...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Sociology of health & illness >Co‐production in community mental health services: blurred boundaries or a game of pretend?
【24h】

Co‐production in community mental health services: blurred boundaries or a game of pretend?

机译：社区心理健康服务中的共同生产：界限或假装游戏？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract The concept of co‐production suggests a collaborative production of public welfare services, across boundaries of participant categories, for example professionals, service users, peer‐workers and volunteers. While co‐production has been embraced in most European countries, the way in which it is translated into everyday practice remains understudied. Drawing on ethnographic data from Danish community mental health services, we attempt to fill this gap by critically investigating how participants interact in an organisational set‐up with blurred boundaries between participant categories. In particular, we clarify under what circumstances the blurred boundaries emerge as believable. Theoretically, we combine Lamont and Molnár's (2002) distinction between symbolic boundaries and social boundaries with Goffman's (1974) microanalysis of “principles of convincingness”. The article presents three findings: (1) co‐production is employed as a symbolic resource for blurring social boundaries; (2) the believability of blurred boundaries is worked up through participants’ access to resources of validation, knowledge and authority; and (3) incongruence between symbolic and social boundaries institutionalises practices where participants merely act ‘as if’ boundaries are blurred. Clarification of the principles of convincingness contributes to a general discussion of how co‐production frames the everyday negotiation of symbolic and social boundaries in public welfare services.
机译：摘要共同生产的概念表明，参与者类别的界限，例如专业人士，服务用户，同伴工人和志愿者，跨越公益服务的协同生产。虽然在大多数欧洲国家都有共同制作已经被融入，但它被翻译成日常做法的方式仍然被解读。从丹麦社区心理健康服务中绘制民族造影数据，我们试图通过批判性地调查参与者在与参与者之间的模糊的范围内的组织设置中互动的互动。特别是，我们澄清在什么情况下模糊的边界被出现，可达到。从理论上讲，我们将Lamont和Molnár的（2002）区别与Goffman（1974）微分分析“令人信服的原则”的微观分析。本文呈现了三种调查结果：（1）共同生产被聘为模糊社会界限的象征性资源; （2）通过参与者的验证，知识和权威的资源获得模糊边界的令人信服; （3）符号和社会边界之间的不协调，参与者仅仅是界限的行为的做法。澄清令人信服原则有助于一般性地讨论共同生产框架的日常谈判在公共福利服务中的象征和社会边界的日常谈判。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号