1 / 15

Pernille Jensen

Pernille Jensen. Towards Recovery Oriented Practices Smooth implementation or unpredictable innovation? Pernille Jensen, Milan 2012. Towards recovery oriented practices Introductory: Can recovery be implemented? A closer look at a joint training program as an example

fountain-hubert
Download Presentation

Pernille Jensen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pernille Jensen • Towards Recovery Oriented Practices • Smooth implementation or • unpredictable innovation? • Pernille Jensen, Milan 2012

  2. Towards recovery oriented practices Introductory: Can recovery be implemented? A closer look at a joint training program as an example Concluding challenges and some common factors

  3. Can recovery be implemented? Recovery is a user practice: It does not refer to specific services, interventions or support (however recovery-oriented) but to what people do in order to cope and regain control over their lives and move beyond their illness or problems Recovery is not something you can do to others – it’s a personal journey, but with important travel companions There is no model, no concept or golden standard of recovery orientation What is – and what is not – recovery oriented practices is an empirical question!

  4. Example: Joint training programme in a Danish Municipality January – May 2011 Mandatory for professionals Open for users of services More than 30 users participated in full training program

  5. Training consisted of: Two half day seminars on recovery and rehabilitation Joint study groups with 8–10 participants for 6 x 2 hours Working with life domains based on personal experiences Concluding seminar of one day: dissemination of work in the study groups

  6. Evaluation of the study groups Became a ”working group with a common target” New experience to meet in the roles of ”fellow students” Inspiring to see different sides of each other – but creating role strain as well Hard not to fall into old patterns – like professionals interviewing and interpreting users Need to practice talking together on difficult and potential conflicting subjects

  7. Surprises Still lots of conversations among professionals without the user Things you don’t want the users to hear – in that form Demanding, difficult and time consuming to practice ’open dialogue’? Something that is not to be translated in to ”user acceptable language”? Have we become blind to how many conversations taking place without the users present? Without prior agreement – and without close follow up? Real danger that professionals continue to make decisions and plans for the user…

  8. More surprises Users were more actively engaged in the work than expected (by professionals!) Often better prepared than professionals… Continuing tendencies to view users as ”not able”? Low expectancies – stigmatizing in it self

  9. After thoughts Almost gratitude towards being listened to What kind of experiences and expectations are hereby reflected? Wishes and hope for continuation – having the opportunity of participating, sharing and contributing

  10. Reflections First experiences acknowledging different types of knowledge The professional monopoly of knowledge (partly, for the time being) dissolved Upgrading of the lived experience Transcending the divide between knowledge about practice and knowledge in practice?

  11. Focus on change The change is complex – in systems, practice and thinking Where and how are users able to influence services for real? Within given frames – or are they moveable as well? Can we – by beginning to do things differently – clear the road for other changes? From a ”cute idea” to a Trojan horse - a disruptive innovation (Pat Deegan)

  12. Focus on partnership “Nothing about us without us” – from slogan to reality? Basis: The users are always already involved! A need to look into the quality and character of this involvement Test and evaluate prototypical models of partnerships Watch emerging partnerships and keep asking: How are the users invited to participate? How to create possibilities for legitimate participation on equal footing?

  13. Concluding challenges: 1. Recovery orientation is a profound transformation, not adjustments in the margin or a new model to implement What are the possibilities in a political system – and what is possible in regard to administration and management? Will there be space for real innovation and tolerance of uncertainty, when there are no ready made answers to all the new questions?

  14. Concluding challenges: 2. The users must lead the way – and real change will not happen unless we begin to do things differently It’s going to take time – it’s troublesome and untidy and creates a lot of role strain Will we be able to convince politicians and management that it’s worth while? Will we have access to the time and resources needed for these kind of processes in a time of economic crisis and with a public sector under pressure?

  15. Common factors for the challenges: There is no magic bullet or quick fix since no process of organizational change will be simple or linear – it will be complex, multi-faceted, dynamic and interactive These are dilemmas we will have to live in and learn from We are facing a truly innovative process – and a disruptive such – since recovery is not fitting nice and compatible in to any existing systems as we see them today

More Related