Et mixed method studie, der belyser læringskonsekvenser af et lederkursus for et praksisfællesskab af offentlige mellemledere

The English title of this dissertation, which in the outset was an integrated part of a larger intervention study on the effects of team manager training, is: Social learning and shared practice. A mixed method study showing the learning consequences of a training course for a community of practice of public middle managers. Due to the growth of the elderly population in Denmark and, simultaneously, the fact that a large part of Danish health care workers soon face retirement, in addition to the challenge regarding the recruitment and the holding on to employees in the public health care sector in Denmark in the coming years, this sector is confronted with the task of creating and sustaining sought-after workplaces and one way of doing this is by organizing the work in a efficient and attractive way for the employees, for instance in compliance with the idea of teamwork. This entails change, education and learning, and this dissertation investigates, in a case-study, the social learning consequences of a training course for middle managers in the Danish health care system, and thus poses the research question: What are the intended and unintended learning consequences of the training course ”Managing teams”?...

Pædagogers risikovurderinger på børneområdet

ResuméSelvom det ikke er pædagogers kerneopgave at foretage risikovurderinger, er de dog lejlighedsvis nødt til at vurdere risikoen (sandsynligheden) for fx omsorgssvigt. Ved hjælp af vignetmetoden har vi undersøgt 99 pædagogers risikovurderinger. Pædagogerne besvarede spørgsmål på baggrund af en fiktiv vignet om to børns alvorlige problemer efter deres fars selvmord og moderens efterfølgende psykiske sygdom og indlæggelse. Artiklens fokus er på pædagogernes vurdering af risikoens størrelse, og på hvordan de med egne ord beskrev de beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer, som de lagde vægt på. Tre undersøgelsesresultater er væsentlige: 1) Der er meget stor spredning i pædagogernes risikovurderinger, både når risikoen angives med ord, som fx ”høj”, og i procenttal. 2) Selvom pædagogerne har anvendt det samme ord om risikoen, fx høj, kan der være meget stor forskel på deres angivelser af risikoen i procent. 3) Der er ingen væsentlige forskelle på, hvad de høj-, middel- og lavrisikovurderende pædagoger nævner af beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Der er heller ingen forskel på, hvor mange anslag, de bruger på at angive henholdsvis beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Resultaterne tydeliggør, at pædagoger skal være bevidste om, at de har meget forskellige vurderinger af risikoens størrelse, når de ser på nøjagtig samme case. Faglig uenighed om et så centralt spørgsmål som fremtidsudsigterne for børn i familier med vanskeligheder viser sig at være et grundvilkår i pædagogisk arbejde. Med denne erkendelse bliver faglige diskussioner med andre pædagoger om børnenes fremtidsudsigter en mulighed for, at pædagoger kan udvikle deres empati og nuancere deres helhedssyn.Abstract Pedagogues risk assessments in the field of childrenAlthough it is not the core task of pedagogues to make risk assessments, they occasionally have to assess risk of e.g. neglect. Using the vignette method, we investigated 99 pedagogues’ risk assessments. The respondents answered questions based on a fictional vignette about two children’s serious problems after their father’s suicide and the mother’s subsequent mental illness and hospitalization. The focus in the paper is on the pedagogues’ assessments of the magnitude of the risk and their descriptions of protection and risk factors they emphasized. Three results are important: 1) The pedagogues’ assessments were very divergent, whether they expressed the magnitude of risk in words or as a percentage. 2) Even though the pedagogues used the same word for the risk, e.g. high, there were large differences in their statements of the risk in percentage. 3) There were no important differences in the assessment of children’s risk, between high-, medium- and low assessing pedagogues. The pattern was the same regarding how many words they used on protection and risk factors. The results make it clear that pedagogues must be aware that they have very different assessments of the size of the risk when they look at exactly the same case. Professional disagreement on such a central issue as the future prospects for children in families with stress turns out to be a basic condition in pedagogical work. With this realization, professional discussions with other pedagogues about the children’s future prospects become an opportunity for pedagogues to develop their empathy and nuance their holistic view

