Search

This paper starts from the premise that embodied knowledge is critical to understanding health policy implementation. We explore this notion through a qualitative investigation of the way that knowledge has functioned in the implementation of an Australian mental health policy, Partners in Recovery (PIR). Analysis uses the theoretical lens of interpretive policy analysis and the 'embodied, inscribed, enacted' knowledge schema developed by Freeman and Sturdy [(2014a). Introduction: Knowledge in policy – embodied, inscribed, enacted. In R. Freeman & S. Sturdy (Eds.), Knowledge in policy: Embodied, inscribed, enacted (pp. 1–19). Bristol: Policy Press]. Our analysis reveals a policy problem centred around difficulties of coordination where the inscribed solution lies in individuals who must implement the PIR program in local areas. Our interviews with PIR consortium members and stakeholders show that this implementation happens through the enactment of embodied knowledge. However this implementation is not straightforward and we point to difficulties arising from the centrality of embodied processes in implementation, related to the localisation of systems knowledge in individuals and structural devaluation of certain types of knowledge over others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study of the impact of casualised and independent contractor work place arrangements on the psycho-social health of 72 workers in regional Victoria. It contributes to our understanding of the crisis in rural Australia in its use of qualitative methods focusing on the impact of work on health and well-being. There is some evidence in the literature that casualised work arrangement enhance the health and well-being of workers by giving them a sense of autonomy and freedom to negotiate their conditions of work. On the other hand, these arrangements may make an already vulnerable group even more vulnerable to uncertain work conditions, poor pay and uncertainty for their future with a significantly negative impact on their health and wellbeing. The results of these interviews support this latter perspective and show that these workers do not experience freedom and autonomy, but rather lowered social status, insecurity and serious limitations to their ability to manage their health, psychological wellbeing and social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]