<p>The purpose of this essay is to critically review three different contributions to the agency – structure debate from a political science perspective. My opinon is that the agency – structure debate is one of the main problems within the social science. The theories which I will examine are Lennart Berntsons theory from 1974, Lennart Lundquists from 1984 and Walter Carlsnaes from 1992. These political scientists all have different perspectives to the problem. My aim is to compare three theories that is of importance to the problem. But I also want to show that there are problems with each of these theories. No one really solves the problem. I want to shed some light on the different problems which these theories encounter and I also want to show were the solution to these problems might be found.</p><p>It is obvious that the theories have a similar view on the actor (or agent). Each see the actor as both an individual and a collective, such as a party, state or an organisation. They also see the actor in a constant relation to the society. The two main differences between the theories is when it comes to defining the structures and when it comes to trying to connecting the actor with the structure. Berntson sees the connection as mainly classoriented and this provides valuable knowledge to the debate. However, compared to Berntson, Lundquists theory is more thoroughly worked out when it comes to providing knowledge to how agents are affected by structures. This, I would say, is the biggest advantage with Lundquists theory. Finally, Carlsnaes theory, compared to both Berntson and Lundquist, is the least developed one, at least when it comes to defining both the actor and the structure. Though, I still consider his theory of importance. This is because his contribution to the knowledge on how we might explain structural change.</p>

The purpose of this essay is to critically review three different contributions to the agency – structure debate from a political science perspective. My opinon is that the agency – structure debate is one of the main problems within the social science. The theories which I will examine are Lennart Berntsons theory from 1974, Lennart Lundquists from 1984 and Walter Carlsnaes from 1992. These political scientists all have different perspectives to the problem. My aim is to compare three theories that is of importance to the problem. But I also want to show that there are problems with each of these theories. No one really solves the problem. I want to shed some light on the different problems which these theories encounter and I also want to show were the solution to these problems might be found. It is obvious that the theories have a similar view on the actor (or agent). Each see the actor as both an individual and a collective, such as a party, state or an organisation. They also see the actor in a constant relation to the society. The two main differences between the theories is when it comes to defining the structures and when it comes to trying to connecting the actor with the structure. Berntson sees the connection as mainly classoriented and this provides valuable knowledge to the debate. However, compared to Berntson, Lundquists theory is more thoroughly worked out when it comes to providing knowledge to how agents are affected by structures. This, I would say, is the biggest advantage with Lundquists theory. Finally, Carlsnaes theory, compared to both Berntson and Lundquist, is the least developed one, at least when it comes to defining both the actor and the structure. Though, I still consider his theory of importance. This is because his contribution to the knowledge on how we might explain structural change.

As an innovation Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is designed as a tool for clinical problem solving. According to its theory of use EBP will bring a difference for policy makers, for professionals, for researchers and for service users. One question to be asked is whether EBP actually leads to the radical social change it is designed to accomplish. The aim of the study is to describe and analyse the outcome of the effort to establish EBP, with a focus on the case of social work in Sweden. The research questions are: What is EBP? Why are efforts made to establish EBP? What is the outcome of the EBP project? How can the outcome of the EBP project be explained? The case study was conducted on a critical realistic meta-theoretical ground with a focus on explanation of social change with an explicit actor-structure perspective. Methodologically, a narrative synthesis of studies was made. As a complement primary data were collected to fill empirical gaps. The state of things was described before and after the EBP-initiatives. Several helping theories – Kuhn’s theory of paradigm, program theory, neo-institutional theory and theory of diffusion – were used to analyse the empirically mapped outcome of the EBP project. The results show that the import of the original model of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) to social work is a part of a wider social movement in the helping and educational professions. The new model has influenced social work as a discipline, as a field of practice and as a field of policy. There are examples of full-scale implementations of EBP, although EBP has not reached a general status as daily practice. Some obstacles remain. The gradual adaption of EBP corresponds to criteria hold by Kuhn for a paradigm shift. Acceptance of the model has contributed to change the structure and function of social systems. At an organizational level, this change means on-going institutionalization. The innovation is influencing the way institutional actors conduct their work. Although the structural conditions have been optimal, the EBP-model has been debated with heat. The EBP-debate and policy-driven infrastructural efforts have brought a more in-depth examination of the model. So-called coercive, normative, and regulative isomorphisms were used to change organizations. The degree of institutionalization depended on the individuals and the organizations willingness and preparedness to change, to understand, and to put the model into practice. When actors used a less strict version of the original EBP model, the pace of cultural and institutional change slowed down.

As an innovation Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is designed as a tool for clinical problem solving. According to its theory of use EBP will bring a difference for policy makers, for professionals, for researchers and for service users. One question to be asked is whether EBP actually leads to the radical social change it is designed to accomplish. The aim of the study is to describe and analyse the outcome of the effort to establish EBP, with a focus on the case of social work in Sweden. The research questions are: What is EBP? Why are efforts made to establish EBP? What is the outcome of the EBP project? How can the outcome of the EBP project be explained? The case study was conducted on a critical realistic meta-theoretical ground with a focus on explanation of social change with an explicit actor-structure perspective. Methodologically, a narrative synthesis of studies was made. As a complement primary data were collected to fill empirical gaps. The state of things was described before and after the EBP-initiatives. Several helping theories – Kuhn’s theory of paradigm, program theory, neo-institutional theory and theory of diffusion – were used to analyse the empirically mapped outcome of the EBP project. The results show that the import of the original model of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) to social work is a part of a wider social movement in the helping and educational professions. The new model has influenced social work as a discipline, as a field of practice and as a field of policy. There are examples of full-scale implementations of EBP, although EBP has not reached a general status as daily practice. Some obstacles remain. The gradual adaption of EBP corresponds to criteria hold by Kuhn for a paradigm shift. Acceptance of the model has contributed to change the structure and function of social systems. At an organizational level, this change means on-going institutionalization. The innovation is influencing the way institutional actors conduct their work. Although the structural conditions have been optimal, the EBP-model has been debated with heat. The EBP-debate and policy-driven infrastructural efforts have brought a more in-depth examination of the model. So-called coercive, normative, and regulative isomorphisms were used to change organizations. The degree of institutionalization depended on the individuals and the organizations willingness and preparedness to change, to understand, and to put the model into practice. When actors used a less strict version of the original EBP model, the pace of cultural and institutional change slowed down.