Search results

Previous studies repeatedly claim that social media challenge and even disrupt organizational boundaries conditioning discretionary work. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how police officers, drawing on institutionalized value logics, actively shape their awareness of how to use social media with discretion.

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with police officers from Sweden, the analysis explores similarities and variations in how they assess their discretionary awareness of how to manage social media potentials across different police practices. Supporting documents have been analyzed to put interviews into context.

The analysis shows how police officers justify their awareness of how to manage two social media potentials providing communicative efficiency and networking opportunities, by applying two justificatory modalities of momentary reconciliation. Contributing to previous research, findings show how these modalities accommodate tensions between different value logics urging officers to engage in situated problem solving or moderation of the intensity in different connections. By drawing on discretionary awareness about enduring value tensions, police officers maintain legitimate claims on social media discretion. The study also complements previous research depicting digital communication and discretion as mutually exclusive. Findings suggest that web-based digitalization like social media raises new demands of awareness of a connected discretion.

Previous research rarely analyses officers’ awareness of how to manage idiosyncratic social media challenges. By introducing the concept discretionary awareness, this study illuminates how arrangements of institutionalized value logics guide police officers in applying “good judgment” in day-to-day use of social media.

Political reforms call for new types of public-private or community partnerships, in which public services are shaped in collaboration with networks of public, business or non-governmental organizations. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how municipal partners justify and thereby maintain partnerships with the police.

The empirical material comprises documents and 26 semi-structured interviews with civil servants, politicians, and police staff. This qualitative study investigates three Swedish municipalities engaged in partnerships with the same police authority.

Based on Boltanski and Thévenot’s order of worth, the paper describes how municipal partners manage two partly contradictory arrangements; one constituted by industrial and civic logics, and one constituted by domestic and industrial logics. Guided by these two different arrangements, they justify and thereby maintain their partnership with the police by alternating between a compromising strategy promoting adaptation to the police and a compensating strategy stating that they are independent partners with demands on the police.

This is a qualitative study that needs further confirmation before general conclusions can be drawn. Still, it suggests that partners justify themselves by making claims on being both collaborative and independent within these partnerships.

Unlike research investigating how authorities initiate partnerships to organize integrated and cost-efficient public services, the paper highlights how partners justify their participation by alternating between two rather different but linked justifying strategies. The study applies a justificatory logic perspective that helps us understand that complex and sometimes contradictory arrangements of logics, which could threaten partner participation, also enable them to justify and thereby maintain their partnership with the police. Unlike institutional studies describing how tensions challenge organizational legitimacy this study describes how justificatory strains remain even when partners are able to justify their participation.