Katja Rinne-Koski and Merja Lähdesmäki
Municipalities seek new opportunities for co-producing services in rural areas. One potential partner is community-based social enterprises (CBSEs). However, whilst service…
Abstract
Purpose
Municipalities seek new opportunities for co-producing services in rural areas. One potential partner is community-based social enterprises (CBSEs). However, whilst service co-production through CBSEs obscures the traditional roles of actors, it may lead to a legitimation crisis in local service provision. In this paper, the ways CBSEs are legitimised as service providers in rural areas are addressed from the CBSE and municipality perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach
Empirical data combine interviews with CBSE representatives and open-ended national survey responses from municipality decision-makers. The data analysis is based on a qualitative content analysis to examine legitimation arguments.
Findings
Results show that unestablished legitimacy and un-institutionalised support structures for co-production models build mistrust between CBSEs and municipalities, which prevents the parties from seeing the benefits of cooperation in service production.
Research limitations/implications
The research focusses on the legitimation of CBSEs in service co-production in rural areas. As legitimation seems to be a context-specific process, future research is needed regarding other contexts.
Practical implications
Municipalities interested in the co-production of services might benefit from establishing a collaborative and responsive (rural) service policy forum that would institutionalise new models of co-production and enable better design and governance of service provision.
Originality/value
Results will give new theoretical and practical insights into the importance of legitimacy in the development of service co-production relationships.
Details
Keywords
Katja Koski, Kaisa Martikainen, Katja Burakoff, Hannu Vesala and Kaisa Launonen
This paper aims to evaluate the role of the supervisor's support on the effectiveness of a communication training program targeted at staff members who work with individuals who…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to evaluate the role of the supervisor's support on the effectiveness of a communication training program targeted at staff members who work with individuals who have profound and multiple learning disabilities.
Design/methodology/approach
The aim was to explore which aspects of supervisory support influenced the staff members to participate in the programme and the results for the on-going effects of the training.
Findings
Staff members reported a need for more supervisory support to maintain the results of the training and to disseminate the new practices to non-trained staff.
Originality/value
Although supervisory support seems to benefit staff members during their participation in training programmes, even careful planning and execution of this support cannot ensure its continuation after the training is finished.
Details
Keywords
– The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings from Koski et al.'s (2014) research around training staff to communicate effectively.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings from Koski et al.'s (2014) research around training staff to communicate effectively.
Design/methodology/approach
This commentary reflects on the needs of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD). It uses the Five Good Communication Standards (Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, 2013) as a framework for thinking about good communication.
Findings
Ongoing support is certainly important in enabling staff to develop and maintain good communication partnerships with the people they are working with. This first requires agreement from all involved regarding what good communication partnerships look like and how they can be measured.
Originality/value
This paper focuses on the Five Good Communication Standards and how these might be interpreted with people with PIMD. It uses information from Goldbart and Caton's (2010) review of communication and people with the most complex needs to reflect on what is known from research and practice about each of these five standards. It concludes that more research is needed and greater implementation is needed where evidence is strong. We need to know what “good” could look like with people with PIMD so services support staff can then be facilitated to build successful communication partnerships and maintain these over time.