分析政策和媒体改革叙述中卫生和社会保健的界限

IF 2.1 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sarah van Duijn, D. Bannink, H. Nies
{"title":"分析政策和媒体改革叙述中卫生和社会保健的界限","authors":"Sarah van Duijn, D. Bannink, H. Nies","doi":"10.1332/030557321x16420783121324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Collaboration has become an imperative of many new healthcare policies; however, little attention has been paid to how system-level narratives in both policy documents and the media create boundaries that shape implementation processes. By using boundary work as a theoretical lens, this article critically analyses the discourse found in both policy documents and the media surrounding the 2015 Dutch LTC reform. This discourse analysis contributes, first, by revealing two separate narratives – one epic, one tragic – which we argue represent different rhetorical styles used to (de-)legitimise symbolic boundaries. Second, we contribute by unravelling boundary work in both the social and symbolic dimensions to show how the design of the 2015 reform led to a tension-ridden position for local actors: symbolic boundaries demanded integration, while social boundaries imposed differentiation. These findings have implications for literature on boundary work as well as for policy design and its local implementation.","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":"52 5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysing boundaries of health and social care in policy and media reform narratives\",\"authors\":\"Sarah van Duijn, D. Bannink, H. Nies\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557321x16420783121324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Collaboration has become an imperative of many new healthcare policies; however, little attention has been paid to how system-level narratives in both policy documents and the media create boundaries that shape implementation processes. By using boundary work as a theoretical lens, this article critically analyses the discourse found in both policy documents and the media surrounding the 2015 Dutch LTC reform. This discourse analysis contributes, first, by revealing two separate narratives – one epic, one tragic – which we argue represent different rhetorical styles used to (de-)legitimise symbolic boundaries. Second, we contribute by unravelling boundary work in both the social and symbolic dimensions to show how the design of the 2015 reform led to a tension-ridden position for local actors: symbolic boundaries demanded integration, while social boundaries imposed differentiation. These findings have implications for literature on boundary work as well as for policy design and its local implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"volume\":\"52 5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16420783121324\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16420783121324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

协作已成为许多新医疗保健政策的必要条件;然而,很少注意到政策文件和媒体中的系统级叙述如何形成影响执行过程的界限。本文以边界工作为理论视角,批判性地分析了围绕2015年荷兰LTC改革的政策文件和媒体中的话语。这种话语分析的贡献在于,首先,揭示了两种不同的叙事——一种是史诗,一种是悲剧——我们认为这两种叙事代表了不同的修辞风格,用于使象征性边界合法化。其次,我们通过在社会和象征维度上展开边界工作,展示2015年改革的设计如何导致地方行动者的紧张处境:象征边界要求整合,而社会边界则强加分化。这些发现对边界工作的文献以及政策设计及其地方实施具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysing boundaries of health and social care in policy and media reform narratives
Collaboration has become an imperative of many new healthcare policies; however, little attention has been paid to how system-level narratives in both policy documents and the media create boundaries that shape implementation processes. By using boundary work as a theoretical lens, this article critically analyses the discourse found in both policy documents and the media surrounding the 2015 Dutch LTC reform. This discourse analysis contributes, first, by revealing two separate narratives – one epic, one tragic – which we argue represent different rhetorical styles used to (de-)legitimise symbolic boundaries. Second, we contribute by unravelling boundary work in both the social and symbolic dimensions to show how the design of the 2015 reform led to a tension-ridden position for local actors: symbolic boundaries demanded integration, while social boundaries imposed differentiation. These findings have implications for literature on boundary work as well as for policy design and its local implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.
×
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