New Perspectives

Citation

(2012), "New Perspectives", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 26 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom.2012.02526baa.001

New Perspectives

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Health Organization and Management, Volume 26, Issue 2

Welcome to No. 2 in Vol. 26 of JHOM. In keeping with our ongoing development of the journal we are pleased to introduce a new section, “New Perspectives”, which provides coverage of new ideas, critiques and debates surrounding organisation and management issues. This section is edited by Ross Millar (University of Birmingham) and is designed around three “types” of papers:

1. 1.

   Review: a critical and rigorous analysis of a publication or publications on a topic relevant to healthcare (e.g. “markets”, “lean”, “service improvement”). The review can draw on sources from either inside and outside of health organization and management research or that may have gone “under the radar” of health related disciplines (e.g. the wider management arena, organisation studies, public administration, public policy analysis, sociology of health). The review is likely to be of a recent publication; however, it can also be something that has been previously influential and warrants further attention. We also encourage reviews of methodological publications that analyse critically the potential of a particular approach to the study of health organisation and management.

2. 2.

   Critique: a critical analysis of a concept or perspective that has gained some prominence in recent research and debate (e.g. “nudge”, “public value”). This perspective can be an idea that has become widely accepted (and taken for granted) or a new phrase that has become widely fashionable in the fields of organisation and management studies. The purpose of critique will be review and critically analyse the underlying disciplinary assumptions of the concept or perspective.

3. 3.

   Polemic: the advancing of a strident perspective that presents a particular view as a spur to further debate and research. Polemic will encourage a provocative ethos in arguing a particular perspective.

“New Perspectives” will offer brief, provocative but scholarly reviews that contribute new ways of thinking about health organization and management analysis and discourse. The section is in essay format to allow contributors as much flexibility as possible, and between 2,000-3,000 words in length.

Given that this innovation offers a new format for JHOM, Ross Millar has written the first contribution based on the concept of social enterprise. In this fascinating essay Millar argues that we should warn against taking for granted the idea that new organisational forms will automatically deliver a range of different advantages that are claimed for it. Although social enterprises have the potential to deliver more diversity in service provision they also represent in some cases the increasing convergence and homogeneity of organisational forms. This essay should set the template for others, and if you are interested in writing a “New Perspectives” article then please get in touch with Ross directly (r.millar@bham.ac.uk).

As the more observant amongst you will recall, in the previous issue we introduced a “Viewpoints” section, which provides high-level reviews of the major debates and evidence in relation to particular topic areas that we think will be of interest to the JHOM readership. We carry on this series of papers with a paper from Dawn Boden and Stanley Smits that spans the topics of leadership, technological advancement and culture in healthcare. This Viewpoints piece argues that technological advancements will only be successfully embedded in health care organisations if cultures are understood and respected.

JHOM’s performance

We have been reflecting on some of the figures for JHOM for the last few years and our performance over this time. We have seen an increase in submissions made to JHOM from 130 in 2009 to 152 in 2010, and had 179 papers submitted last year. Over this period we have also increased the rejection rate from 59 per cent in 2009 to 65 per cent in 2010, and in 2011 this stood at 72 per cent. Our average turnaround time for a paper is 41 days and all papers are double blind peer-reviewed. We believe these figures illustrate that the reach of JHOM is widening and the papers we publish are improving in quality and bode well for the future development of the journal. We would also like to say a big thank you to all those who have reviewed papers for JHOM; your assistance and support is invaluable in keeping the quality and process of JHOM high.

Call for Special Issue ideas

The editorial team is currently in the process of setting out the plans for Special Issues of JHOM for 2013 and 2014. If you have any ideas for relevant topics or are interested in editing a Special Issue of JHOM then please contact us at JHOM@contacts.bham.ac.uk