A knowledge hierarchy in labour and welfare services? Evidence‐based and practice‐based knowledge in frontline service innovation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9971745 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eric Breit (0000-0001-5069-7406, Work Research Institute Oslo Metropolitan University Norway, corresponding author), Knut Fossestøl (Work Research Institute Oslo Metropolitan University Norway, corresponding author), Eirin Pedersen (0000-0002-1733-8636, Work Research Institute Oslo Metropolitan University Norway, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 71 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 13-32 |
| Publication date | 2018-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Social Security Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-871X • E-ISSN: 1468-246X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/issr.12187 |
| OpenAlex | W2898887810 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 29 |
Although policy‐makers and scholars have directed increasing attention towards collaborative innovation and knowledge development between frontline agencies and workers and other stakeholders such as citizens and researchers, empirical research has not focused on the (varying) assessment of collaborators regarding what knowledge is “appropriate” to develop. In this article, we examine such knowledge assessments by drawing on a comparative case study of two local innovation projects conducted by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) in a four‐year service innovation programme. Although they responded to the same call, the projects involved development of two very distinct types of knowledge; one dealt with practice‐based knowledge and the other with evidence‐based knowledge. We show that whereas the former knowledge type was contested and difficult to transform into practice, the latter prompted few (if any) challenges and was implemented on a relatively large scale. These two projects point to the possible existence of a hierarchy of knowledge in labour and welfare services, where evidence‐based forms of knowledge and methods are regarded as more legitimate and appropriate than forms of knowledge placed “lower” in the hierarchy. We discuss the reasons for and implications of this apparent hierarchy of knowledge for frontline labour and welfare services
Business · Empirical evidence · Epistemology · Hierarchy · Knowledge management · Norwegian · Political science · Public relations · Service (business · Sociology · Welfare · Computer Science · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Marketing · Public Policy and Administration Research · Social Work Education and Practice
Development of hybrid professionalism
Fostering value facilitation through situated learning in communities of practice
Implementing the Individual Placement and Support approach in institutional settings for employment and mental health services – perceptions and challenges from a case study in Denmark
Iterations of work inclusion beyond the standard service
The Street-Level Organisation in-between Employer Needs and Client Needs
Hybrid stimulations and perversions in public service innovation
Individual Placement and Support
Evidence-based Policy
Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector
The New Public Governance?
Supported Employment
Knowledge and Organization
Knowledge for Theory and Practice
Knowing in Practice
Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations
Metagovernance
The reform of the welfare services in Norway
What Works
Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector
From “Pure” to “Hybrid” Professionalism
From Competition to Collaboration in Public Service Delivery
Managing Institutional Complexity in Public Sector Reform
Public Management and Policy Networks
Collaborative Innovation
Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work
Situated Learning
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,2 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |