‘Good stories get lost in bureaucracy!’ Cultural biases and information for co-production

References

• 6, P., & Richards, P. (2017). Mary Douglas: Understanding social thought and conflict. Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social impact measurement and non-profit organizations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. Voluntas, 24(2), 869–886.
   Google Scholar
• Badham, R., & Sense, A. (2006). Spiralling up or spinning out: A guide for reflecting on action research practice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(5), 367–377.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, D., & Pahl, K. (2018). Co-production: Towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, C., 6, P., & Raab, C. (2005). Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: Managing tensions between data protection and social policy, part II. Public Administration, 83(2), 393–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billis, D., (ed.) (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., Flemig, S., Loeffler, E., & Osborne, S. (2019). How far have we come with co-production—and what’s next? Public Money & Management, 39(4), 229–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracci, E., & Chow, D. (2016). When is personalization considered a form of co-production? The case of personal budgets reform in English social care. In M. Fugini, E. Bracci, & M. Sicilia (Eds.), Co-production in the public sector (pp. 41–58). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury Huang, J. (2010). What is good action research? Action Research, 8(1), 93–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 27–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2018). Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Definitions and theoretical perspectives (pp. 9–17). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-creation and co-production in public services: Urgent issues in practice and research. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Definitions and theoretical perspectives (pp. 3–8). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Broccardo, E., & Mazzuca, M. (2019). The missing link? Finance, public services, and co-production: The case of social impact bonds (SIBs). Public Money & Management, 39(4), 262–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). What are data? The many kinds of data and their implications for data re-use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 635–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, D., & Bracci, E. (2020). Neoliberalism, accounting and the transformation of subjectivities in social work: A study on the implementation of personal budgets. Financial Accountability & Management, 36(2), 51–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compact Voice. (2014). Understanding Social Value: A guide for local Compacts and the voluntary sector http://www.compactvoice.org.uk/sites/default/files/social_value_guidance_2014.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cornford, J., Wilson, R., Baines, S., & Richardson, R. (2013). Local governance in the new information ecology: The challenge of building interpretative communities. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 201–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottam, H. (2018). Radical help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionise the welfare state. Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health & Social Care. (2016, updated 2020). Care and support: Statutory guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-statutory-guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance.
   Google Scholar
• Docherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: How institutions think. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (2005). A history of grid and group cultural theory, manuscript available from http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/cyber/douglas1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dowling, E. (2017). In the wake of austerity: Social impact bonds and the financialisation of the welfare state in Britain. New Political Economy, 22(3), 294–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durose, C., Needham, C., Mangan, C., & Rees, J. (2017). Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production. Evidence & Policy, 13(1), 135–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferry, L., Ahrens, T., & Khalifa, R. (2019). Public value, institutional logics and practice variation during austerity localism at Newcastle City Council. Public Management Review, 21(1), 96–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferry, L., Eckersley, P., & Zakaria, Z. (2015). Accountability and transparency in English local government: Moving form matching parts to awkward couple? Financial Accountability & Management, 31(3), 345–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, A. (2018). A new health and care system: Escaping the invisible asylum. The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, A., Fox, C., & Marsh, C. (2013). Could personalization reduce re-offending? Reflections on potential lessons from British social care reform for the British criminal justice system. Journal of Social Policy, 42(4), 721–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1984). Good organizational reasons for ‘bad’ clinic records. Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbon, J., & Dey, C. (2011). Developments in social impact measurement in the third sector: Scaling up or dumbing down? Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 31(1), 63–72.
   Google Scholar
• Glennon, R., Hannibal, C., & Meehan, J. (2017). The impact of a changing financial climate on a UK local charitable sector: Voices from the front line. Public Money & Management, 37(3), 197–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossi, G., Reichard, C., Thomasson, A., & Vakkuri, J. (2017). Theme: Performance measurement of hybrid organizations: Emerging issues and future research perspectives. Public Money & Management, 37(6), 379–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardey, M., & Loader, B. (2009). The informatization of welfare: Older people and the role of digital services. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 657–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardill, I., Baines, S., & 6, P. (2007). Volunteering for all? Explaining patterns of volunteering and identifying strategies to promote it. Policy & Politics, 35(3), 395–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1998). The Art of the state: Culture, rhetoric and public management. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2010). Accountability and transparency: Siamese twins, matching parts, awkward couple? West European Politics, 33(5), 989–1009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham, C. (2003). Action research as a methodology for theory development. Policy & Politics, 31(2), 239. —248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, D., Wilson, R., Martin, M., Lowe, T., Kimmitt, J., Gibbon, J., & French, M. (2020). Data for outcome payments or information for care? A sociotechnical analysis of the management information system in the implementation of a social impact bond. Public Money & Management, 40(3), 213–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joy, M., & Shields, J. (2020). Debate: How do social impact bonds economize social policy? Public Money & Management, 40(3), 190–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, J. (2010). Bringing ideology back in: The erosion of political innocence in English third sector policy. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 241–258.
