Suchergebnisse

This study investigated what it is like to be a feminist clinical psychologist in a country with a long commitment to gender equality. We studied how two Swedish clinical child psychologists committed to promoting gender equality talked about issues of gender and inequality in their clinical work. We identified three interpretative repertoires that formed the basis of these clinicians' talk about gender and gender equality: a repertoire built on ideas about basic inherent differences between boys and girls, but nonetheless valuing boys and girls equally; a repertoire emphasizing similar treatment, built on the assumption that gender is of no importance, and that everybody has equal value; and a repertoire built on views of girls and boys as unequally valued by society at large. Both clinicians drew upon all three repertoires. However, they used the repertoires in starkly different ways depending on whether they assumed that knowledge that presupposes gendered power structures can be considered legitimate professional knowledge.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management). DESIGN: A pre-evaluation-postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels. SETTING: Healthcare managers from Stockholm's regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training. PARTICIPANTS: 52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training. INTERVENTION: iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants' knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1. CONCLUSIONS: iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.