Search results

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.

In Canada, integrated care pilot projects are often implemented as a local reform strategy to improve the quality of patient care and system efficiencies. In the qualitative study reported here, the authors explored the experiences of healthcare professionals when first implementing integrated care pilot projects, bringing together physical and mental health services, in a community hospital setting.

Engaging a qualitative descriptive study design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 healthcare professionals who discussed their experiences with implementing three integrated care pilot projects one year following project launch. The thematic analysis captured early implementation issues and was informed by an institutional logics framework.

Three themes highlight disruptions to established logics reported by healthcare professionals during the early implementation phase: (1) integrated care practices increased workload and impacted clinical workflows; (2) integrating mental and physical health services altered patient and healthcare provider relationships; and (3) the introduction of integrated care practices disrupted healthcare team relations.

Study findings highlight the importance of considering existing logics in healthcare settings when planning integrated care initiatives. While integrated care pilot projects can contribute to organizational, team and individual practice changes, the priorities of healthcare stakeholders, relational work required and limited project resources can create significant implementation barriers.

While one-third of Australians live outside major cities, there are ongoing challenges in providing accessible, sustainable, and appropriate primary health care services in rural and remote communities. The purpose of this paper is to explore a partnership approach to understanding and addressing complex primary health workforce issues in the western region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

The authors describe how a collaboration of five organisations worked together to engage a broader group of stakeholders and secure commitment and resources for a regional approach to address workforce challenges in Western NSW. A literature review and formal interviews with stakeholders gathered knowledge, identified issues and informed the overarching approach, including the development of the Western NSW Partnership Model and Primary Health Workforce Planning Framework. A stakeholder forum tested the proposed approach and gained endorsement for a collaborative priority action plan.

The Western NSW Partnership Model successfully engaged regional stakeholders and guided the development of a collaborative approach to building a sustainable primary health workforce for the future.

Given the scarcity of literature about effective partnerships approaches to address rural health workforce challenges, this paper contributes to an understanding of how to build sustainable partnerships to positively impact on the rural health workforce. This approach is replicable and potentially valuable elsewhere in NSW, other parts of Australia and internationally.