Abstract
Rehabilitation processes of working-age citizens involve several organizations and professions, and require inter-organizational and inter-professional coordination and collaboration across hospitals, community healthcare, and employment services. Institutional perspectives on organizations and professions can contribute to understanding the conditions that facilitate or impede coordinated services. Since the services apparently belong to a joint organizational field of rehabilitation, one should expect that the field supports collaboration and coordinated services across agencies. However, both knowledge sharing and joint action seem hindered by infrastructure deficits, knowledge transfer from hospitals that does not meet the needs of frontline professionals, and ‘pure’ forms of professionalism. Connective and collaborative forms of professionalism, including boundary-spanning tasks, seem necessary to ensure smooth transitions, undisrupted pathways, and coordinated services for injured citizens.
This analysis is based on the project ‘Transitions in rehabilitation: Biographical reconstruction, experiential knowledge, and professional expertise’ (Norwegian Research Council, grant no. 229082). I would like to thank the project group for valuable discussions, and am especially grateful to Mirela Slomic and Ole Kristian Håvold, who have undertaken large parts of the data collection, as well as Bjørg Christiansen, Per Koren Solvang, and Ivan Harsløf, who, like me, have also contributed in this task.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Mirela Slomic and Ole Kristian Håvold.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Adler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Perspective–professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359–376.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
Andelic, N., Hammergren, N., Bautz-Holter, E., Sveen, U., Brunborg, C., & Røe, C. (2009). Functional outcome and health-related quality of life 10 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 120(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2008.01116.x.
Andelic, N., Soberg, H. L., Berntsen, S., Sigurdardottir, S., & Roe, C. (2014). Self-perceived health care needs and delivery of health care services 5 years after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. PM&R, 6(11), 1013–1021.
Antunes, V., & Moreira, J. P. (2011). Approaches to developing integrated care in Europe: A systematic literature review. Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 4(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1179/175330311X13016677137743.
Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carvalho, T. (2014). Changing connections between professionalism and managerialism: A case study of nursing in Portugal. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1(2), 176–190.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018002005.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. London: Polity Press.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garrow, E. E., & Grusky, O. (2012). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103–131.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285.
Gröne, O., & Garcia-Barbero, M. (2001). Integrated care: A position paper of the WHO European office for integrated health care services. International Journal of Integrated Care, 1(2), e21.
Harsløf, I., Håvold, O. K., & Slomic, M. (2019). Establishing individual care plans for rehabilitation patients: Traces of self-targeting in the Norwegian, universal welfare state. Nordic Journal of Social Research 10(1).
Håvold, O. K. (2018). Opportunity talk, work talk and identity talk: Motivating strategies used by the Norwegian labour and welfare offices. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2017.1405836.
Håvold, O. K. (2019). All roads lead to Rome: Discretionary reasoning on medically objective injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices. Professions & Professionalism, 9(1). http://doi.org/10.7577/p2283.
Håvold, O. K., Harsløf, I., & Alm Andreassen, T. (2017). Externalizing an ‘asset model’ of activation: Creative institutional work by frontline workers in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service. Social Policy and Administration, 52(1), 178–196.
Kellogg, K. C. (2014). Brokerage professions and implementing reform in an age of experts. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 912–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414544734.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: SAGE.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, C., & Dutton, M. (2012). Promoting healthy routes back to work? Boundary spanning health professionals and employability programmes in Great Britain. Social Policy & Administration, 46(5), 509–525.
Mur-Veeman, I., van Raak, A., & Paulus, A. (2008). Comparing integrated care policy in Europe: Does policy matter? Health Policy, 85(2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.07.008.
Muzio, D., & Kirkpatrick, I. (2011). Introduction: Professions and organizations – A conceptual framework. Current Sociology, 59(4), 389–405.
Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12030.
Nolte, E., Knai, C., & McKee, M. (Eds.). (2008). Managing chronic conditions: Experience in eight countries. Brussels/Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies/World Health Organization.
Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From ‘pure’ to ‘hybrid’ professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration and Society, 39(6), 761–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304434.
Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies, 32(10), 1349–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611416748.
Noordegraaf, M. (2013). Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration and Society, 48(7), 783–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713509242.
Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates, and directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 435–481.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00171.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies, 29(2), 219–238.
Slomic, M., Soberg, H. L., Sveen, U., & Christiansen, B. (2017). Transitions of patients with traumatic brain injury and multiple trauma between specialized and municipal rehabilitation services – Professionals’ perspectives. Cogent Medicine, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2017.1320849.
Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wade, D. T., & de Jong, B. A. (2000). Recent advances in rehabilitation. British Medical Journal, 320(7246), 1385–1388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1385.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andreassen, T.A. (2019). Complex Problems in Need of Inter-organizational Coordination: The Importance of Connective and Collaborative Professionalism Within an Organizational Field of Rehabilitation. In: Harsløf, I., Poulsen, I., Larsen, K. (eds) New Dynamics of Disability and Rehabilitation. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7346-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7346-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7345-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7346-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)