References

• Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. (2008). Passionate participation: Emotional experiences and expressions in deliberative forums. Critical Social Policy, 28, 461–481. doi: 10.1177/0261018308095280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beresford, P. (2013). From ‘other’ to involved: User involvement in research: An emerging paradigm. Nordic Social Work Research, 3, 139–148. doi: 10.1080/2156857x.2013.835138
   Google Scholar
• Carr, S. (2007). Participation, power, conflict and change: Theorizing dynamics of service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales. Critical Social Policy, 27, 266–276. doi: 10.1177/0261018306075717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowden, S., & Singh, G. (2007). The ‘user’: Friend, foe or fetish? A critical exploration of user involvement in health and social care. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 5–23. doi: 10.1177/0261018307072205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1934/2005). Art as experience. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1950). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY: The New American Library.
   Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, I., Fischer, M., Julkunen, I., Uggerhoj, L., Austin, M., & Sim, T. (2014). New York Statement of 2014 on the evolving definition of practice research: Designed for continuing dialogue. Research on Social Work Practice, 28, 711–714. doi: 10.1177/1049731515582250
   Google Scholar
• Eräsaari, L. (1995). Kohtaamisia byrokraattisilla näyttämöillä [Encounters on the bureucratic stages]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M. (2009). Collaborative experiments: Jane Addams, Hull House and experimental social work. Social Science Information, 48(1), 81–95. doi: 10.1177/0539018408099638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassi, L., Paju, S., & Maila, R. (2015). Kehitä kokeillen: Organisaation käsikirja [Develop by experimenting: Organisations’ handbook]. Helsinki: Talentum Pro.
   Google Scholar
• Hillgren, P.-A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructure in design for social innovation. CoDesign, 7, 169–183. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2011.630474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, S. (2005). Participation, discourse and power: A case study in service user involvement. Critical Social Policy, 25, 164–179. doi: 10.1177/0261018305051324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: Principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory, 20, 187–201. doi: 10.1177/0090591792020002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubner, L. (2014). Constructing relations in social work: Client, customer and service user? The application and relevance of the term user in social work discourse. Nordic Social Work Research, 4, 87–98. doi: 10.1080/2156857x.2013.867894
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36, 537–563. doi: 10.1177/0170840614559257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthies A.-L., & Uggerhoj, L. (Eds.). (2014). Participation, marginalization and welfare services. Surrey: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• McBeath, B., & Austin, M. (2015). The organizational context of research-minded practitioners: Challenges and opportunities. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 446–459. doi: 10.1177/1049731514536233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. Social innovator series: Ways to design, develop and grow social innovation. The Young Foundation & NESTA. Retrieved from https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Muurinen, H., & Lovio, I. (2015). Kokeileminen sosiaalipalveluiden kehittämisen menetelmänä ja strategiana. [Experimenting as a method and strategy in developing social services]. Janus, 23, 206–223.
   Google Scholar
• Närhi, K., & Kokkonen, T. (2014). Transformation of participation politics and social citizenship in Finnish Welfare Governance. In L. Uggerhöj & A.-L. Matthies (Eds.), Participation, marginalization and welfare services (pp. 95–111). Surrey: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of Co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy & Society, 7, 221–231. doi: 10.1017/s1474746407004174
   Google Scholar
• Palsanen, K., & Kääriäinen, A. (2015). Asiakkaiden ja ammattilaisten yhteistoiminnallisen työskentelyn merkitykset ja seuraukset [The meanings and consequences of service users and professionals’ collaboration]. Janus, 23, 189–204.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, S., Taket, A. (2014). Inclusive service development: Exploring a whole of organisation approach in the community service sector. In A. T. Taket, B. R. Crisp, M. Graham, L. Hanna, S. Goldingay, & L. Wilson (Eds.), Practising social inclusion (pp. 77–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ronning, R., & Knutgård, M. (2015). Innovation in social welfare and human services. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, I., & Lunt, N. (2012). Constructing practitioner research. Social Work Research, 36, 197–208. doi: 10.1093/swr/svs013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Valkama, K., & Raisio, H. (2013). Kansalaisraati – Deliberatiivinen demokratia rakenteellisen sosiaalityön työmuotona? [Citizens jury – deliberative democracy as a form of structural social work?]. In M. Laitinen & A. Niskala (Eds.), Asiakkaat toimijoina sosiaalityössä [Clients as agents in social work] (pp. 87–113). Tampere: Vastapaino.
   Google Scholar
• Videmsek, P. (2014). From definition to action: Empowerment as a tool for change in social work practice. In L. Uggerhöj & A.-L. Matthies (Eds.), Participation, marginalization and welfare services (pp. 63–76). Surrey: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied social research methods series, volume 5 (4th ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar