Disentangling Professional Discretion: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach

Abstract

With the aim of furthering the investigation of professional discretion, this article builds on a combination of a conceptual framework for understanding discretion and an advanced method for collecting data on human judgments. Discretion is described as consisting of two dimensions-a structural dimension (discretionary space) and an epistemic dimension (discretionary reasoning). Discretionary reasoning is defined as the cognitive activity that may take place within the discretionary space of professional judgment, and it is illustrated by means of Toulmin's model of argumentation. The factorial survey, a quasi-experimental vignette approach, is proposed and illustrated as a method with substantial potential for studying agreement and disagreement in discretionary reasoning. While the combined framework presented in this article could form the basis for case studies and/or comparative studies of discretionary reasoning across professions and contexts, the results of such studies could be used for improving practice within a specific professional field.

Professional discretion and length of work experience: what findings from focus groups with care managers in elder care suggest

“…Ellis, 2013;McDonald et al, 2008) based on reasoned judgements (cf. Wallander & Molander, 2014). Compared to those with fewer years of experience, they did not seem feel insufficient, seemed more aware of the actual parameters that they have to follow, and seemed to be more ready to act based on these conditions.…”

“…Against this backdrop, it is perhaps easy to see that street-level bureaucrats use their professional discretion as they go about the business of making coherent professional judgements and while deciding who should have access to the services that the institutions they work for can offer (Wallander & Molander, 2014). Worth noting is that this article uses the definition of street-level bureaucrats' professional discretion that claims that discretion taps into the perceived freedom that a professional feels as they go about the business of making choices concerning the type and amount of services that they will make available to their clients (Evans, 2015).…”

Vol 9 No 1 (2019)

“…Room for discretion allows for flexibility; however, it may also lead to unequal treatment or arbitrary judgements (Lipsky, 1980;Larsson & Jacobsson, 2013;Molander, Grimen & Eriksen, 2012;Nothdurfter, 2016). Discretion as a concept can be divided into the structural: a snpace in which the social actors have the possibility to judge, decide and act according to their own judgement, and epistemic: the cognitive activity of reasoning and judging under conditions of indeterminacy (Molander & Grimen, 2010, p. 214;Wallander & Molander, 2014). Christie (2016) argues that discretion is both a threat and a pre-requesite for equal treatment, as the categorization of cases as "the same case" already implies the use of discretion.…”

New mindsets to innovate activation

“…It systematically explores agreements and disagreements in judgements of activation workers using a novel approach that so far has only rarely been employed in this context. The chapter is grounded in Wallander and Molander's (2014) framework for understanding professional discretion. Agreements in discretionary reasoning allow us to identify common norms that activation workers use to arrive at a conclusion of what to do based on the description of a hypothetical beneficiary (Wallander & Molander, 2014).…”

“…The chapter is grounded in Wallander and Molander's (2014) framework for understanding professional discretion. Agreements in discretionary reasoning allow us to identify common norms that activation workers use to arrive at a conclusion of what to do based on the description of a hypothetical beneficiary (Wallander & Molander, 2014). At the same time, the analysis of disagreements in discretionary reasoning shows to what extent these stem from differences across individual activation workers or, possibly, varying role interpretations (Eikenaar et al, 2016;Nothdurfter, 2016;Wallander & Molander, 2014).…”