Author:
Lahtinen Päivikki,Kajamaa Anu,Seppänen Laura,Johnsen Berit,Hean Sarah,Esko Terhi
Abstract
AbstractIn prison, the provision of care and the surveillance of inmates takes place in multiple locations with several often contradictory demands. Inmates may experience a fragmentation of services because of the separate silos in which criminal justice service and mental health professionals work and the distinct ways of working that develop within these. A greater alignment between services is required. This chapter focuses on interagency meetings in a Norwegian prison. These are groups that aim to develop an holistic perspective of the inmate’s situation and problems, and are seen as an innovative way to overcome the contradiction between ‘treatment’ and ‘punishment’ prison paradigms applied by the different professionals working together in the prison and mental health services. We analysed how the professionals interact at interagency meetings, and how they align their tasks, goals, roles and expertise to support the inmate’s imprisonment and rehabilitation. Our analysis illustrates the multiple ways in which this collective activity is conceptualised by the participants and then provides a model of interorganisational dynamics through which these collaborations may be fostered. By so doing, we have made suggestions about how to enhance interprofessional collaboration between prison and mental health services. The chapter also contributes to research on challenges and opportunities for collaboration in complex organisational settings.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference39 articles.
1. Amit, V. (2000). Constructing the field, ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Angrosino, M. V., & Pérez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 673–702). London: Sage.
3. Berkenkotter, C., & Ravotas, D. (1997). Genre as tool in the transmission of practice over time and across professional boundaries. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(4), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0404_4.
4. Bjerkan, J., Richter, M., Grimsmo, A., Hellesø, R., & Brender, J. (2011). Integrated care in Norway: The state of affairs years after regulation by law. International Journal of Integrated Care, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.530.
5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.