Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present insights into the way in which system change can be activated around the provision of services and support for people experiencing multiple disadvantages in an urban setting.

This paper is informed by a thematic analysis of reflections, reports, learning logs, interviews and experiences of those “activating” system change in the Golden Key partnership in Bristol between 2014 and 2021.

Four themes are identified, including “creating the conditions for change”, “framing your involvement”, “investing in relationships” and “reflective practice and learning”. For each of these, an illustrative vignette is provided.

Practical recommendations and reflective questions are provided with suggestions of further considerations for applying this approach in different contexts.

This paper describes an original approach of activating and supporting people to do system change to improve the lives of people facing multiple disadvantages.

Privilege is often silent, invisible and not made explicit, and silence is a key question for theorizing on organizations. This paper examines interrelations between privilege and silence for relatively privileged professionals in high-intensity knowledge businesses (KIBs).

This paper draws on 112 interviews in two rounds of interviews using the collaborative interactive action research method. The analysis focuses on processes of recruitment, careers and negotiation of boundaries between work and nonwork in these KIBs. The authors study how relative privilege within social inequalities connects with silences in multiple ways, and how the invisibility of privilege operates at different levels: individual identities and interpersonal actions of privilege (micro), as organizational level phenomena (meso) or as societally constructed (macro).

At each level, privilege is reproduced in part through silence. The authors also examine how processes connecting silence, privilege and social inequalities operate differently in relation to both disadvantage and the disadvantaged, and privilege and the privileged.

This study is relevant for organization studies, especially in the kinds of “multi-privileged” contexts where inequalities, disadvantages and subordination may remain hidden and silenced, and, thus, are continuously reproduced.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study tracking the development and engagement of a group of experts by experience (The Independent Futures (IF) Group) who provided a lived experience voice to the Bristol Golden Key (GK) partnership within the Fulfilling Lives programme. The case study reports the genesis and impact of the group, as well as the facilitators of impact and experiences of the group members and those they worked in partnership with.

The research adopted an iterative approach drawing on multiple data sources over an eight-year period. An inductive ethnographic analysis of stakeholder and partnership meetings was combined with documentary analysis and thematic analysis of interviews with experts by experience and service providers.

The voice of lived experience provided by the IF group contributed to the GK partnership through various channels. Evidence of this contribution and its impact was found at programme, city-wide and national levels of the service ecosystem. Furthermore, IF members recognised the value of the group in contributing to systems change and service improvement, but also for themselves.

This case study serves to illustrate the impact of the lived experience voice on services and systems change, specifically the provision of that voice from a formalised advisory group. The successes and challenges of the group and the experiences of its members are reported with a view to sharing learning that may influence future co-production initiatives with experts by experience and service provision for those experiencing multiple disadvantage.

The insights provided by the longitudinal observation of the group as it was formed and evolved, coupled with insights provided by the experts by experience, have important implications for facilitating and supporting sustainable lived experience input.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.

Previous research has focused on the outcomes of telework, investigating the advantages and disadvantages of teleworking for employees. However, these investigations do not examine whether there are differences between teleworkers when evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of teleworking. The aim of this study is to identify of distinct classes of teleworkers based on the advantages and disadvantages that teleworking has for them.

This study used secondary survey data collected by the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE). A sample of 842 people was used for this study. To identify the distinct classes of teleworkers, their perceived advantages and disadvantages of teleworking were analyzed using latent class analysis.

Three different classes of teleworkers were distinguished. Furthermore, sociodemographic covariates were incorporated into the latent class model, revealing that the composition of the classes varied in terms of education level, household income, and the amount of time spent on teleworking per week. This study also examined the influence of these emergent classes on employees’ experience of teleworking.

This study contributes to previous research investigating if telework is advantageous or disadvantageous for teleworkers, acknowledging that teleworkers are not identical and may respond differently to teleworking.

This article draws upon our perspective as academic-practitioners working in the fields of food insecurity, food systems, and inequality to comment, in the early stages of the pandemic and associated lockdown, on the empirical and ethical implications of COVID-19 for socio-economic inequalities in access to food in the UK. The COVID-19 pandemic has sharpened the profound insecurity of large segments of the UK population, an insecurity itself the product of a decade of “austerity” policies. Increased unemployment, reduced hours, and enforced self-isolation for multiple vulnerable groups is likely to lead to an increase in UK food insecurity, exacerbating diet-related health inequalities. The social and economic crisis associated with the pandemic has exposed the fragility of the system of food charity which, at present, is a key response to growing poverty. A vulnerable food system, with just-in-time supply chains, has been challenged by stockpiling. Resultant food supply issues at food banks, alongside rapidly increasing demand and reduced volunteer numbers, has undermined many food charities, especially independent food banks. In the light of this analysis, we make a series of recommendations. We call for an immediate end to the five week wait for Universal Credit and cash grants for low income households. We ask central and local government to recognise that many food aid providers are already at capacity and unable to adopt additional responsibilities. The government's – significant – response to the economic crisis associated with COVID-19 has underscored a key principle: it is the government's responsibility to protect population health, to guarantee household incomes, and to safeguard the economy. Millions of households were in poverty before the pandemic, and millions more will be so unless the government continues to protect household incomes through policy change.