Pædagogers risikovurderinger på børneområdet

Resumé Selvom det ikke er pædagogers kerneopgave at foretage risikovurderinger, er de dog lejlighedsvis nødt til at vurdere risikoen (sandsynligheden) for fx omsorgssvigt. Ved hjælp af vignetmetoden har vi undersøgt 99 pædagogers risikovurderinger. Pædagogerne besvarede spørgsmål på baggrund af en fiktiv vignet om to børns alvorlige problemer efter deres fars selvmord og moderens efterfølgende psykiske sygdom og indlæggelse. Artiklens fokus er på pædagogernes vurdering af risikoens størrelse, og på hvordan de med egne ord beskrev de beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer, som de lagde vægt på. Tre undersøgelsesresultater er væsentlige: 1) Der er meget stor spredning i pædagogernes risikovurderinger, både når risikoen angives med ord, som fx ”høj”, og i procenttal. 2) Selvom pædagogerne har anvendt det samme ord om risikoen, fx høj, kan der være meget stor forskel på deres angivelser af risikoen i procent. 3) Der er ingen væsentlige forskelle på, hvad de høj-, middel- og lavrisikovurderende pædagoger nævner af beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Der er heller ingen forskel på, hvor mange anslag, de bruger på at angive henholdsvis beskyttelses- og risikofaktorer. Resultaterne tydeliggør, at pædagoger skal være bevidste om, at de har meget forskellige vurderinger af risikoens størrelse, når de ser på nøjagtig samme case. Faglig uenighed om et så centralt spørgsmål som fremtidsudsigterne for børn i familier med vanskeligheder viser sig at være et grundvilkår i pædagogisk arbejde. Med denne erkendelse bliver faglige diskussioner med andre pædagoger om børnenes fremtidsudsigter en mulighed for, at pædagoger kan udvikle deres empati og nuancere deres helhedssyn. Abstract Pedagogues risk assessments in the field of children Although it is not the core task of pedagogues to make risk assessments, they occasionally have to assess risk of e.g. neglect. Using the vignette method, we investigated 99 pedagogues’ risk assessments. The respondents answered questions based on a fictional vignette about two children’s serious problems after their father’s suicide and the mother’s subsequent mental illness and hospitalization. The focus in the paper is on the pedagogues’ assessments of the magnitude of the risk and their descriptions of protection and risk factors they emphasized. Three results are important: 1) The pedagogues’ assessments were very divergent, whether they expressed the magnitude of risk in words or as a percentage. 2) Even though the pedagogues used the same word for the risk, e.g. high, there were large differences in their statements of the risk in percentage. 3) There were no important differences in the assessment of children’s risk, between high-, medium- and low assessing pedagogues. The pattern was the same regarding how many words they used on protection and risk factors. The results make it clear that pedagogues must be aware that they have very different assessments of the size of the risk when they look at exactly the same case. Professional disagreement on such a central issue as the future prospects for children in families with stress turns out to be a basic condition in pedagogical work. With this realization, professional discussions with other pedagogues about the children’s future prospects become an opportunity for pedagogues to develop their empathy and nuance their holistic view

Om kategorisering og symbolskmagtudøvelse i det sociale arbejde : Myten om de ressourcestærke forældre til børn medneuro-psykiatriske diagnoser

On categorization and symbolic power in social work: The myth of the resourceful parents to children with neuro-psychiatric diagnoses Social workers often use the term resourceful about a certain group of parents to children with neuro-psychiatric diagnoses, e.g. autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. This paper discusses the consequences of this sort of stereotyping/categorization with particular regard to the collaboration between these parents and the social workers as they meet in the social services system, when the parents apply for help for their children. Drawing upon Pierre Bourdieu, it is suggested that the categorization resourceful is not only overly simplistic and a myth, but is straight out misguiding and complicates the interaction – in fact it represents an act of symbolic power. Based upon a six months long sociological field-work study it is shown, that even though social workers seem to acknowledge the difficult and grueling life-situation of the parents, they are first and foremost perceived as resourceful and knowledgeable but hence also as annoying, insufferable, demanding and basically unjustified, even though they have obvious legal rights. Parents and social workers alike described the collaboration as being conflictual and a struggle and the complex power-relations are discussed in the light of Bourdieu.Sociologisk Forsknings digitala arkiv</p