TY - JOUR
T1 - The space before action
T2 - The role of peer discussion groups in frontline service provision
AU - Goldman, Laurie S.
AU - Foldy, Erica Gabrielle
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/3
Y1 - 2015/3
N2 - Studies of street-level discretion tend to focus on what influences workers’ behaviors and the consequences of their choices for advancing or compromising policy goals, but studies rarely focus on the space before action, that is, the processes through which workers make decisions and, in particular, how they deliberate with one another about practice problems within groups dedicated to improving social service delivery. Drawing from two qualitative studies of peer discussion groups, a study of teams of child welfare workers and a study of interorganizational groups composed of employment service workers, we find that workers in each setting grappled with similar types of problems but differed in their focus on specific clients or routine tasks, how they sought to legitimate their responses, and the extent to which their proposed solutions modified established approaches to practice. Our analysis suggests that features of the accountability contexts associated with the two policy fields help explain observed differences.
AB - Studies of street-level discretion tend to focus on what influences workers’ behaviors and the consequences of their choices for advancing or compromising policy goals, but studies rarely focus on the space before action, that is, the processes through which workers make decisions and, in particular, how they deliberate with one another about practice problems within groups dedicated to improving social service delivery. Drawing from two qualitative studies of peer discussion groups, a study of teams of child welfare workers and a study of interorganizational groups composed of employment service workers, we find that workers in each setting grappled with similar types of problems but differed in their focus on specific clients or routine tasks, how they sought to legitimate their responses, and the extent to which their proposed solutions modified established approaches to practice. Our analysis suggests that features of the accountability contexts associated with the two policy fields help explain observed differences.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982734882&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982734882&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1086/680319
DO - 10.1086/680319
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84982734882
SN - 0037-7961
VL - 89
SP - 166
EP - 202
JO - Social Service Review
JF - Social Service Review
IS - 1
ER -