Cargando…

Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions

Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs. Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huber, Max A., Metze, Rosalie N., Stam, Martin, Regenmortel, Tine Van, Abma, Tineke A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7034469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31973667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1719002
_version_ 1783499883723882496
author Huber, Max A.
Metze, Rosalie N.
Stam, Martin
Regenmortel, Tine Van
Abma, Tineke A.
author_facet Huber, Max A.
Metze, Rosalie N.
Stam, Martin
Regenmortel, Tine Van
Abma, Tineke A.
author_sort Huber, Max A.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs. Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research. Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Some structures also appeared stimulated self-management. Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7034469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70344692020-03-03 Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions Huber, Max A. Metze, Rosalie N. Stam, Martin Regenmortel, Tine Van Abma, Tineke A. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Empirical Studies Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs. Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research. Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Some structures also appeared stimulated self-management. Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care. Taylor & Francis 2020-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7034469/ /pubmed/31973667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1719002 Text en © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Empirical Studies
Huber, Max A.
Metze, Rosalie N.
Stam, Martin
Regenmortel, Tine Van
Abma, Tineke A.
Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title_full Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title_fullStr Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title_full_unstemmed Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title_short Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
title_sort self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions
topic Empirical Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7034469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31973667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1719002
work_keys_str_mv AT hubermaxa selfmanagedprogrammesinhomelesscareasreinventedinstitutions
AT metzerosalien selfmanagedprogrammesinhomelesscareasreinventedinstitutions
AT stammartin selfmanagedprogrammesinhomelesscareasreinventedinstitutions
AT regenmorteltinevan selfmanagedprogrammesinhomelesscareasreinventedinstitutions
AT abmatinekea selfmanagedprogrammesinhomelesscareasreinventedinstitutions