We Need to Talk About Knowledge! Rethinking Management and Evidence-Based Practice in Welfare

Isabella Pistone, Thomas Andersson, Morten Sager
{"title":"We Need to Talk About Knowledge! Rethinking Management and Evidence-Based Practice in Welfare","authors":"Isabella Pistone, Thomas Andersson, Morten Sager","doi":"10.58235/sjpa.v27i3.14164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"New Public Management (NPM) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) are two fundamental concepts within welfare professions. Both NPM and EBP are central to many debates within welfare, and often criticised as posing simplified or positivist approaches to management and knowledge utilization. Epistemologically, both are manifestations of modernity, with its emphases on standardization, control, simple causality and measurability. These epistemological similarities have not been explored as potential doorways for making modifications to NPM and EBP. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to new ways of thinking and doing management and EBP of complex welfare issues by increasing the epistemological understanding of these concepts. NPM and EBP are taken here as subjects for joint conceptual analysis. The paper is guided by the following question: What is an appropriate epistemology for professionals involved in EBP and managing? Literature on NPM and EBP are analyzed together with theoretical insights from scholarship on formalization and heterogeneity of expertise, and analyzed in light of empirical examples taken from a case of a subregional social sustainability/public health initiative. Drawing on the development of post-NPM and more complex versions of EBP, the paper ends by introducing the notion post-EBP, and concludes by outlining some implications of this concept for the working professions.","PeriodicalId":31772,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v27i3.14164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

New Public Management (NPM) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) are two fundamental concepts within welfare professions. Both NPM and EBP are central to many debates within welfare, and often criticised as posing simplified or positivist approaches to management and knowledge utilization. Epistemologically, both are manifestations of modernity, with its emphases on standardization, control, simple causality and measurability. These epistemological similarities have not been explored as potential doorways for making modifications to NPM and EBP. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to new ways of thinking and doing management and EBP of complex welfare issues by increasing the epistemological understanding of these concepts. NPM and EBP are taken here as subjects for joint conceptual analysis. The paper is guided by the following question: What is an appropriate epistemology for professionals involved in EBP and managing? Literature on NPM and EBP are analyzed together with theoretical insights from scholarship on formalization and heterogeneity of expertise, and analyzed in light of empirical examples taken from a case of a subregional social sustainability/public health initiative. Drawing on the development of post-NPM and more complex versions of EBP, the paper ends by introducing the notion post-EBP, and concludes by outlining some implications of this concept for the working professions.
我们需要谈论知识!福利管理与循证实践反思
新公共管理(NPM)和循证实践(EBP)是福利行业的两个基本概念。NPM和EBP都是福利领域许多争论的核心,经常被批评为提出简化或实证主义的管理和知识利用方法。在认识论上,两者都是现代性的表现,强调规范化、控制性、简单因果性和可测性。这些认识论上的相似性还没有被探索作为修改NPM和EBP的潜在途径。本文的目的是通过增加对这些概念的认识论理解,为复杂福利问题的管理和EBP的思考和实践提供新的方法。本文将NPM和EBP作为联合概念分析的主题。本文以以下问题为指导:对于参与EBP和管理的专业人员来说,什么是合适的认识论?本文结合学者对专业知识正规化和异质性的理论见解,分析了关于国家预防和环境保护的文献,并结合一个次区域社会可持续性/公共卫生倡议的实例进行了分析。借鉴后npm和更复杂版本的EBP的发展,本文最后介绍了后EBP的概念,并概述了这一概念对工作专业的一些影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信