Inter-agency work in Open Dialogue: the significance of listening and authenticity

Abstract

The article explores what professionals regard as important skills and attitudes for generating inter-agency network meetings involving intra- and interprofessonal work. More specifically, we will examine what they understand as promoting or impeding dialogue and how this is related to their professional backgrounds. The professionals participated in a project using an open dialogue approach in order to increase the use of inter-agency network meetings with young people suffering from mental health problems. In this explorative case study, empirical data was collected through interviews conducted with two focus groups, the first comprising healthcare professionals and the second professionals from the social and educational sectors. Content analysis was used, where the main category that emerged was dialogue. To illustrate the findings achieved in the focus groups, observations of inter-agency network meetings are included. The findings describe the significance and challenges of listening and authenticity in the professionals' reflections. The healthcare workers expressed worries concerning their capacities for open and transparent dialogues, while the other professionals' emphasized the usefulness of particular techniques. Inter-agency network meetings may be improved if more awareness is placed on the significance of meeting atmosphere, dwelling on specific topics, dealing with silence and understanding how authentic self-disclosure in reflections can promote the personal growth of the participants.

• Focus groups
• inter-agency network meetings
• interprofessional work
• open dialogue
• social network intervention

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the informants for sharing their experiences and editor-in–chief for useful comments on earlier versions. We want to thank Soerlandet Hospital Trust and Oslo University Hospital, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Research Unit for funding the study.

Notes

1 On one occasion both representatives working in the same agency had other tasks in Project Joint Development. The informant included was chosen because of his relationship with the municipality and agency involved and because of the particular supervisory group.

2 Thus, in one municipality, four persons representing one of the supervision groups were included, while only two from the other supervision group.

3 Only one participated in the meetings reported from here.