<p>The aim of this thesis is to describe and analyse pupils’ and teachers’ views on pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork and how this relates to a more comprehensive ideology of school and today’s high modern society. The analysis is inspired by Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and the concepts of discursive consciousness, practical consciousness, rules, routines and resources.</p><p>At school level pupils’ and teachers’ views of pupils’ responsibility is shown in their practical and discursive consciousness. To capture this consciousness, observations were made during fifteen lessons in school year 9 (15-16 years of age). These lessons - “study times” - were introduced to increase freedom of choice, flexibility and responsibility. Sixty-eight pupils and twenty-two teachers were interviewed. The ideology expressed in pupils’ and teachers’ views on pupils’ responsibility was related to the official school ideology expressed in the national curriculum. Finally, an analysis was carried out inspired by Anthony Giddens’ and Ulrich Beck´s concepts used in their descriptions of the high modern society, individualism and value-relativism.</p><p>The results showed a discursive consensus between teachers and pupils concerning their views pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork. The meaning of responsibility was taken for granted and implied doing the school tasks and to complete them in time. Both teachers and pupils expressed that many pupils’ have difficulties in taking this responsibility. A discrepancy between the pupils’ discursive and practical consciousness was found.</p><p>Rules and routines were created by the teachers to control the freedom of space offered during the “study times”. The pupils legitimated the teachers’ controlling function but in practice they offer resistance against the demand for responsibility.</p><p>The overall analysis identified three issues that are important for further discussions in research and educational practice. Responsibility and learning: Responsibility was observed as a part of a “culture of doing” separated from learning as such. Also, responsibility was linked to individual work. The freedom offered during the “study times” was used by both pupils, and teachers, to build relationships. This means that relationships were not created through work but rather despite it. Responsibility and the view of the pupils’: In pupils’ and teachers’ view of responsibility pupils were easy going, ruled by lust and/or responsible but not always according to the conditions stipulated by the school. The pupils were offered a freedom to choose but they were also held responsible for the consequences. While they could make the choice not to work, this would influence the evaluation of the achievements, and in reality make it a “non-choice”. The freedom was limited and conditioned. Responsibility as a democratic principle: The connection between responsibility and pupil participation expressed in the national curriculum was not to be found in pupils’ and teachers’ views of responsibility. While the pupils were offered participation in relation to which assignments to choose to work with during the “study times”. They were not invited to shape the rules and the routines for the schoolwork or to have influence on the contents of the work or the working environment. The pupils’ did not ask for more participation, but rather feared it would lead to chaos. The separation between participation and responsibility indicated in the study is suggested to weaken the idea of responsibility as one of the democratic principles.</p><p>In conclusion: The view of pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork was built upon an individualistic ideology. known from Giddens and Becks description of high modernity. In contrast to their description, however my results show no signs of value-relativism</p>

The aim of this thesis is to describe and analyse pupils’ and teachers’ views on pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork and how this relates to a more comprehensive ideology of school and today’s high modern society. The analysis is inspired by Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and the concepts of discursive consciousness, practical consciousness, rules, routines and resources. At school level pupils’ and teachers’ views of pupils’ responsibility is shown in their practical and discursive consciousness. To capture this consciousness, observations were made during fifteen lessons in school year 9 (15-16 years of age). These lessons - “study times” - were introduced to increase freedom of choice, flexibility and responsibility. Sixty-eight pupils and twenty-two teachers were interviewed. The ideology expressed in pupils’ and teachers’ views on pupils’ responsibility was related to the official school ideology expressed in the national curriculum. Finally, an analysis was carried out inspired by Anthony Giddens’ and Ulrich Beck´s concepts used in their descriptions of the high modern society, individualism and value-relativism. The results showed a discursive consensus between teachers and pupils concerning their views pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork. The meaning of responsibility was taken for granted and implied doing the school tasks and to complete them in time. Both teachers and pupils expressed that many pupils’ have difficulties in taking this responsibility. A discrepancy between the pupils’ discursive and practical consciousness was found. Rules and routines were created by the teachers to control the freedom of space offered during the “study times”. The pupils legitimated the teachers’ controlling function but in practice they offer resistance against the demand for responsibility. The overall analysis identified three issues that are important for further discussions in research and educational practice. Responsibility and learning: Responsibility was observed as a part of a “culture of doing” separated from learning as such. Also, responsibility was linked to individual work. The freedom offered during the “study times” was used by both pupils, and teachers, to build relationships. This means that relationships were not created through work but rather despite it. Responsibility and the view of the pupils’: In pupils’ and teachers’ view of responsibility pupils were easy going, ruled by lust and/or responsible but not always according to the conditions stipulated by the school. The pupils were offered a freedom to choose but they were also held responsible for the consequences. While they could make the choice not to work, this would influence the evaluation of the achievements, and in reality make it a “non-choice”. The freedom was limited and conditioned. Responsibility as a democratic principle: The connection between responsibility and pupil participation expressed in the national curriculum was not to be found in pupils’ and teachers’ views of responsibility. While the pupils were offered participation in relation to which assignments to choose to work with during the “study times”. They were not invited to shape the rules and the routines for the schoolwork or to have influence on the contents of the work or the working environment. The pupils’ did not ask for more participation, but rather feared it would lead to chaos. The separation between participation and responsibility indicated in the study is suggested to weaken the idea of responsibility as one of the democratic principles. In conclusion: The view of pupils’ responsibility for their schoolwork was built upon an individualistic ideology. known from Giddens and Becks description of high modernity. In contrast to their description, however my results show no signs of value-relativism

