Trust in interagency collaboration: The role of institutional logics and hybrid professionals

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Professions and Organization Pub Date : 2023-02-11 DOI:10.1093/jpo/joac022
Oluf Gøtzsche-Astrup, Lasse Lindekilde, Anna Maria Fjellman, T. Bjørgo, Randi Solhjell, Håvard Haugstvedt, Jennie Sivenbring, Robin Andersson Malmros, M. Kangasniemi, Tanja Moilanen, Ingvild Magnæs, Tina Wilchen Christensen, Christer Mattsson
{"title":"Trust in interagency collaboration: The role of institutional logics and hybrid professionals","authors":"Oluf Gøtzsche-Astrup, Lasse Lindekilde, Anna Maria Fjellman, T. Bjørgo, Randi Solhjell, Håvard Haugstvedt, Jennie Sivenbring, Robin Andersson Malmros, M. Kangasniemi, Tanja Moilanen, Ingvild Magnæs, Tina Wilchen Christensen, Christer Mattsson","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joac022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Interagency collaboration among social workers, teachers, and police is key to countering violent extremism in the Nordic countries by securing comprehensive assessment of cases of concern. Yet, previous research indicates that different institutional logics—perceptions of fundamental goals, strategies, and grounds for attention in efforts to counter violent extremists—exist across professions and challenge collaboration and trust building in practice. In this article, we empirically investigate these claims across social workers (n = 1,105), teachers (n = 1,387), and police (n = 1,053) in four Nordic countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Using results from online surveys with professionals, we investigate the distribution of a ‘societal security logic’ and a ‘social care logic’ across professions and the degree to which these institutional logics translate into mutual trust. Through a comparison of institutional logics among practitioners with and without practical experience of interagency collaboration, we investigate whether and how institutional logics tend to mix and merge in hybrid organizational spaces. We conclude that differences in institutional logics across professions are differences in degree rather than in kind, but that such differences are important in shaping mutual trust and that experiences of interagency collaboration are correlated with a convergence toward a ‘social care logic’ conception of countering violent extremism.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Interagency collaboration among social workers, teachers, and police is key to countering violent extremism in the Nordic countries by securing comprehensive assessment of cases of concern. Yet, previous research indicates that different institutional logics—perceptions of fundamental goals, strategies, and grounds for attention in efforts to counter violent extremists—exist across professions and challenge collaboration and trust building in practice. In this article, we empirically investigate these claims across social workers (n = 1,105), teachers (n = 1,387), and police (n = 1,053) in four Nordic countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Using results from online surveys with professionals, we investigate the distribution of a ‘societal security logic’ and a ‘social care logic’ across professions and the degree to which these institutional logics translate into mutual trust. Through a comparison of institutional logics among practitioners with and without practical experience of interagency collaboration, we investigate whether and how institutional logics tend to mix and merge in hybrid organizational spaces. We conclude that differences in institutional logics across professions are differences in degree rather than in kind, but that such differences are important in shaping mutual trust and that experiences of interagency collaboration are correlated with a convergence toward a ‘social care logic’ conception of countering violent extremism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机构间合作中的信任:制度逻辑和混合专业人员的作用
社会工作者、教师和警察之间的跨部门合作是打击北欧国家暴力极端主义的关键,可以确保对所关注的案件进行全面评估。然而,先前的研究表明,在打击暴力极端分子的努力中,不同的制度逻辑——对基本目标、战略和关注理由的看法——存在于不同的职业中,并在实践中挑战合作和信任的建立。在本文中,我们对四个北欧国家(丹麦、瑞典、挪威和芬兰)的社会工作者(n = 1105)、教师(n = 1387)和警察(n = 1053)进行了实证调查。利用对专业人士的在线调查结果,我们调查了“社会保障逻辑”和“社会关怀逻辑”在不同职业中的分布,以及这些制度逻辑转化为相互信任的程度。通过比较具有和没有机构间合作实践经验的实践者之间的制度逻辑,我们研究了制度逻辑是否以及如何在混合组织空间中混合和合并。我们的结论是,不同职业之间的制度逻辑差异是程度上的差异,而不是种类上的差异,但这种差异在形成相互信任方面很重要,而且机构间合作的经验与打击暴力极端主义的“社会关怀逻辑”概念的趋同有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK Elite lawyers in Türkiye: Educational capital, status hierarchies, and feminization The customer is always right? Corporate client influence and women’s attainment in large US law firms Discipline, caregiving, and identity work of frontline professionals: Talking about the acts of compliance and resistance in the everyday practices of social workers Intra-professional collaboration and organization of work among teachers: How entangled institutional logics shape connectivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1