No abstract

No abstract

Cet article explore les interactions entre politiques de GRH et facteurs de contexte dans un processus de changement organisationnel. Nous présentons d'abord une typologie de modèles de GRH, dans la lignée des écrits de Mintzberg sur les configurations organisationnelles. Nous développons ensuite une vision contingente des questions de GRH-mettant en évidence l'influence de certains facteurs de contexte, suivie d'une vision plus politique qui reflète les jeux de pouvoir entre les différents protagonistes, mobilisant chacun des éléments spécifiques du contexte. Enfin, nous offrons une appréhension plus concrète du cadre d'analyse contextualiste en en discutant l'application à une étude de cas dans le secteur agro-alimentaire. This paper explores the interactions between HRM practices and contextual factors in a process of organisational change. We first present a typology of HRM models, in line with Mintzberg's organisational configurations. We then develop a contingent view on HRM issues-highlighting the influence of some contextual factors-followed by a more political view which reveals the power games between the different stakeholders, each of them enacting specific contextual factors. Finally, we give a more concrete understanding of the contextualist framework discussing its application to a case study in the alimentary sector.

What is the status and role in public action of the knowledge possessed by 'simple' citizens, users and professionals? That is the question broached in both this article and the entire special issue for which it serves as the introduction. To this end, we explore the abundant scientific literature pertaining to the topic and try to situate our own position within the broader setting. After discussing the gradual questioning of the social representations that have made scientific knowledge the ideal and standard by which we measure all knowledge, we argue that many authors with an essentialist approach to knowledge have stressed the differences between scientific knowledge and non-scientific knowledge, often leaving us at an impasse. We argue therefore that it is preferable to advance an approach in which knowledge is as at once relational and in a constant process of hybridization. Having opted for and justified this position, we then focus on the -hybrid -knowledge possessed by citizens, users and professionals, by first probing the reasons for the growing involvement of these actors in the production of knowledge and policies. We then ponder the nature and foundations of the complaints and criticisms frequently levelled at participatory mechanisms as to the actual role played in these areas by the knowledge held by 'local' actors. In the end, we identify proposals defended by certain authors to make the interactions of actors from different social worlds more symmetrical.

In Europe, the mental health field is undergoing a paradigm shift from a hospital‐centered, institutionalized and segmented model toward a community‐based, patient‐centered and more integrated model. From 2010 onwards, Belgian policymakers availed themselves of new policy instruments to complete this shift, having been hampered by strong professional and cultural barriers over the four previous decades. However, the reform objectives have only partially been achieved. Assuming that an instrument perspective on policy implementation would illustrate why the reform does not achieve its priority objectives, the article questions the relationship between the types of instruments used and the type of change induced. Drawing on the analysis of three policy implementation processes, we argue that these “soft” instruments are by nature not suitable for initiating any type of change and may have limited effects when used in certain contexts and under certain conditions. The article ends with a discussion of the three limitations of these instruments.