Rehabilitation as a Reformed Governance Technology: Freedom, Constraint, and Concealment

  • Anne-Stine B. RøbergEmail author


Posing questions about power relations and governmental rationalities, this chapter focuses on ongoing changes in the Norwegian welfare system. By applying a critical discourse analytical framework, public documents and transcribed interviews with rehabilitation professionals are analysed. Two nodal rehabilitation discourses are identified. The first construes rehabilitation as a clinical practice, comprising reactive services based on individuals’ physical or mental condition eligibility. The second nodal discourse construes rehabilitation as a management practice, comprising mercantile tasks and approaches directed towards social processes. The chapter discusses how Norwegian authorities govern by political rationales and programmes intended to reduce the use of costly services, through downscaling clinical practices and increasing both the efficiency of rehabilitation professionals and the activation and self-realization of individuals.


  1. Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickenbach, J. (2014). Universally design social policy: When disability disappears? Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1320–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bury, M. (2005). Health and illness. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Byrkjeflot, H., Christensen, T., & Legreid, P. (2016). Accountability in multilevel health care services: The case of Norway. In P. Mattei (Ed.), Public accountability and health care governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, E. D. (2015). Making the blue zones: Neoliberalism and nudges in public health promotion. Social Science and Medicine, 133, 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67, 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkers, M. P., Hart, T., Tsaousides, T., Whyte, E. J., & Zanca, J. M. (2014). Treatment taxonomy for rehabilitation: Past, present, and prospects. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95, S6–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (2013). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flynn, R. (2002). Clinical governance and governmentality. Health, Risk and Society, 4, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1990). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutic (pp. 208–229). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1994). Truth and power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault (pp. 1954–1984). New York: The New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1999). Diskursenes Orden [L’ordre du Discours]. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag AS.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, B. (2016). Rehabilitation. A post critical approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimsmo, A., & Magnussen, J. (2015). Norsk Samhandlingsreform i et internasjonalt perspektiv [Norwegian coordination reform from an international perspective]. Trondheim: Institutt for Samfunnsmedisin, NTNU, EVASAM, Norges Forskningsråd.Google Scholar
  23. Grue, J. (2017). Now you see it, now you don’t: A discourse view of disability and multidisciplinarity. Alter – European Journal of Disability Research/Revue européenne de recherche sur le handicap, 11, 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagen, R., & Johnsen, E. (2013). Styring gjennom samhandling: Samhandlingsreformen som kasus [Governing by coordination: The coordination reform as a case]. In A. Tjora & L. M. Melby (Eds.), Samhandling for helse [Coordination for health] (pp. 31–52). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  25. Hanssen, J.-I., & Sandvin, J. T. (2003). Conceptualising rehabilitation in late modern society. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 5, 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey, D. (2006). Neo-liberalism as creative destruction. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 88, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hibbard, J., & Greene, J. (2013). What the evidence shows about patient activation: Better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs, 32, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howarth, D. (2005). Applying discourse theory: The method of articulation. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 316–349). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 34–61). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Kildal, N., & Kuhnle, S. (2012). Welfare principles and reform trends in Norway: Towards more conditional social rights? Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 42(2), 57–67.Google Scholar
  31. Kirchhoff, R., & Ljunggren, B. (2015). Equality in partnerships. The Coordination Reform in Norway. International Journal of Integrated Care, 15(5), Annual Conference Supplement; URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116943.Google Scholar
  32. Kivelä, S. (2018). Active citizenship, public sector and the markets: Freedom of choice as state project in health care. Geoforum, 91, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kvist, J. (2015). A framework for social investment strategies: Integrating generational, life course and gender perspectives in the EU social investment strategy. Comparative European Politics, 13, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kvist, J. (2016). Fighting poverty and exclusion through social investment: A European research perspective: A policy review. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Laine, P.-M., & Vaara, E. (2007). Struggling over subjectivity: A discursive analysis of strategic development in an engineering group. Human Relations, 60, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marini, I. (2011). Theories of adjustment and adaptation to disability. In I. Marina, N. M. Glover-Graf, & M. J. Millington (Eds.), Psychosocial aspects of disability: Insider perspectives and strategies for counselors (pp. 133–168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Matheson, D. (2008). Critiquing the critical: A reflection on critical discourse analysis. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 9, 83–96.Google Scholar
  38. McLaughlin, H. (2009). What’s in a name: ‘Client’, ‘patient’, ‘customer’, ‘consumer’, ‘expert by experience’, ‘service user’ – what’s next? British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1101–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mik-Meyer, N., & Villadsen, K. (2013). Power and welfare: Understanding citizens’ encounters with state welfare. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Mills, S. (2011). Discourse: The new critical idiom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Monkerud, L. C., & Tjerbo, T. (2016). The effects of the Norwegian coordination reform on the use of rehabilitation services: Panel data analyses of service use, 2010 to 2013. BMS Health Services Research, 16, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2009). Report no. 47 (2008–2009) to the Storting: The coordination reform – Proper treatment – At the right place and right time. Oslo.Google Scholar
  43. Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability and Society, 28(7), 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rapley, T. (2006). Interviews. In G. Saele, J. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practices: Concise paperback edition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Røberg, A.-S. B., Feirinig, M., & Romsland, G. I. (2017a). Norwegian rehabilitation policies and the coordination reform’s effect: A critical discourse analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Røberg, A.-S. B., Hansen, H. P., Feiring, M., & Romsland, G. I. (2017b). Rehabilitation in momentum of Norwegian coordination reform: From practices of discipline to disciplinary practices. Alter – European Journal of Disability Research/Revue européenne de recherche sur le handicap, 11, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Røberg, A.-S. B., Feiring, M., & Romsland, G. I. (2018). Rehabilitation, language, and power: Interdiscursive relationships between policy strategies and professional practices in Norway. Critical Discourse Studies, 1.
  48. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 42, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2009). Governmentality. Sydney Law School research paper no. 09/94, 2. Accessed 26 July 2016.
  51. Sandvin, J. (2012). Rehabilitering som koordinering og samhandling [Rehabilitation as coordination and cooperation]. In P. Solvang & A. Slettebø (Eds.), Rehabilitering. Individuelle prosesser, fagutvikling og samordning av tjenester [Rehabilitation. Individual processes, professional development and coordination of services] (pp. 52–64). Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS.Google Scholar
  52. Skempes, D., Melvin, J., von Groote, P., Stucki, G., & Bickenbach, J. (2018). Using concept mapping to develop a human rights based indicator framework to assess country efforts to strengthen rehabilitation provision and policy: The rehabilitation system diagnosis and dialogue framework (RESYST). Globalization and Health, 14(1), 1–96.Google Scholar
  53. Stiker, H.-J. (1999). A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  54. Stucki, G., Bickenbach, J., Gutenbrunner, C., & Melvin, J. (2017). Rehabilitation: The health strategy of the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 50, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Villadsen, K. (2007). Power and self-technology. Foucault’s relevance for current welfare studies? Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning, 10, 156–167.Google Scholar
  57. Wandel, T. (2001). The power of discourse: Michel Foucault and critical theory. Cultural Values, 5, 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2002). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–32). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TRS National Resource Center for Rare DisordersSunnaas HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations