An exploration of citizens’ professionalism in coproducing social care services

Citizens' involvement in public service delivery challenges the principles of professionalism as such citizens are amateurs. However, there is little evidence (non)integration these by citizen coproducers and how this affects delivery. This article focuses on two professionalism: expertise accountability. The theoretical framework further reviews coproduction literature what can be expected with regard to elaborates concept amateurism. concepts amateurism form for analysis coproducers' identity. Empirically, paper presents case studies social services European context. results show that a certain extent create professional identity, tend stay away from integrating accountability, introduce elements presence guidance servants ensure accountability streamline De betrokkenheid van burgers bij het leveren publieke diensten kan een uitdaging vormen voor de beginselen professionalisme, aangezien deze amateurs zijn op vlak dienstverlening. Er echter weinig wetenschappelijk bewijs (non)integratie professionalisme door burger coproducenten en hoe dit professionaliteit dienstverlening beïnvloedt. Dit artikel richt zich twee principes professionalisme: verantwoording. Het theoretisch kader gaat coproductieliteratuur, wat verwacht worden met betrekking tot principes, begrip amateurisme. begrippen amateurisme analyse identiteit coproducenten. Empirisch casestudies gepresenteerd sociale Europese resultaten laten zien dat zekere hoogte professionele creëren, toch afstand houden gevoel verantwoordingsplicht, terwijl elementen introduceren. toont aan aanwezigheid begeleiding overheidsambtenaren coproductie verantwoordelijkheid behoudt, tegelijkertijd voordelige die meenemen stroomlijnen. Kansalaisten osallistuminen julkisten palvelujen tuottamiseen haastaa ammatillisuuden periaatteet, sillä kansalaisia voidaan pitää palveluntuotannossa amatööreinä. On kuitenkin vain vähän näyttöä siitä, kuinka tämä vaikuttaa julkisten, yhteistuotettujen ammatillisuuteen. Tämä artikkeli keskittyy kahteen periaatteeseen yhteistuotannossa: asiantuntemukseen ja tilivelvollisuuteen. Teoreettinen viitekehys tarkastelee yhteistuotantokirjallisuutta erityisesti siitä näkökulmasta, mitä kansalaisilta yhteistuottajina odottaa näiden periaatteiden suhteen, tarkentaa amatöörismin käsitettä. Ammatillisuuden amatööriyden käsitteet muodostavat puitteet kansalaisyhteistuottajien identiteetin analyysille. Empiirisesti esittelee kaksi sosiaalipalvelujen tapaustutkimusta eurooppalaisessa kontekstissa. Tulokset osoittavat, että kansalaiset luovat itselleen jossain määrin ammatillista identiteettiä, pyrkivät välttämään liiallista tilivelvollisuutta, tuovat mukanaan amatöörimäisiä elementtejä palveluihin. Virkahenkilöiden läsnäolo ohjaus yhteistuotannossa voi varmistaa tilivelvollisuuden toteutumista virtaviivaistaa amatöörimäisyyttä palveluissa. Public organizations across globe invite coproduce (cf., Bovaird et al., 2015; Brandsen 2018; Osborne, 2017). According Honingh (2016, p. 431), “is relationship between paid employee an organization (groups of) individual requires direct active contribution work organization.” In article, we focus mode which voluntarily collaborate (Nabatchi 2017), does not include involuntary actions prompting cocreation value Alford, 2002; Osborne 2016). Here, given opportunities space set direction services, instance, engaging neighborhood planning, delivering care, or codesigning coimplementing space. Coproduction transforms relations citizens: instead being objects, perceived cooperators partners (Peeters, 2013). leads us examine respective roles professionals provision and, broader sense, principle (Ryan, 2012; Sullivan, 2000). Professionals have already faced shifts they (Aschhoff & Vogel, 2019; Honingh, 2013; Steen Tuurnas, 2018). These challenge reconsider “nature standards quality” (Brandsen 2016, 430), promoted creation collaborative identity among 2019). They impacts terms issues discretion (Steen implications study; however, explore perspective coproducers. coproduction, bring their situational knowledge based experiences process. way, supplement 2016; perceptions increased contributions decline (Salamon, 1987). opposition considered especially come staff emphasizing education, training, experience important contribute more quality than user (Bovaird, 2007). Additionally, changing raises question who