General Theory and Local Action: Experiences from the Quality of Working Life Movement

Abstract

Quality of Working Life was a researcher-driven

Nordic Working Life Development Programs and the Tricky Problem of Scaling-up

“…Third, learning processes that lead to the accumulation of facts and data need to take place, including both first-order and second-order learning. This classification is well in accordance with most discussions held in working life research and development on how to meet the diffusion problem (Alasoini 2011;Brulin & Svensson 2012;Gustavsen 2017;Qvale 2002;Totterdill et al 2016), but it has never been made conceptually as explicit in these discussions. Neither have programs been designed in accordance with this logic.…”

“…Finally, I used Transition Management as a new approach for examining and dealing with some of the shortcomings of research-aided efforts to reform working life more generally. My purpose was to further develop the viewpoints raised by Gustavsen (2017) in his previous article in NJWLS on Nordic WLDPs as part of the wider QWL movement.…”

“…Many of the analyses and comparative presentations of WLDPs implemented in the Nordic countries over the past few years are rich in content but are mainly descriptive in nature. Only in a few cases have researchers taken the target of developing frameworks for distinguishing generic program characteristics as conducive to having a deep impact on working life (e.g., Brulin & Svensson 2012;Gustavsen 2017;Naschold 1994;Ramstad 2009). The problem with these efforts is twofold.…”

“…In particular, Gustavsen, in many of his writings, has addressed the issue of the 'limited impact' of programs under headings such as the 'problem of diffusion' (Gustavsen 2014), the 'problem of the single case' (Gustavsen 2003), and the 'problem of how to move back and forth between general theory and local action' (Gustavsen 2017). Here, Gustavsen's last-mentioned article in NJWLS forms fertile ground for further discussion.…”

“…Based on the summary of the successes and shortcomings of Norwegian and Finnish programs, I try to increase understanding about how to build more effective programs by drawing on sociological theorizing and showing how this can contribute to practice. I especially try to elaborate viewpoints presented by Gustavsen (2017) in NJWLS, by examining research-aided efforts to reform working life within a framework influenced by the Transition Management approach. The elaboration leads to the claim that programs aiming to reform working life would need to be guided by a more explicit conceptualization of the preconditions for working life change.…”