All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices

Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Front...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences 2019-03-01
Series:Professions and Professionalism
Online Access:https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2283
id doaj-fa88602118b14a7ca33346e2d8670e6b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fa88602118b14a7ca33346e2d8670e6b2020-11-24T23:08:17ZengOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesProfessions and Professionalism1893-10492019-03-019110.7577/pp.2283All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare OfficesOle Kristian Sandnes Håvold Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done.  https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2283
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
spellingShingle Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
Professions and Professionalism
author_facet Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
author_sort Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
title All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
title_short All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
title_full All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
title_fullStr All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
title_full_unstemmed All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
title_sort all roads lead to rome: discretionary reasoning on medically objective injuries at the norwegian labour and welfare offices
publisher Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
series Professions and Professionalism
issn 1893-1049
publishDate 2019-03-01
description Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done. 
url https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/pp/article/view/2283
work_keys_str_mv AT olekristiansandneshavold allroadsleadtoromediscretionaryreasoningonmedicallyobjectiveinjuriesatthenorwegianlabourandwelfareoffices
_version_ 1725615072199311360