Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author or Editor: Thomas Schneider x
In light of the Euro crisis and disintegrative tendencies, recent approaches in European integration research increasingly emphasise constraints and crises of integration, most prominently elaborated in the so-called failing forward-approach. However, we argue that this approach is significantly limited in understanding both the nature of crises and the potential breadth of current ruptures in European economic integration. Based on regulation theory, we develop an alternative and more encompassing account of how different periods and modes of integration emerged as a response to crises but simultaneously unleashed new crisis tendencies. More specifically, we detail how the specific and asymmetric Europeanisation of forms of regulation provided a response to the crisis of the Fordist mode of development but concomitantly set the scene for the Euro crisis to emerge. This triggered a partial reconfiguration of the post-Fordist, neoliberal European mode of regulation since 2010, without, however, substantially addressing its underlying crisis tendencies. Against this background, and in the face of mounting geopolitical rivalries and the climate crisis, we analyse significant ruptures in the neoliberal mode of regulation in the EU currently underway, namely in the area of the regulation of the wage relation (European Minimum Wage Directive, Posting of Workers Directive), fiscal policy (NextGenerationEU, reform of the Stability and Growth Pact) as well as in the regulation of competition (strategic industrial policy, relaxation of competition law). Together, and although it seems too early to discern a ‘post-neoliberal’ mode of development, these ruptures indicate a significant departure from the neoliberal mode of European economic integration.
Background:
Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.
Aims and objectives:
Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.
Methods:
Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.
Findings:
In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.
Discussion and conclusions:
Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.
