various youth work concepts—European youth work, transnational youth work and youth work in Europe. While European youth work encompasses the discourses on youth work driven by the two major European institutions, the Council of Europe and the European Union, youth work in Europe looks at the organisation of youth work structures and practices within the European countries. Transnational youth work combines both levels by bringing together national perspectives and developing new approaches. This analytical distinction helps to identify the discourses of the individual levels more clearly as a field of policy, practice and research and at the same time to link them with each other.

Secondly, this article contributes to the establishment of youth work as a separate field of research and action by identifying thematic fields of action of youth work and thus distinguishing between the European framework, the national development of youth work, and the multi-dimensional challenges of “shrinking spaces”, which can be found in all three contexts. With this identification, it becomes clear that European youth work is perceived more as a policy framework than as a practice, while the national developments relate in particular to the structural framework of the practice. Both have to struggle with the same—but differently organised—challenges. In this way, the article also sketches the breadth and depth of the field of research and action.

Nevertheless—and this is the greatest limitation of the meta-synthesis—the results presented here can only be regarded as a snapshot of a larger discourse. The three studies contributed to the development of an analytical framework, presenting tendencies and theses. However, due to the limited selection of studies as a basis for the synthesis, the framework, tendencies and theses require verification on the basis of further studies. In addition, the research questions of the three studies, which were all structural and focused on implementation issues, largely ignored other aspects of youth work developments, in particular the discourse on professionalisation and recognition. Here, too, it would be interesting to examine the extent to which this discourse can be integrated into the conceptual-analytical framework presented here.

Finally, four dimensions of reflection—methodological, conceptual, content-related and structural—emerge out of the meta-synthesis, each with its own conclusions.

In the context of methodological reflection, the question arises as to what can be learnt from using a meta-synthesis of one’s own work as a researcher. In the present case, the meta-synthesis helped to sharpen implicit arguments that were visible from the three studies but not necessarily explicitly formulated, and to compare tendencies that were present in individual studies and emphasise them across studies. One such example is the conceptualisation of youth work. Youth work and European youth work were used interchangeably in the studies, while at the same time it became implicitly clear that different assumptions are concealed under these terms depending on the context. Contextualising and categorising these different assumptions led to the categorisation presented here. The meta-synthesis method was helpful for the analysis because it offered a systematic way of sorting and re-categorising the existing material. This made it possible to reflect on one’s own work and make implicit assumptions explicit.

At the conceptual dimension, the question arises as to why the level of transnational youth work identified in the meta-analysis hardly plays a role in the remaining analysis of the study results. One reason for this could be that the studies are focussed primarily on European youth work and the implementation of European documents in Europe. In the context of the three studies and the questions they contain, both the authors and the interviewees may simply have lacked the sensitivity to take transnational youth work into account. Accordingly, it is only mentioned in passing, for example in the establishment of the Alliance for National Youth Work Organisations as a newly established transnational organisation. Another explanation could be that, given the challenges facing youth work in Europe, there is simply little time and resources for transnational youth work. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is also an opportunity in transnational youth work: new methods and approaches can be developed from joint peer-learning processes to counter the challenges described as “shrinking spaces”.

In terms of content, the meta-synthesis aimed to identify the content-related discourses—especially in the context of European youth work policy developments such as the European Youth Work Agenda—at different levels and to visualise differences, similarities and overlaps. Many of these topics may come as no surprise to readers who are familiar with youth work. Nevertheless, the results of the meta-synthesis have made it clear that although a keyword or challenge is usually addressed at all levels, these discourses differ from one another, i.e., they address different aspects. One example is the keyword recognition, which plays an almost inflationary role in many discourses. In youth work in Europe, for example, it is often seen as a condition for proper staffing and funding, while in European youth work, for example, possibilities for professionalising the field are discussed, with recognition of the field as the outcome [50]. By identifying different aspects of the same keyword or challenge on different levels, the results of the meta-synthesis contribute to making the totality of the discourse visible in all its relationships, delimitations and overlaps. At the same time, this also harbours further research potential. With regard to the example of recognition mentioned here, it would be worthwhile to examine its role as an independent and dependent—possibly even intervening—variable in the context of different levels.

A final conclusion relates to the structural level and deals with the transfer between levels. In terms of horizontal and vertical Europeanisation [57], most research to date, including the studies analysed here, has focused on how European youth work discourses influence national policies and practices. However, given the practices of demarcation and harmonisation identified in this article, it would be interesting to look at the reverse perspective. This could also provide clues as to the reasons for demarcation in particular. Is the European concept of youth work, as set out in the various policy documents [3,4,23], a truly European concept, or does it primarily reflect the national practices of certain countries under whose auspices these documents were drawn up? These questions were at most implicitly addressed in the meta-synthesis. However, they are highly relevant for explaining the relationship between European and national youth work policies. In the latest EU resolution on youth work, for example, there was a heated debate about the understanding of youth work as “playful usefulness and useful playfulness” [58] introduced by the Belgian Council Presidency, before it was included in the resolution. It remains to be seen to what extent the European discourse reflects national practices, and to what extent this in turn leads to the demarcation of national discourses from European discourses in other countries. This field of bottom-up transfer and the question of which youth work policy regime [14] is most likely to be reflected in European youth work would be a field of research in its own right.

This meta-synthesis has been an attempt to structure and systematise existing youth work discourse. It thus offers an overview that can be of particular use to those actors who work with and in European youth work policy and youth work policy in Europe from a structural perspective. At the same time, the meta-synthesis opens up new research perspectives, as the structural side of youth work, and in particular the connections between European and national developments, have hardly been researched to date. In this sense, this meta-synthesis is only intended as a first step, encouraging research that not only further develops youth work thematically, but above all also looks at the structural dimensions and interrelationships. It raises questions about the impact of European discourses on national policy, practice and research, but also questions about how national discourses contribute to the content of European topics and issues. Research on these interactions could help make the complexity of the European youth work policy system more visible and find ways of enhancing its impact, including research on questions that are all too relevant given the perennial debate on the recognition of the role of youth work in European society.