Purpose Persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) who offend are treated differently depending on the national jurisdiction. Norway and Denmark are two such examples. The differences in care models may also have an impact on staff perspectives. This paper aims to study the differences between Norwegian and Danish staff members within secure forensic ID services. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study involving Norwegian (n = 145) and Danish staff (n = 279) in secure forensic learning disabilities services was conducted. The response rates were 50% in Denmark (n = 147) and 69% in Norway (n = 98), respectively. An electronic survey covering five sets of topics (demographic characteristics, working conditions, workplace culture, work motivation and work resilience) was used. The findings was statistically analysed using SPSS. Findings This study confirmed that staff in the two neighbouring countries have common conceptions of their employment. Danish staff were more exposed to violent incidents (t = 4.1(237); p < 0.001). There was greater concern with workplace safety in Denmark (t = 5.2(237); p < 0.001) compared to more team-based and rigid working conditions in Norway (t = −2.6(237); p < 0.01). Originality/value These differences are discussed in relation to some important national differences in a professional culture, educational systems, service organisation and legal issues that possibly add realistic explanations to the findings.
Based on the paradigm of social constructionism, this study includes a team of nine leaders who are involved as co-researchers in a narratively inspired action research project, with the aim of co-creating new opportunities within the notion of relational leading (Cunliffe and Eriksen 2011; Hersted and Gergen 2013; Hosking 2010). The article examines transcribed excerpts from a dialogical process in the “start-up phase” and discusses how the action researcher’s (the author’s) attention – inspired by relational ethical approaches (McNamee 2019) – can support future processes of co-creationThrough empirical analysis, the author focuses on action research in her own organization and highlights the attention paid to the insider action researcher’s ethical approach, as well as how to co-create dialogue. The study emphasizes how attention paid to ethical concerns in the dialogical process can expand the knowledge-building process through co-creation and help understand how a curious and exploratory approach to the facilitation of dialogues could support future processes of developing leadership in practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.