References

• Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, A. (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? The social service review lecture. Social Service Review, 69, 545–562. doi: 10.1086/604148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmark, A., & Lundström, T. (2011). Evidensbaserad praktik i svenskt socialt arbete. Om ett programs mottagande, förändring och möjligheter i en ny omgivning (Evidence based practice in social work in Sweden. How a program is received, changed and possibilities in a new environment). In I. Bohlin & M. Sager (Eds.), Evidensens många ansikten. Evidensbaserad praktik i praktiken (pp. 163–183). Lund: Arkiv förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Brännmark, M. (2012). Lean i kommuner och myndigheter: En översikt över existerande empirisk forskningslitteratur (Lean in public administration. A review of empirical studies). Stockholm: Innovationsrådet.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (1998). Standardisering. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). Following standards. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 127–137). Oxford, NY: Oxford university press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33, 613–632.doi:10.1177/0170840612450120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101 doi: 10.2307/2095101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckwort.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K. (2011). ‘Street-level bureaucracy' revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social policy & Administration, 45, 221–244. doi:10.1111/j.14167-9515.2011.00766.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 368–386. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2012). Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work, Advance access published in March 7, 2012, 1–20. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 871–895. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2006). Trust and professionalism: Challenges and occupational changes. Current Sociology, 54, 515–531. doi:10.1177/0011392106065083
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266. doi:10.1163/156913309X421655
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2010). Reconnecting professional occupations with professional organizations: Risks and opportunities. In L. G. Svensson & J. Evetts (Eds.), Sociology of professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions (pp. 123–144). Göteborg: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaglio, G. (2014). Organizational sense: A notion for studying emerging organizational professionalism at work. Professions & Professionalism, 4, 222–239. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/pp.222 doi: 10.7577/pp.222
   Google Scholar
• Gambrill, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice and the ethics of discretion. Journal of Social Work, 11, 26–48. doi:10.1177/1468017310381306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasenfeld, Y. (2010). Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselbladh, H., Bejerot, E., & Gustafsson, R. Å. (2008). Bortom New Public Management: institutionell transformation i svensk sjukvård (Beyond New public management. Institutional transformation in Swedish health care). (1. uppl.). Lund: Academia adacta.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, K., & Meagher, G. (2004). The reprofessionalization of social work: Collaborative approaches for achieving professional recognition. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 243–260. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, D. (1992). Child abuse and the bureaucratisation of social work. The Sociological Review, 40, 491–508. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.ep9210193003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers room for discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 600–615. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaina, V. (2008). Legitimacy, trust and procedural fairness: Remarks on Marcia Grimes’ study. European Journal of Political Research, 47, 510–521.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (2009). Streetlight and shadows. Searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. London: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leanforum. (2012). Dubbla vinnare av Svenska Leanpriset 2012! [Double winners of the Swedish Lean Prize 2012). Press release 2012–10–03. Retrieved from http://www.leanforum.se/leanpriset/PR_sv_leanpriset_121003.html
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th anniversary expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Lundström, T. (2011). Om senmodernitet, riskbedömningar och social barnavård. (About post modernity, risk assessment and child welfare). In I. Höjer & S. Höjer (Eds.), Familj, vardagsliv och modernitet: en festskrift till Margareta Bäck-Wiklund (pp. 101–114). Göteborg: Institutionen för socialt arbete, Göteborgs universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Martinell Barfoed, E. (2014). Standardiserad interaktion—en utmaning för social arbete. Standardized interaction—a challenge in social work). Socialvetenskaplig tidsskrift, 21, 4–23.
   Google Scholar
• Martinell Barfoed, E., & Jacobsson, K. (2012). Moving from ‘gut feeling' to pure facts: Launching the ASI interview as part in-service training for social workers. Nordic Social Work Research, 2, 5–20. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2012.667245
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
   Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2004). The impact of audit on social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 1075–1095. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2008). Effective child protection (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2011). The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report. A child-centred system. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty, May 2011.
   Google Scholar
• The National Board of Health and Welfare. (2014). Öppna jämförelser av social barn- och ungdomsvård (Open comparisons of social services in child welfare). Retrieved from http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/oppnajamforelser/barnochunga
   Google Scholar
• Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From ‘Pure' to ‘Hybrid' professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society, 39, 761–785. doi:10.1177/0095399707304434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies, 32, 1349–1371. doi:10.1177/0170840611416748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygaard, P. (2012). Professional autonomy versus corporate control. Professions & Professionalism, 2, 11–26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.164
   Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (1998). Risk, advanced liberalism and child welfare: The need to rediscover uncertainty and ambiguity. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 5–27. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, A., & Svensson, K. (2012). Shades of professionalism: Risk assessment in pre-sentence reports in Sweden. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 176–190. doi:10.1177/1477370811424985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponnert, L. (2013). Osäkerhet—ett nödvändigt uttryck för professionalitet eller ett tecken på okunskap? (Uncertainty—a necessary expression for professionalism or a sign of lacking knowledge?) In S. Linde & S. Svensson (Eds.), Förändringens entreprenörer och tröghetens agenter: människobehandlande organisationer ur ett nyinstitutionellt perspektiv (pp. 42–55). 1. uppl. Stockholm: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2011). När förpackade idéer möter organisatoriska villkor (When packed ideas confront organizational conditions). Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 18, 168–186.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radnor, Z., & Boaden, R. (2008). Editorial: Lean in public services—panacea or paradox? Public Money & Management, 28, 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2008.00610.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, G. (2003). Technicality and indeterminacy in probation practice: A case study. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 593–610. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/33.5.593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
   Google Scholar
• Saks, M. (2012). Defining a profession: The role of knowledge and expertise. Professions & Professionalism, 2, 1–10. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.151
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as Institutional agents. Organization Studies, 29, 219–238. doi:10.1177/0170840607088151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, I., Morris, K., & Edwards, A. (2009). Technology, social services and organizational innovation or how great expectations in London and Cardiff are dashed in Lowestoft and Cymtyrch. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23, 383–400. doi: 10.1080/02650530903374937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson, K., & Åström, K. (2013). The field of social regulation: Ho the state creates a profession. Professions & Professionalism, 3, 1–16. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/pp.557
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., & White, S. (2001). Knowledge, truth and reflexivity: The problem of judgement in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1, 37–59. doi:10.1177/146801730100100104
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., & White, S. (2006). Knowledge and reasoning in social work: Educating for humane judgment. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 937–954. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. D. (1971). Hur organisationer fungerar (How organisations work). Stockholm: Prisma.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, L. D., & Hegar, R. L. (2013). The tri-sector environment of social work administration: Applying theoretical orientations. Administration in Social Work, 37, 215–226. doi:10.1080/03643107.2012.676609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., Hal, C., & Peckover, S. (2009). The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1197–1217. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar