Social Investments (SI) have become a significant policy tool during the 2010s for developing and implementing social policy. This study explores how the SI framework, based on social innovation, evidence-based policy and practice, and impact evaluation, affects professionals when it is implemented and evaluated. The empirical material of the study was based on semi-structured interviews with professionals operating in the City of Stockholm. The author applied practical philosophy, relational sociology, and evaluation theory to answer four phronetic social science research questions focusing on phronesis (practical wisdom). SI comes with constitutive effects that affect the praxis of professionals. It is accompanied by different logics that can both enable or restrict common understanding between economists or social advocates, these differ between professional groups. It creates new content to strive for to create measurable outcomes, which can often lead to conflicts of power. Whether it is delivering outcomes within a certain set of time, or following evidence-based policy and practice, different chains of accountability put a lot of pressure to not do wrong, rather than do right. The design and implementation of the SI fund in the City of Stockholm have had problems that need addressing. Thus, this study concludes with a warning that any attempts to fix these problems must refrain to create an evaluation machine that risks alienating professionals’ relationship with their work.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:sh-49986 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Kärrman, Hannes |
| Publisher | Södertörns högskola, Sociologi |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds