...
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: an international journal >Partnerships with the police - logics and strategies of justification
【24h】

Partnerships with the police - logics and strategies of justification

机译:与警察的伙伴关系-合理的逻辑和策略

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Purpose - Political reforms call for new types of public-private or community partnerships, in which public services are shaped in collaboration with networks of public, business or non-governmental organizations. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how municipal partners justify and thereby maintain partnerships with the police. Design/methodology/approach - The empirical material comprises documents and 26 semi-structured interviews with civil servants, politicians, and police staff. This qualitative study investigates three Swedish municipalities engaged in partnerships with the same police authority. Findings - Based on Boltanski and Thevenot's order of worth, the paper describes how municipal partners manage two partly contradictory arrangements; one constituted by industrial and civic logics, and one constituted by domestic and industrial logics. Guided by these two different arrangements, they justify and thereby maintain their partnership with the police by alternating between a compromising strategy promoting adaptation to the police and a compensating strategy stating that they are independent partners with demands on the police. Research limitations/implications - This is a qualitative study that needs further confirmation before general conclusions can be drawn. Still, it suggests that partners justify themselves by making claims on being both collaborative and independent within these partnerships. Originality/value - Unlike research investigating how authorities initiate partnerships to organize integrated and cost-efficient public services, the paper highlights how partners justify their participation by alternating between two rather different but linked justifying strategies. The study applies a justificatory logic perspective that helps us understand that complex and sometimes contradictory arrangements of logics, which could threaten partner participation, also enable them to justify and thereby maintain their partnership with the police. Unlike institutional studies describing how tensions challenge organizational legitimacy this study describes how justificatory strains remain even when partners are able to justify their participation.
机译:目的-政治改革要求建立新型的公私伙伴关系或社区伙伴关系,在这种伙伴关系中,公共服务应与公共,商业或非政府组织的网络合作。本文的目的是调查市政合作伙伴如何辩护并从而与警察保持伙伴关系。设计/方法/方法-经验材料包括文件和对公务员,政治人物和警察的26次半结构式访谈。这项定性研究调查了与同一警察机关结成伙伴关系的三个瑞典城市。调查结果-基于Boltanski和Thevenot的价值顺序,本文描述了市政合作伙伴如何管理两个部分矛盾的安排;一种由工业和公民逻辑组成,另一种由国内和工业逻辑组成。在这两种不同的安排的指导下,他们通过在促进对警察适应的妥协战略与表明他们是对警察有要求的独立伙伴之间进行补偿的战略​​之间的交替来证明并维持与警察的伙伴关系。研究的局限性/含义-这是一个定性研究,需要先进一步确认才能得出一般结论。它仍然表明,合作伙伴通过声称在这些合作伙伴中既具有协作性又具有独立性来证明自己是正当的。原创性/价值-与研究当局如何发起伙伴关系以组织整合且具有成本效益的公共服务的研究不同,本文强调了伙伴如何通过在两种截然不同但相互联系的证明策略之间进行交替来证明其参与的理由。这项研究采用了合理的逻辑观点,可以帮助我们理解复杂的逻辑安排(有时甚至相互矛盾),这可能威胁伴侣的参与,也使他们有理由为之,从而维持与警察的伙伴关系。与描述紧张关系如何挑战组织合法性的机构研究不同,本研究描述了即使合作伙伴能够证明其参与的合理性压力仍然存在。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号