Suchergebnisse

On this International Day of Women and Girls in Science, we hear from Dr Jenny Stewart, APHA's Director of Science and Transformation, as she shares some personal thoughts to accompany a video from a small selection of our female science staff.

'Consultation' has become something of a mantra in contemporary governance. Governments well understand that policy occurs in a highly contestable environment in which there are multiple, and often competing interests. They well recognise the political imperative to 'engage' stakeholders in order to manage potential conflict and, hopefully, obtain acceptance for their policies and programs. As a result, politicians and public officials frequently emphasise the need for consultation as an essential element of the deliberative processes underpinning the development of policy or the implementation of programs and services. But, moving beyond the rhetoric of consultation and engagement, how well is it done? In this monograph, Professor Jenny Stewart maps out the principal approaches used by governments to consult with and engage affected communities of interest. Stewart critically assesses the available literature and draws directly upon the experiences of political actors, bureaucrats and community sector organisations in order to identify the 'good, bad, and the ugly' of engagement. Through a judicious use of selected case studies, Stewart distils the essential dilemmas and contradictions inherent in many consultation strategies and highlights their relative strengths and weaknesses. This monograph is a probing and dispassionate analysis of the rationales, methodologies and outcomes of consultation and engagement. It is not intended to be a 'cookbook' or a 'how to' manual for those consulting or the consulted. Nevertheless, there is much here for the policy practitioner, the researcher and members of those 'communities of interest' who might, one day, find themselves the target of engagement.

Purpose– The aim of this paper is to understand factors governing the implementation of an innovative public sector program.Design/methodology/approach– A longitudinal case study is used to document change and tension in the implementation process.Findings– The study suggests that because of the embedded character of public sector innovation, it is likely that, as they are implemented, many innovations run up against restrictions and limitations, precisely because they challenge many systems and processes in the host agency. These conflicts, unless specifically addressed, may cause the original innovation to lose its fundamental character.Research limitations/implications– The case suggests that innovative programs may differ from other types of public sector innovation, such as specific service-delivery initiatives with novel characteristics. Programmatic innovations will be required to produce results according to standard models of managerial accountability which may be difficult to reconcile with innovation.Practical implications– The study draws attention to the need for flexible support systems, such as HR, Finance and IT in the implementation of innovation in the public sector; where a classic "intrapreneur" is involved, leadership teams with complementary styles may also be significant.Originality/value– The study demonstrates the nature of the trade-offs that are involved in the implementation of innovative programs and highlights the implications of the challenging, if not subversive, nature of many types of innovation