3 How chairs use the pronoun ‘we’ to guide participation in rehabilitation team meetings
-
Tanja Dall
Abstract
In social welfare, holding multi-agency meetings in which professionals from similar or different welfare perspectives meet with service users is increasingly seen as a promising way to make decisions about how to solve complex problems. The hope is that this collaboration will increase the effectiveness of interventions and that the service user will be included in the process through their participation in the meeting (see Chapter 2 for a more thorough exploration of these tendencies). Although appealing, however, this ideal is challenged by numerous studies that show a more complex reality in practice. For instance, Hitzler and Messmer (2010) find that a service user’s participation in a multi-agency meeting does not necessarily mean that they are included in decision making, while Dall (2020) shows that, even among professionals, decision-making responsibilities may not be equally distributed among participants, even when this is the stated ideal for the meeting.
Similar trends and challenges exist in Danish social welfare, and the interprofessional and multi-agency rehabilitation teams that were introduced as part of the active labour market policy in 2013 are one example of these tendencies. Rehabilitation team meetings are based in the employment services and meant to ensure interprofessional assessment and service user participation in cases where the service user’s attachment to the labour market is at risk due to complex health issues, social problems or other challenges. This has proven a challenging task, as several of the professionals present in meetings are unfamiliar with the legislative and organisational context of the employment services (Dall, 2020).
Abstract
In social welfare, holding multi-agency meetings in which professionals from similar or different welfare perspectives meet with service users is increasingly seen as a promising way to make decisions about how to solve complex problems. The hope is that this collaboration will increase the effectiveness of interventions and that the service user will be included in the process through their participation in the meeting (see Chapter 2 for a more thorough exploration of these tendencies). Although appealing, however, this ideal is challenged by numerous studies that show a more complex reality in practice. For instance, Hitzler and Messmer (2010) find that a service user’s participation in a multi-agency meeting does not necessarily mean that they are included in decision making, while Dall (2020) shows that, even among professionals, decision-making responsibilities may not be equally distributed among participants, even when this is the stated ideal for the meeting.
Similar trends and challenges exist in Danish social welfare, and the interprofessional and multi-agency rehabilitation teams that were introduced as part of the active labour market policy in 2013 are one example of these tendencies. Rehabilitation team meetings are based in the employment services and meant to ensure interprofessional assessment and service user participation in cases where the service user’s attachment to the labour market is at risk due to complex health issues, social problems or other challenges. This has proven a challenging task, as several of the professionals present in meetings are unfamiliar with the legislative and organisational context of the employment services (Dall, 2020).
Chapters in this book
- Front Matter i
- Contents vii
- List of figures and tables viii
- Notes on contributors ix
- Acknowledgements xi
- Introduction 1
- From a collaborative and integrated welfare policy to frontline practices 9
- Examining talk and interaction in meetings of professionals and service users 33
- How chairs use the pronoun ‘we’ to guide participation in rehabilitation team meetings 63
- Working within frames and across boundaries in core group meetings in child protection 83
- Alignment and service user participation in low-threshold meetings with people using drugs 115
- Sympathy and micropolitics in return-to-work meetings 141
- Negotiating epistemic rights to knowledge concerning service users’ recent histories in mental health meetings 171
- Relational agency and epistemic justice in initial child protection conferences 197
- Conclusion 225
- Postscript 241
- Index 247
Chapters in this book
- Front Matter i
- Contents vii
- List of figures and tables viii
- Notes on contributors ix
- Acknowledgements xi
- Introduction 1
- From a collaborative and integrated welfare policy to frontline practices 9
- Examining talk and interaction in meetings of professionals and service users 33
- How chairs use the pronoun ‘we’ to guide participation in rehabilitation team meetings 63
- Working within frames and across boundaries in core group meetings in child protection 83
- Alignment and service user participation in low-threshold meetings with people using drugs 115
- Sympathy and micropolitics in return-to-work meetings 141
- Negotiating epistemic rights to knowledge concerning service users’ recent histories in mental health meetings 171
- Relational agency and epistemic justice in initial child protection conferences 197
- Conclusion 225
- Postscript 241
- Index 247
