Search results

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to explore how gatekeepers’ ways of regulating the researchers’ access to knowledge in/about care services reflect the systemic and interpersonal values that inform Danish welfare systems’ daily workings at the street level; and also explore how the authors’ methodological experiences mirror the value-informed regulatory strategies that professionals and users themselves experience in their daily encounters in the same local practices that the authors have studied.

The paper takes its empirical point of departure in a multisited ethnographic field study of the management of citizens with complex problems in Danish welfare systems.

By means of Michael Lipsky’s outline of access regulation, the authors will analyze the following regulatory strategies that are identified during the fieldwork: “Gatekeepers’ sympathy and creaming,” “Queuing and delay,” and ‘Withdrawal of consent and “no resources.” The paper suggests that trust, shared goals and sympathy seem to be key to the process of getting access.

Despite principles of neutrality, equal rights and access to services in welfare systems, the authors’ experiences thus tend to support other research within bureaucratic and care organizations, which has found that interpersonal relations, sympathy, dislikes, norms and values, etc., can heavily influence timely access to services, tailored information and support.

In many public sector reform processes, employees’ roles as professional experts are shifting toward more entrepreneurial and market-oriented roles, a change that entails a shift in the demands made of these employees. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reflections, considerations, and experiences of such employees regarding the spaces of possibility open to them in which to act in accordance with this new role.

Two ethnographic studies were carried out in drug and alcohol treatment services and in city and business development in the Danish welfare system.

Although the areas of investigation are not related in their daily practices, the authors trace similar responses to the demands made of their respective employees as their role shifts from that of professional experts to include more entrepreneurial aspects. The authors observe that employees are often eager to align new demands and practices, and the authors identify various challenges in respect of the structural public set-up of these services, which often leaves the employees to operate in what could be described as a “twilight zone” between the public and the private.

While scholars often have accounted for situations where such pluralistic roles create conflict, the authors also answer calls to capture moments of synergy where tensions of role paradox are constructively exploited. In this process of ongoing production, images of hierarchy and bureaucracy, rather than merely casting shadows over more bottom-up process of entrepreneurship, are actively used, alongside images of entrepreneurship, in the mutual construction of different roles and the constantly shifting relationality between them, conflicting or synergetic. The definitions and interpretations of the role of the public sector employee are not entirely fixed, but rather subject to ongoing (re)construction in the daily workings of public organizations.

The role of employment in dual recovery from mental illness and substance use is scarcely addressed in previous studies and a deeper understanding of this issue is needed. The purpose of this paper is to cast further light on the conditions that either facilitate or block the road to employment for dually diagnosed people (DDP) and how these conditions could either promote or hinder recovery.

Drawing on the principles laid out by health researchers Sandelowski and Barroso (2007), the study is designed as a qualitative meta-synthesis comprising a systematic literature search, a critical assessment of the identified studies and an integrative synthesis of the articles’ findings.

The synthesis outlines that the findings from the seven identified studies show a recovery process in which unemployed, DDP are becoming employed people – or where there is an attempt to restore their status as working persons – and how this process is driven or hindered by personal, interpersonal and systemic facilitators or barriers.

The synthesis adds nuances to the understanding of employment in dual recovery processes and suggests that unconnected means of, and goals for, intervention among these individuals and systems might reduce the chances of DDP obtaining and maintaining a job.

The paper calls for more advanced research and policy on the multiple – and often contradictory – aspects of gaining and maintaining employment as part of dually diagnosed persons’ recovery.

The authors investigate two contrasting, yet mutually constitutive strategies for regulating open drug scenes in the city of Aarhus, Denmark: A strategy of dispersing marginalized substance users from the inner city, and a simultaneous strategy of inclusion in a new, gentrifying neighbourhood.

The authors apply a multi-temporal ethnography approach, including data from studies dating back to 2002. This enables us to scrutinize reconfigurations of processes of exclusion and inclusion in urban city life based on studies that in different ways feed into the broader picture of how socially marginalized citizens are included and excluded in urban space.

The municipality of Aarhus sways between strategies of dispersion and exclusion and those of inclusion of marginalized citizens. Taken together, these strategies constitute a “messy middle ground” (May and Cloke, 2014) in responses to the street people rather than either clear-cut punitive or supportive strategies. Finally, we point to the limit of inclusion in more recent strategies aimed at including marginalized citizens in urban planning of a new, gentrifying neighbourhood.

The article builds on studies that in critical engagement with the dominating focus on punitive or revanchist approaches to regulation of homeless citizens' presence in urban space have shown how such regulating practices are rarely punishing alone. We contribute to this literature by showing how seemingly contradictory attempts to exclude, disperse and include socially marginalized citizens in different urban settings are relational rather than in outright opposition. In continuation of this, we show how dispersal strategies both depend on and are legitimized by the promotion of alternative and more inclusive settings elsewhere.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the shifting roles of medical professionals as stakeholders in opioid substitution treatment (OST) policies and practices in Denmark and the UK within the past 15 years.

The paper is based on literature reviews, documentary analyses and key informant interviews with a range of stakeholders involved in OST and policy in Denmark and UK. The study is part of the EU-funded project: Addictions and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe: Reframing Addictions Project.

Denmark and the UK are amongst those few European countries that have long traditions and elaborate systems for providing OST to heroin users. The UK has a history of dominance of medical professionals in drugs treatment, although this has been recently challenged by the recovery movement. In Denmark, a social problem approach has historically dominated the field, but a recent trend towards medicalisation can be traced. As in all kinds of policy changes, multiple factors are at play when shifts occur. We examine how both countries’ developments around drugs treatment policy and practice relate to broader societal, economic and political changes, how such divergent developments emerge and how medical professionals as stakeholders enhanced their roles as experts in the field through a variety of tactics, including the production and use of “evidence”, which became a key tool to promote specific stakeholder’s perspectives in these processes.

The paper contributes to current policy and practice debates by providing comparative analyses of drug policies and examination of stakeholder influences on policy processes.