Background. The research on management in Swedish home care has been conductedmainly from sociological perspectives where structural conditions have been of interest (see for example Hagerman et al., 2013; Andersson, 2014; Österlind, 2013). The conditions impacting on management are described as differing ideals where the main ideals are the care perspective and the cost perspective (see for example Andersson, 2014; Österlind, 2013). The conflict between ideals create tensions between ideology and practice and different expectations (Antonsson, 2013) and may also create problems, dilemmas and paradoxes (Österlind, 2013). The rules impacting on the home care activities are bureaucratic rules stemming from the state and municipality. However, Trydegård (2000) argues that at the same time there is room for autonomy and path-dependence in the home care units. Purpose and research approach. There seems to be a lack of studies on management control in home care, and more especially no study combining a discourse, structures and theories on management control. The purpose of this thesis is to explore management control in home care in the relation between structures and managers’ interpretative repertoires in a social-constructionist perspective. The purpose is also to create a prototype model for further research. The ontological positioning and theoretical framework are building on Giddens’ structuration theory (1979, 1984) in which structures are seen as both the medium and outcome of social interaction and rules are important. The units of analysis are the managers’ accounts on management control in semi-structured interviews. The accounts are analysed in a so called case cluster analysis (McClintock et al., 1979) in the software program NVivo. The codes are building on Ouchi’s theory of management control (1979) as ‘input control’, ‘behaviour control’, ‘output control’ and ‘clan control’, and also building on Giddens’ structuration theory (1978, 1984) defined as 8 characteristics of rules, ‘normative sanctions’, ‘signification of meaning’, ‘authoritative’ or ‘allocative resources’. Findings. The findings reveal that home care is highly bureaucratic in input and output control by the use of formal rules stemming from municipality or state. In behaviour control home care has a medium-low degree of bureaucracy if exercised through ‘signification of meaning’ and medium-high when exercised through ‘authoritative resources’. In clan control home care has a low degree of bureaucracy and can either be positive or negative depending on how informal leaders in the unit impact on cooperation between care personnel and if there is trust and a good communication between manager and care personnel. Two main patterns of structuration appear: creation of structures for an efficient process flow of home care to increase efficiency, and co-creation of new rules for behaviour to increase cooperation. Managers focus on different situations of management control depending on conditions in the home care unit and own interpretations. Two interpretative repertoires are identified; the discourse on hard matters is created in relation to matters that are more rigid in structure, such as legislation and municipal goals and that are difficult to interpret differently, whereas soft matters are created in discourse around dilemmas and human or relational aspects of control.

Shaoul et al. (2012) state that the accounting, scrutiny and oversight of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) remain areas of concern. Also, there have been calls for a more socio-technical and multidisciplinary approach to accounting and governance studies (Broadbent, 2012; Broadbent and Guthrie 2008), especially in relation to the empirical study of PPPs (Hodge et al., 2010). This thesis responds to these calls in part by drawing on Giddens’ structuration theory to examine the financial accountability and governance concerns that are created in PPP joint venture structures. The empirical work focuses on the health sector, which is identified as one of the sectors inundated by PPP activities, particularly in the UK (Treasury, 2012; Whitfield, 2010). It adopts a case study approach, based on qualitative methodology, which involves documentary analysis of secondary data and interviews in relation to two PPP schemes under the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) scheme in the UK’s health sector.The thesis investigates: the extent to which the corporate structures of the LIFT scheme do complicate financial accountability and governance including external scrutiny; the extent to which the LIFT scheme does enhance partnership working between the public and private sector partners; the structures in financial accountability and governance in the LIFT scheme; the human agents that provide agency in financial accountability and governance in the LIFT scheme and; whether and in what ways structures and human agency in financial accountability and governance interact in the LIFT scheme and what the implications are.The thesis finds firstly that the complex corporate structure of the LIFT scheme is very complicated and the joint venture mechanism cannot be relied upon to deliver transparency of reporting. Secondly, as limited companies, all financial reporting follows private sector accounting regulations and Company Law and there is minimal disclosure in terms of information available to the general public. This is worsened by lack of information sharing between partners as evidenced in one case study group. Thirdly, there was considerable inconsistency in the reporting due to multiplicity of interpretive schemas between the two case study groups. Fourthly, there was considerable change in the reporting due both to changes in accounting regulations and changes in organisational structure and interpretive schemas throughout the period. Fifthly, there is lack of continuity of public sector oversight and monitoring as the public sector, in practice, restricts its activities to pre-operational phase and limited oversight after construction phases. Moreover, partnership working is very difficult in the context of profit seeking under the LIFT structure. Partnership working and success of the LIFT scheme may depend on trust, key personalities working together as well as leadership. From the structuration perspective, the study finds structural contradictions and conflicts of interests in financial accountability and governance practices. Therefore, transparency, public accountability, oversight and scrutiny are necessarily undermined and, policy makers should pay attention to not only the private sector technologies but also the manner in which they are used to benefit finance capital.