Inledning: Författarna har under sina fältdagar i utbildningen uppmärksammat att det finns olika åsikter och tankar om specialpedagogens uppdrag i verksamheterna bland pedagogerna. Spe­cialpedagogens uppdrag styrs på olika sätt beroende på ledning och vilka befogenheter speci­alpedagogen har i verksamheterna. Syfte: Att öka kunskapen om pedagogers syn på det spe­cialpedagogiska uppdraget samt hur det kan påverka specialpedagogens roll i en verksamhet. Metod: Vid ett tillfälle träffades fyra pedagoger i en fokusgrupp där deltagarna fick diskutera ett antal bilder med påståenden utifrån den specialpedagogiska examensordningen. En rektor och två specialpedagoger besvarade en enkät med samma tolv påståenden som fokusgruppen samt med några öppna frågor. Resultat: Det skiljde sig i pedagogernas diskussioner om speci­alpedagogens uppdrag beroende på om det diskuterades utifrån vad det står i examensord­ningen eller om det var utifrån pedagogernas önskan. Handledningssamtal var ofta i fokus samt hur handledningssamtal påverkade pedagogernas arbete. Pedagogerna ville ha specialpeda­gogens kunskap och tar upp att det är viktigt med ett bra samarbete mellan professionerna. Skolutveckling diskuterades mest i fokusgruppen när det var utifrån examensordningen. Synen på det specialpedagogiska uppdraget behöver utvecklas i verksamheten menar rektorn. Slut­sats: Pedagogerna uttrycker att specialpedagogerna är viktiga i verksamheten samtidigt som det finns en osäkerhet och otydlighet i det specialpedagogiska uppdraget. / Introduction: The authors have noted during their field days in the education that there are different opinions and thoughts about the special educator's assignments in the activities of the educators. The Special Education Officer's assignments are governed differently depending on management and the powers of the Special Pedagogue in the activities. Aims: To raise aware­ness of educators' views on the special education assignment and how it may affect the role of the Special Educator in an activity. Method: At one time, four educators met in a focus group where the participants were allowed to discuss a number of pictures with claims based on the special education degree scheme. A principal and two special educators answered a quest­ionnaire with the same twelve statements as the focus group and with some open questions. Result: It was different in the pedagogues discussions about the special educator's as­signments, depending on whether it was discussed based on the degree program or whether it was the wish of the educators. Tutorials were often in focus and how tutoring conversations influenced the teachers' work. The educators wanted the specialist teacher's knowledge and stated that it is important to have good cooperation between the professions. School develop­ment was discussed most in the focus group when it was based on the degree scheme. The view of the special education mission needs to be developed in the activities, says the director. Conclusion: Educators express that the special educators are important in the activities while there is uncertainty and ambiguity in the special education mission.

Multi-agency cooperation has been considered a very important aspect of crime investigation and crime prevention in modern time. The aim of this study was to explore the realities of multi-agency cooperation as experienced by Swedish crime workers from the police, the Prison and Probation Service and the Social Service. Previous research has shown that inter-agency cooperation’s success and/or failure is controlled by factors such as time, resources, amount of guidance and so on, however very little research has explored the modern Swedish crime workers’ perspective in the subject. Semi-structured interviews were conducted regarding the topics of cooperation between agencies, information exchange and secrecy. The results showed that while cooperation within the Swedish Judicial System was operating well, collaborative efforts with external agencies like the Social Service, was severely lacking. Collaborative efforts were experienced as less actual cooperation and more information exchange, which in turn was heavily controlled by secrecy laws and therefore often seen as one-way communication with external agencies. Additionally, when well-planned collaborative projects funded by the government are in place, the cooperation tends to work easier, however workers are less inclined to prioritize such efforts when the agencies’ own resources are being used.