Interprofessional Collaboration and Service User Participation: Analysing Meetings in Social Welfare

Front Cover\nInternational collaboration and service user Participation: Analysing Meetings in Social Welfare\nCopyright information\nSeries\nTable of contents\nList of figures and tables\nNotes on contributors\nAcknowledgments\nIntroduction\n	Doing interprofessional collaboration and service user participation in multi-agency meetings\n	The organisation of the book\n	References\n1 From a collaborative and integrated welfare policy to frontline practices\n	Introduction\n	A globally promoted idea to solve complex problems\n	Interprofessional collaboration\n		Relational agency, boundaries and common knowledge\n		Blurring boundaries, power relations and the risks of shared responsibility\n	Service user participation\n		Service users as participants in creating knowledge in collaborative practices\n		Power relations, responsibilities and the risks of social engineering and stigmatisation\n	Collaboration and integration in action: teamwork and multi-agency meetings\n	References\n2 Examining talk and interaction in meetings of professionals and service users\n	Introduction\n	Meetings as social and interactional occasions\n	Meetings as organisational rituals and ceremonies\n		Degradation and integration ceremonies\n		Promoting a discursive and interactional approach\n	Meeting talk and interaction\n		Organisation and structure of a meeting\n		Role and action of the chair\n		Turn-taking and selection\n		Topic management and progression\n		Decision making\n	Conclusion\n	References\n3 How chairs use the pronoun ‘we’ to guide participation in rehabilitation team meetings\n	Introduction\n	Rehabilitation teams in Danish employment services\n	Collective self-reference and the role of the chair\n	Data and the process of analysis\n	Analysis: four uses of ‘we’ to guide participation in team meetings\n		The inclusive ‘we’ in interactions with service users\n		The exclusive ‘we’ in interactions between team members\n		The exclusive ‘we’ in interactions with service users\n		The inclusive ‘we’ in interactions between team members\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Notes\n	References\n4 Working within frames and across boundaries in core group meetings in child protection\n	Introduction\n	Information sharing and coordination in child protection in England\n		Core group meetings: ‘the control room of interagency work’\n	Professional framing, frames of interaction and boundary work\n	Data and the process of analysis\n		Informality and structuring of the CGMs\n	Analysis: managing frames and boundaries\n		The social worker chairs the CGM\n			Introductions\n			The chair controls the interprofessional display in the meeting\n			The chair relinquishes control of the meeting\n		The alignment of professionals\n			The health visitor positions herself as a baby expert\n			The specialist nurse establishes a role through an offer and a permission request\n			The headteacher takes over, joined in this by the school nurse\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Note\n5 Alignment and service user participation in low-threshold meetings with people using drugs\n	Introduction\n	Low-threshold substance use services and vulnerable status\n	Service user participation – shifting alignments\n	Data and the process of analysis\n	Analysis: doing collaborative service user participation while setting the agenda and making decisions\n		Defining the agenda and the course of interaction\n		Making decisions and choices\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Notes\n	References\n6 Sympathy and micropolitics in return-to-work meetings\n	Introduction\n	The institutional and emotional landscapes of multi-agency welfare meetings\n	Micropolitics, social place, sympathy and alliances\n	Data and the process of analysis\n	Analysis: alliances and sympathizing in status meetings\n		Claiming sympathy\n		Unmet sympathy claims\n		Non-verbal sympathy gift\n		Building moral ground for sympathy claims\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Transcript key\n	References\n7 Negotiating epistemic rights to knowledge concerning service users’ recent histories in mental health meetings\n	Introduction\n	The Care Programme Approach\n	Epistemic access and rights to service users’ recent histories\n	Data and the process of analysis\n	Analysis: displaying epistemic rights regarding service users’ recent histories\n		‘Aligning talk’ about positive changes in the service user’s recent life\n		‘On behalf of talk’ about the service user’s recent support needs\n		‘Disagreeing talk’ about the service user’s memory of services he is entitled to\n		‘Contradictory talk’ about the service user’s recent medication\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Notes\n	References\n8 Relational agency and epistemic justice in initial child protection conferences\n	Introduction\n	Child protection and ICPCs\n	Institutional talk, relational agency and epistemic rights and justice\n	Data and the process of analysis\n	Analysis: effect of chairs’ interactional approach on service user participation1\n		Institutional talk at the start of meetings\n		Relational agency\n		Epistemic authority and epistemic injustice\n	Discussion and conclusion\n	Note\n	References\nConclusion\n	Analysing collaboration and participation in multi-agency meeting interactions\n	Role of the chair and turn-taking\n	Information-giving and decision-making roles\n	Alignments, affiliation and different uses of the term ‘we’\n	Owning, prioritising and producing knowledge\n	Concluding remarks\nPostscript\n	Note\n	References\nIndex\nBack Cover