Coordinating co-production in complex network settings

Tuurnas, Sanna; Stenvall, Jari; Rannisto, Pasi-Heikki; Harisalo, Risto; Hakari, Kari

doi:10.1080/13691457.2014.930730

Cited by 24 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The author uses the metaphor of a cognitive mask to describe how social workers manage the dissonance arising from dilemmas inherent in the structure of their work and suggests how this mask could be removed. Tuurnas, Stenvall, Rannisto, Harisalo, and Hakari () underline that the complexity of interactions among street‐level workers and detached professional frameworks should be kept in mind when co‐production is applied as a policy intended to improve and deliver public services.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street-level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's streetlevel bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street-level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005-2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street-level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street-level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground. Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all-or-nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street-level; • However, street-level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.Although public management, social policy and social work are closely interrelated, their debates have been characterised by different perspectives as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. Especially in relation to social policy and social work, it has been pointed out that, despite their mutual dependence, their relations are an underexposed matter and their perspectives and debates barely ever converge However, the prominent revival of Michael Lipsky's (1980/2010) street-level bureaucracy approach during the last 15 years has done much to identify a common feature of the debates in public management, social policy and social work. Lipsky's approach addresses the dilemmas faced by the individuals at the frontline of public services. An important contribution of Lipsky's approach is that he has highlighted how the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, the devices Int J Soc Welfare 2018: 27: 294-304

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethics is another barrier to co-production (Tuurnas et al 2015). This barrier can also be observed in many psychiatric and general departments in the health sector.…”

Section: Barriers To Co-productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…» Lack of relevant informationthere is a lack of guidance resources available to help those who wish to create a co-productive service (Tuurnas et al 2015).…”

Section: Barriers To Co-productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…» Lack of participationthis could be due to service users not receiving a monetary gain for their work (Hatzidimitriadou et al 2012), a lack of provider interest in the initiative (Tuurnas et al 2015, Nikcevic and Jatta 2015b, Carr et al 2016, lack of buy in from senior management (O'Dwyer and Kinsley 2012) or a resistance from providers to change (Carr et al 2016, National Development Team for Inclusion 2016. Ultimately this can also be due to a lack of co-operation between stakeholders (Nikcevic and Jatta 2015a).…”

Section: Barriers To Co-productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementing co-production in traditional statutory mental health services

Norton

2019

Mental Health Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the publication of A Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children 2006), which sets out the direction for mental health services in Ireland, new approaches to interacting with people who have lived experience of mental ill health have emerged. Co-production is one such approach. Co-production is a word used to describe the creation of a dialogical space where the service user, family members, carers and service providers enter a collaborative medical partnership to improve their own care and also service provision. Co-production is a cornerstone in the delivery of a recovery-oriented service and when implemented correctly it has the power to achieve positive change. The aim of this article is to provide background information and guidance on how to implement co-production in traditional mental health services.

show abstract

“…For example, research on the initial phase mostly focuses at the individual level (the motivations of users, the distribution bias of users), but only exceptions mention the role that PSOs have at this point (Alford, 2009a). Scholars working on the process stage of co-production either put emphasis on the individual experiences (Pestoff, 2006), on how it affects professional staff in their interaction with users (Cepiku and Giordano, 2013), and in rare cases on the influence of the institutional environment on co-production (Joshi and Moore, 2004;Tuurnas et al, 2014). Sparse research on the evaluation stage of co-production does combine effects at the individual and organizational level (Marks, 2009;, but devotes little attention to the institutional context.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust

Fledderus¹

2018

Bestuurskunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coordinating co-production in complex network settings

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Implementing co-production in traditional statutory mental health services

User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About