Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article enhances our understanding of institutional work, through a study of professional health commissioners in the English National Health Service. Using a case study of mental health policy implementation, commissioners are conceptualized as institutional agents involved in shaping the organizational field and its boundary. Health service commissioners face a series of challenges as institutional agents. Commissioning is a relatively new health profession. It lacks a strong professional association and has predominantly been externally professionalized. Commissioners have limited direct organizational strategic management control. In the case study, commissioners were charged with leading implementation of the policy, which required them to address fragmentation in the field. Using existing typologies as an analytical frame, activities by commissioners in the case study are identified and explored as different modes of institutional work. Commissioners created a new normative network and instigated specific processes to embed and routinize cross-organization working. They undertook boundary-spanning cognitive institutional work, creating new knowledge by commissioning education of school staff in the basics of children's mental health. Their institutional work involved challenging existing working practices, both in the health field and in the contiguous education field. The article elucidates connections between different modes of institutional work and attends to boundary work by commissioners in parallel with institutional work in the field. It also outlines how a profession seemingly lacking many of the ingredients of institutional power might pursue its own professional project through institutional work. Findings have resonance in other geographical and policy areas and fields.

AbstractNonprofit organizations are said to play important roles in the reproduction of social capital, although research suggests that some types of nonprofits add more to stocks of social capital than others and that they vary in the types of social capital they reproduce. Such findings typically come from surveys of individuals or households, as opposed to surveys of nonprofits themselves. In this research article, we draw on a survey of a sample of Australian nonprofit organizations to demonstrate a method of empirically testing some of the ways that nonprofit organizations are said to reproduce social capital and to assess differences in any contributions by important organizational characteristics such as industry or primary beneficiary. We aim to show how surveys of organizations might add to our understanding of the contribution of nonprofits to stocks of social capital.

Looks at the development of the voluntary sector into a semi‐professional area undertaking more work which was previously seen as the State's responsibility. Considers the amount of trust invested in these charities and the damage that new fundraising techniques may inflict. Outlines the recent political influences on society and the individual together with the resulting attitudes to charity. Briefly outlines the local and global perspectives including mass media communication.

AbstractGrowing policymaker interest in community wellbeing puts a premium on knowledge about existing community-level challenges and possible policy responses. If evidence-based policy and practice is foregrounded in these developments, there is a risk that lived experience is seen to lack validity in policy-making decisions and that knowledge from and about underrepresented groups is underemphasised. In consequence, the best available evidence on which to make policy decisions affecting these groups might be missed, thus potentially increasing health inequalities. This paper extends debate on this dilemma in this journal by using the lens of 'pragmatic complexity' as an alternative view on what works as evidence for policy and practice in community wellbeing. We present an empirical analysis of two expert hearings about community wellbeing. The events used a deliberative approach, allowing participants to probe evidence and consider from multiple perspectives ideas of how to address identified issues. Two overarching themes from the hearings - a perceived gap between the rhetoric and reality of wellbeing evidence, and proposals on 'what works' in the (co)-production of knowledge about wellbeing – are articulated and explored. We develop specific features emerging from the hearings that have wider resonance for community wellbeing research and suggest potential responses: what counts as 'good' or good-enough evidence about community wellbeing; system responses requiring thinking and engaging with complexity; reflections on the collective and collaborative process of an expert hearing approach. The combination of analysis of knowledge generated deliberatively through an expert hearing approach and a pragmatic complexity lens, delimits our contribution.