Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an ‘amalgamate’ with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our article have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.

Personal and Public Involvement and its impact - Monitoring, measuring and evaluating the impact of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland.

Introduction
This report details the findings from research conducted across Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care Trusts during 2015 which examines the current state of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI). This is about how service users, carers and patients engage with staff, management and directors of statutory health and social care organisations. Most statutory health and social care organisations must, under legislation, meet the requirements of PPI. PPI has been part of health and social care policy in Northern Ireland since 2007 and became law two years later with the introduction of the Health and Social Care Reform Act (2009). It is, therefore, timely that PPI is now assessed in this systematic way in order to both examine the aspects which are working well and to highlight those areas where improvements need to be made. As far as possible, this Summary Report is written in an accessible way, avoiding jargon and explaining key research terms, so as to ensure it is widely understood. This is in keeping with established good practice in service user involvement research. This summary, therefore, gives a picture of PPI in Northern Ireland currently. There is also a fuller report which gives a lot more details about the research and findings. Information on this is available from the Public Health Agency and/or the Patient and Client Council.

European Union Biomedical Research Law and Policy and Citizen Science

In this chapter I focus on the EU's emerging biomedical research law and policy and examine the development of citizen science in this setting. The chapter argues that while what the analysis reveals might not be specific to the EU, attention to this organisation underlines important but often overlooked aspects of citizen science. That is, citizen science is (being) made less about promoting substantive involvement by citizens in the fashioning of biomedical trajectories and their empowerment as participants that pursue aims defined by themselves rather than others. Instead citizen science is underpinned by a more longstanding EU level approach to participation in science-based issues that sees it being harnessed, shaped and directed towards supporting the production and legitimation of organisational identity and sociotechnical order (in this case the EU’s). Within biomedical research law and policy citizen science might therefore be expected to support market-optimised biomedical futures and a dynamic internal market and economy. Citizen science is thereby implicated in the delineation of the boundaries of responsibility and accountability (and blame) for the (non-)realisation of public health priorities and objectives. In this way law and policy on participation and citizen science might support current research trajectories that do not serve all health needs.