held accountable when themselves take part delivery, particularly cases failure (Williams Regarding structure our research, framework, discuss relation offer analytical reflecting professionalism. Against setting, research follows: do integrate professionalism, specifically those identify amateurism? analyze views expertise, through multiple study focused contexts Belgium (Flanders) Finland. both countries, long tradition collaboration sector civil society; third provides large proportion care yet funding strong orientation. Both field services. reference different national allow gain insights surpass relevance conducting one specific sectorial country A approach enables role identifications at microlevel. Our training but also entails per se undermine Therefore, claim coexist microlevel without directly endangering core Finally, conclusion, directions emerging agenda topic elaborate practical study. Professionalism has been seen element welfare state Europe (Bertilsson, 1990; Svensson, 2006). realize interests way respects equality ensuring citizens' rights (Alford O'Flynn, 2009; Bertilsson, Duyvendak Accordingly, protect maintain values governance. itself existing many others (Beck Jørgensen Bozeman, 2007; Beck Rutgers, Huberts, 2014; Trommel, Van der Wal 2008; Yang, 2015). There several ways understand position within hierarchy Many definitions 2015) indicate (sub)values fitting under umbrella Paanakker (2020), contextualized, depending nature profession involved, associated numerous values. Under broad theme selected aspects discussing assets viewed sources legitimacy society (Molander We recognize other interest examining loyalty effectiveness. choose first because often mentioned governance (Huberts, Paanakker, 2020). Second, refer some undesired effects 2018) related For example, idea “patients could self-administered treatments” 2018, 285) effect referring lack education. Or, if carry out design service, responsible negative consequences failures 2016)? clear responsibilities lead failing (Tuurnas following, them. First, linked education areas nursing, law, urban planning. Through develop skills deepen while carrying work, expertise. produce effective equal outcomes clients users due learned understanding society, trained 2006; Moreover, realizing make judgments use knowledge. Thus, skillfulness, experience, discretion, As noted literature, positioning professionals' future coordinators rather sole experts (e.g., Bovaird, 2021). pattern, (2016) argue, created debate mean in, designing services? case, reinforces inequalities giving power wealthy educated Yates, simply less potentially quality, coproduced spaces? understood means legitimizing Bozeman (2007) fact must politicians policies. Being therefore reflects traits servant reliability. view acknowledges substantive person all sorts people public, colleagues stakeholders. multifaceted political become difficult define hybrid models where intermingle it (good bad) (Duyvendak Tuurnas (Jaspers Steen, Ryan, How decisions, balance values, essential question; equally decisions (Alford, Jaspers Brandsen, Verschuere (2018, “there concern about supervision context co-creation co-production.” Who fails? defining next discussion positions When designers require kind need plans design? ask questions pejorative connotation ascribed voluntary activities. perception citizen- causes exhibit diminishing effectiveness Salamon, Although civic participation found beneficial performance (Putnam, 1993), concerns still exist result insufficient taken occur nonprofessionals together (Francis, Edwards (2014b), 140), “the term ‘amateur’ attracts problematic connotations low lesser performance, not, no pay.” author argues amateurism, characterizes amateurs, opposite characterizing servants. study, Ewert Evers (2014) expectations “expert-patient” involved health practices. above, necessary execute tasks (represented job diploma he she holds) seek diagnose own symptoms internet search labeled Amateurism includes unaccountable, unprepared, lesser, unreliable practices (Dunston, Edwards, 2014b). Because recenters locus authority action, Edwards' (2014b) conceptualization complements brings production main characteristics collaboration: (1) something love (2) passionate learning relevant activity. Are taking over adopting identifying dependent embody (Birchall Simmons, 2004)? Overall, presented used evaluating analyzing integration perception. list exhaustive itinerant observed perspectives various hierarchical orders Nabatchi, Keeping mind, consider amateurism–professionalism divide potential lens coproduction. into account type involved. implementation feel pressured act pressures increase transparency, efficiency, side (Eisenberg Eschenfelder, Merrell, relies conducted Flanders (Belgium) Chmiliar (2012, 2) notes, “develop better issue theorize context.” By using approach, able politico-administrative (Chmiliar, 2012). intends variety initiatives aim open curious exploration starting point throughout states Europe. Next, presented. Nordic model universalism. Finnish model, bodies great financing (Anttonen 2012, pp. 21–22). system heavily trend Along trend, scholars hints responsibilization citizens. actors invited join government strengthening citizenship volunteer (Koskiaho, mediation described unique system, efforts volunteering mediators. parties (the victim offender), free service. creates opportunity reconcile offense occurred nonparty mediators, mediators basis. Mediation office contact who, part, begin process After completed office, returns district court final resolution (National Institute Health Welfare, Belgium's belongs Bismarckian model. It “cash-heavy,” priority cash transfers example focusing activation minimum income protection, contrast Scandinavian states, “service-heavy.” Nevertheless, toward interactive policy-making well quest policy (Van Damme Brans, 2008), mechanisms, opinion polls, panels, participatory budget, deliberative polling Flanders, organized (although exclusively) municipalities top-down manner programs. each municipality municipal department OCMW Dutch abbreviation department), number security, financial assistance (living wage), medical assistance, home admission centers. is, determined level whether Jaspers, small city local was confronted percentage elderly experiencing loneliness. To tackle loneliness, project fictive name Connected Care initiated university college. initiative network 80 senior engage caretaking checking sharing topics inheritance law. otherwise delivered would sometimes move flats homes obtain much help. project, wants deisolate people, empower them, help them live longer home, reduce burden persons need. makes data. interviews (see detailed description respondent Appendix 1). ability broader, perspective. (individual group) were Middle Finland Office, located Jyväskylä 2013. 15 persons, including (volunteering mediators) members, interviewed. interview data collected 2017 obtaining insight realization 17 participating servants, volunteers interviewed Table 1 present sector-led invites substantial inputs cases, needed, offers interesting viewpoint explorative (Creswell Creswell, sought patterns connections 2, conceptual identities coding allowed remain new frequently comparing code lists team. thorough carried basis framework. process, attention indirect references codes. shown appendices (Appendix B). analysis, cues regarding Do necessary? If do, acting according principles? binding compared kids sports activities …. So commitment, sense although this, strengthen capacity mediate. I say refers attitude learns manage doing. addition, far am concerned, defined bit narrowly days. (R8) authorities here, like lay members court. bound absolute confidentiality, agreement conciliation … types you authority. amateur theatre, different. (R6) inform winter any quite sense. (R9) volunteers, “in-betweeners” semiprofessionals had received. stakeholders agreed reliable (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R8, R14, R15), operate leave time. experienced lower staff, said daily, opposed perform once month. describing (in staff) supervisors facilitators whole managers (R4, R7, R9, R11). brought valuable trained, servant. wanted learn mediation, difference ourselves authorities. Think contact, ourselves. personalities. think nonauthoritarian this. top-down. (R11) contributing societal issues, motivation (R5, R6; R10). rewards, data, felt it. participants Care, regardless steering committee, did receive care. course stemming put organizing information sessions laws (R16) “you give advice things” (R21, R24). Specific required deliver caring willing others, having share desired (R16, 18, 20). While precondition participation, only worked least considerable (R17, 18): “people want something, young people. But keep going” (R17). actively