A number of services within society are designed to improve the wellbeing of its members and transform lives. Some services focus on protection and support of vulnerable members of society, for example, those suffering the effects of drug use, mental health conditions, violence, or poverty. Clients of such social services may also come from minority or marginalised cultural backgrounds. Typically, social services aim to reduce disparities and enhance individual and population wellbeing. A major challenge for social policy makers and social service providers is to establish and maintain constructive engagement between the social services and those they are intended to serve. Some of these vulnerable clients are deemed 'hard-to-reach' (HTR) by policy makers and service providers. Yet, the transformation of lives requires the involvement of the focal actor (client) and their service or activity system, as well as the engagement of other actors, such as the social worker embedded in their service or activity system. This paper aims to further unpack a novel approach, called integrative transformative service framework. It extends its conceptualisation which fuses mainly three different approaches, namely Transformative Service Research (TSR), (Cultural-Historical) Activity Theory (CHAT) as well as (Regulatory) Engagement Theory (RET). By focusing on TSR, the paper identifies theoretical gaps in the framework and highlights the requirements of HTR which necessitate the inclusion of the two other concepts. Hence, the present paper continues 3 theory development. It parallels in more detail the three concepts to highlight their emergent links. This is to further establish the foundations for this novel approach and to amend its conceptual shortcomings. This leads to an extension of the framework to assist scholars and practitioners concerned with the transformation of actors' lives who face social issues.
Calls for transformation, transformative research, and transformational impact are increasingly heard from governments, industry, and universities to recast a course towards sustainability. This paper retraces a social, qualitative, and interpretive research endeavor to contribute to broadening the conceptual base of transformation. Drawing on perspectives of practitioners involved in working with communities to bring about change in how land and water are managed, the objective of the research was to elicit a range of practice-based encounters of transformation to inform policy and theory. In identifying precursors and processes for change, the findings bring into view the often unseen internal and experiential dimensions of transformation. As such, the research provides insights on where transformation takes place, what the first step of transformation might look like, and what might be deemed transformational. The paper also builds on social practice theory to produce an explanatory model of transformational capacity that is enabled and constrained by structures, processes, understanding, and authority that impact on social practices of knowledge generation (including science) and land and water decision-making.
The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.
This article describes a process for stimulating engagement among change agents to develop a shared understanding of systemic problems in the agricultural innovation system (AIS), challenge prevalent institutional logics and identify actions they might undertake to stimulate system innovation. The process included (i) multiple actors from the AIS, (ii) reflexivity regarding underlying institutional logics, (iii) an iterative process of practical experimentation to challenge current practices and (iv) actions to encourage generative collaboration. Problem structuring supported change agents' development of a shared understanding of systemic problems and the role that interrelationships, perspectives and boundaries play in reinforcing or destabilizing current practices and institutional logics. Involving multiple actors from the AIS in challenging underlying institutional logics and encouraging collaboration appeared to stimulate project-level actions and recognition of wider AIS barriers. Collective system analyses for addressing structural changes, including the potential for system innovation, were beneficial. Simultaneously resolving innovation project actions with AIS actions remains a challenge.
He is currently working toward validating whole-genome sequencing methodologies targeting viral pathogens for implementation into a public health diagnostic service. References 1. Armstrong C, Lillie RD. Experimental lymphocytic choriomeningitis of monkeys and mice produced by a virus encountered in studies of the 1933 St. Louis encephalitis epidemic.
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.