Suchergebnisse

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical view of participatory policies and measures by highlighting that participation is not only a right for young people, but also an obligation for many. This obligated participation is studied conceptually and empirically.Design/methodology/approach– The paper introduces a novel typology of youth participation that demonstrates the dimensions of institutional framing and a degree of choice in participation. The typology is applied in an empirical study on how the participation rights and obligations are formed and handled within an educational programme, aiming to support young people at the margins.Findings– Young people are controlled by their participation obligations, and are guided to reach maturity and claim personal responsibility for their choices. The acceptance of an obligation to participate has to be negotiated with young people in services; otherwise they may opt out of supportive measures.Research limitations/implications– More research is needed on how youth participation terminology is used in political programmes and professional practices.Social implications– It is vital to discuss the options and obligations of young people in professional support measures and consider their implications for different groups of young people. At the policy level, the challenge is to ensure that the right to participate at community and political levels is not ignored or made inaccessible to young people at the margins.Originality/value– The typology diversifies understanding of youth participation and enables the analysis of participation types. It can be applied in youth studies, policy-making and practices.

AbstractThis article examines the underlying rationales and tensions of network governance and programme steering in policy planning processes by closely examining their practical implementation in the national and municipal child and youth welfare planning. It is asserted that a fundamental gap exists not only between the ideals and actual practices of networked planning, but also (despite being seen as forming a natural alliance) between network governance and programme steering. This gap is mainly because the former emphasizes governmental openness, whereas the latter tends to be connected to administrative centralization and control. In order to be successful, the article concludes, both need elements of political exclusion albeit for different reasons.

Evaluation research mixes administrative objectives with social scientific aims.This article distinguishes between three types of evaluation research based on the role of the evaluator. First, social engineers seek mechanisms that have objectively measurable outcomes. Second, programme promoters act as counselling resources for community developers or other stakeholders. Instead of these two traditional roles, this article considers a third type of evaluation which is based on the role of the evaluator as a critical interpreter, embodied in the sociological intervention approach. The role of the critical interpreter is illustrated by two cases where evaluation has focused on the policy of devolved responsibility combined with community-based prevention.The interventions took place in very different settings: a large-scale, long-lasting evaluation of a large and expensive policy-testing programme and an independent, voluntary and brief evaluation of small-scale, local groups. The comparison of these demonstrates that the context of evaluation determines the more specific type of a critical interpretation.