   Google Scholar
• Ledwith, M. (2007, updated 2019). Reclaiming the radical agenda: A critical approach to community development. Concept, 17(2), 8–12. Reproduced in The encyclopaedia of pedagogy and informal education https://infed.org/mobi/reclaiming-the-radical-agenda-a-critical-approach-to-community-development/.
   Google Scholar
• Linsley, P., McMurray, R., & Shrives, P. (2016). Consultation in the policy process: Douglasian cultural theory and the development of accounting regulation in the face of crisis. Public Administration, 94(4), 988–1004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logue, D. M., Clegg, S., & Gray, J. (2016). Social organization, classificatory analogies and institutional logics: Institutional theory revisits Mary Douglas. Human Relations, 69(7), 1587–1609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löfgren, K., & Webster, C. (2020). The value of Big data in government: The case of ‘smart cities’. Big Data & Society, 7, 1. doi: 10.1177/2053951720912775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 6–59.
   Google Scholar
• Mamadouh, V. (1999). Grid-group cultural theory: An introduction. GeoJournal, 47(3), 395–409.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. J. (2002). The modernisation of UK local government: Markets, managers, monitors and mixed fortunes. Public Management Review, 4(3), 291–307.
   Google Scholar
• McLoughlin, I., & Wilson, R. (2013). Digital government @ work. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mikołajczak, P. (2020). Social enterprises’ hybridity in the concept of institutional logics: Evidence from Polish NGOs. Voluntas, 31(3), 472–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxham, C. (2010). Challenges and enablers to engaging voluntary organizations in public service delivery: A UK perspective. Public Money & Management, 30(5), 293–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2007). Realizing the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy & Society, 7(2), 221–231.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C., & Carr, S. (2015). Micro-provision of social care support for marginalized communities—filling the gap or building bridges to the mainstream? Social Policy & Administration, 49(7), 824–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NEF. (2009). Tools for You: Approaches to proving and improving for charities, voluntary organizations and social enterprise https://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/ee604b9c7787bf1b80_aym6ivqnu.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2015). Messy institutions for wicked problems: How to generate clumsy solutions? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(6), 1679–1696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (2006). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 253–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavey, B. (2006). Human capital, social capital, entrepreneurship and disability: An examination of some current educational trends in the UK. Disability & Society, 21(3), 217–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, J. (2011). Towards a sociology of trust: Community care and managing diversity. Sociology Mind, 1(2), 27–32.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M. (2019). Understanding the mixed economy of welfare. The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, K. (1996). Boring records: Communication, speech and writing in social work. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, N., & King, J. (2013). Three paradoxes of big data. Stanford Law Review Online, 66, 41–46.
   Google Scholar
• Richter, P., & Cornford, J. (2008). Customer relationship management and citizenship: Technologies and identities in public services. Social Policy & Society, 7(2), 211–20.
   Google Scholar
• Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2019). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, R. (2016). Improvement and public service relationships: Cultural theory and institutional work. Public Administration, 94(4), 933–952.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, R. (2018). Using cultural theory to navigate the policy process. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 235–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, S., McHugh, N., Huckfield, L., Roy, M., & Donaldson, C. (2014). Social impact bonds: Shifting the boundaries of citizenship. Social Policy Review, 26, 119–36.
   Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slay, J. (2011). Budgets and beyond: Interim report. New Economics Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2020). Co-production Week 2020 https://www.scie.org.uk/co-production/week.
   Google Scholar
• Teasdale, S., Alcock, P., & Smith, G. (2012). Legislating for the Big society? The case of the public services (social enterprise and social value) bill. Public Money & Management, 32(3), 201–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Think Local Act Personal. (2011). http://www.thinklocalactpersonal.org.uk/_library/Resources/Personalisation/TLAP/THINK_LOCAL_ACT_PERSONAL_5_4_11.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Trowbridge, H., & Willoughby, M. (in press). Re-Humanising The System or: How storytelling can be used to bridge the divide between services and citizens, Public Money & Management.
   Google Scholar
• Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner, S., & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change. Public Administration, 84(4), 817–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: Street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Švejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Bull, M. (2013). SROI in practice: The wooden canal boat project. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(3), 315–325.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R., Cornford, J., Baines, S., & Mawson, J. (2011). Information for localism? Policy sensemaking for local governance. Public Money & Management, 31(3), 295–299.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R., Fraser, A., Kimmitt, J., Tan, S., McHugh, N., Lowe, T., Warner, M., Baines, S., & Carter, E. (2020). Futures in social investment? Learning from the emerging policy and practice of social impact bonds (SIBs). Public Money & Management, 40(3), 79–182.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R., Martin, M., Walsh, S., & Richter, P. (2011). Re-mixing the digital economies of care in the voluntary and community sector (VCS): Governing identity and information sharing in the mixed economy of care for children and young people. Social Policy & Society, 10(3), 379–391.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, C., & Northcott, D. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money & Management, 39(4), 253–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar