Aims: To contribute to development of global frameworks for health promotion education, by means of constructive criticism of the Galway Consensus Conference Statement (GCCS), and, furthermore, to substantiate that such frameworks must transcend political trends if they are to contribute to the ongoing development of health promotion both as a discipline and as a professional practice. This article is based on a workshop on competence domains in health promotion, held at the Sixth Nordic Health Promotion Research Conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 20-22 August 2009. Methods: The GCCS's delimitations of health, health promotion, and health promotion ethics is analysed and contrasted with the authors' ongoing experiences from a master's programme in health promotion. Results: Three important limitations in the GCCS are identified: the GCCS does not promote perspectives on health other than absence of disease, defines no role for health promotion other than disease prevention, and includes no perspectives on ethical challenges for practitioners. The examples from the master's programme illustrate how and why these delimitations are problematic. Conclusions: Despite its limitations the GCCS has the potential to set a global agenda for health promotion education because of its emphasis on domains of core competencies in health promotion practice. To further this potential the GCCS' context of use should be changed from mainstreaming health promotion into a technology for disease prevention, to enabling dialog between contributors to health promotion with differing political and scientific ideals. Such dialog must relate to tensions and ambiguities experienced by health promotion practitioners in real-life situations.

Many people with intellectual disabilities in Norway attend municipal day centers where they engage in activities and work-tasks with support from staff. The purpose of day centers is to offer meaningful activities for individuals who are not included in ordinary work. Little research has been done on day centers, and we have limited knowledge of which social and cultural norms apply in such a sheltered context. This article focuses on how employees facilitated the participation of workers with intellectual disabilities through social support and in interaction. This study has a qualitative ethnographic design. Data were collected through participatory observation and interviews and analyzed thematically. We found that the participants alternated between roles and frames of interaction: a work frame and a care frame. Each frame had different norms for interaction and role performance. This study adds to our knowledge about day centers for people with intellectual disabilities.

No abstract

Gjennom den norske velferdsstaten har offentlige myndigheter tatt ansvar for borgernes liv og velferd. Skole og utdanning er garantert for den enkelte, og om man blir syk, trenger hjelp eller på annen måte ikke klarer seg selv, er risikoen for den enkelte redusert. Alle borgere er garantert goder, tjenester og en viss trygghet gjennom det sikkerhetsnettet velferdsstaten utgjør. Det er også et velferdspolitisk mål å redusere sosial ulikhet. Men den norske velferdsstaten slik vi kjenner den er i dramatisk endring. Denne boka handler om hvilke endringer som peker seg ut som noen av de mest sentrale, hvorfor de trer fram og hvilke konsekvenser de kan få. Boka veksler mellom analyse av overordnede mønstre, drivkreftene bak disse mønstrene slik de skapes på ulike felt på velferdsstatens grunnplan og fyldige beskrivelser av hvordan tjenester, profesjonsroller og brukere gis nye vilkår og dermed forandres. Bokas tematikk spenner vidt, og dens bidragsytere søker å kaste lys over fellestrekkene i den store variasjonen som kjennetegner det vi kaller velferdsstatens transformasjoner.