The making of immigrant clients: An ethnographic study of categorisation work in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV)
Keywords:
immigrants, Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, NAV, welfare services, street-level practicesSynopsis
In this study, I contribute to our understanding of the welfare services provided to immigrants. How street-level bureaucrats make sense of and categorise immigrant clients determines the services provided to them. This categorisation has both individual and societal implications: it affects the immigrants’ chances of living a ‘good life’ and the structures of social inequality, as well as the sustainability and legitimacy of the entire welfare state. Through four scientific articles, I explore the following: Howdo street-levelbureaucrats make senseof and furthercategorise immigrant clients? Howdoes this workrelate to the larger institutionalrelations ofstreet-levelpractices? My primary source of data is five months of ethnographic fieldwork at a frontline office in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). Using an abductive approach, I combine a street-level perspective with analytical concepts from institutional ethnography to unpack the categorisation work of caseworkers in NAV. I have focused on their mediating role as street-level bureaucrats and explored their work through their standpoint.
In NAV, the number of unemployed clients with immigrant backgrounds is steadily increasing, now constituting around half (45%) of the clients managed by the frontline offices. Moreover, immigrant clients often become dependent on benefits from NAV over time and alternate between services and departments within NAV rather than ‘out’ to paid employment. To improve their services to immigrants, NAV has defined ‘immigrants’ as a prioritised client group and developed a separate section in their counselling policy directed at improving caseworkers’ cross-cultural counselling of immigrant clients. However, the policy does not define when and how the caseworkers are supposed to put cross-cultural counselling into use, at least beyond the concept of counselling immigrants. Hence, the caseworkers must operationalise an ambiguous definition of ‘immigrant clients’ within a bureaucratised and textually coordinated system of client categories. As NAV is increasingly characterised by welfare conditionality, the different client categories open for the provision of different services.
In addition to the five-month ethnographic fieldwork at a frontline NAV office, I rely on data from observations at three of NAV’s internal courses in ‘cross-cultural counselling: how to counsel clients with immigrant background’ and 11 subsequent interviews of caseworkers who attended the courses. During the fieldwork, observations, and interviews, I also gathered different texts that the caseworkers referred to, which constitutes a third source of data. My last data source is previous research analysed in a qualitative evidence synthesis.
The current study consists of four research articles that also serve as standalone contributions. The first article is a qualitative evidence synthesis of how social workers operationalise, that is make sense of and make use of, cultural competence and cultural sensitivity. The findings show how social workers experience challenges when they employ the cultural concepts in their street-level practice. The second article explores the circumstances in which street-level workers factor culture into their comprehension and categorisation of a client. The caseworkers do not interpret every immigrant client as ‘cultural’ but differentiate between cases dependent on whether they can make sense of the client’s troubles within the institutional frames. Article three describes how caseworkers prioritise clients and depicts the ‘positive’ equivalent of being categorised as a ‘different’ immigrant client: the star candidates. The caseworkers perform an emotional creaming, where their emotions towards clients help them identify clients ‘likely to succeed’ in terms of bureaucratic criteria. The fourth article depicts how the caseworkers use institutional texts to exclude ‘language cases’ from services and benefits and how their practices take form as a pinball machine. Cases where they define the client’s problem as concerning ‘language’ get bounced through the system and end up in the office drain, where it is out of play and ‘stuck’ with social security benefits.
By describing how street-level bureaucrats differentiate between and categorise immigrant clients in their everyday practices, these findings have three interrelated overall contributions:
1. When caseworkers categorise immigrant clients, they demonstrate nuanced understandings of immigrants and their challenges.
Street-level welfare bureaucrats must balance the principle of equal treatment and be responsive to the different needs of clients. Previous research has been inconclusive about which differences matter and describe how the street-level bureaucrats risk emphasising the distinctiveness of immigrants too little, too much or the wrong way, particularly when it comes to ‘culture’. My findings show how the differentiating dimension the caseworkers use is not (merely) whether the client is an ‘immigrant’ or ‘cultural’. The caseworkers consider culture to be one of several potentially relevant aspects when they categorise immigrant clients. Culture is applied as a ‘last resort’ category for the client they struggle to make sense of within one of the institutional classifications. The caseworkers categorise these non-sensible immigrant clients as ‘cultural’ or ‘language cases’. These are the clients who are avoided or excluded from services. Moreover, when they decide to prioritise a case, the decisive factor is whether the street-level bureaucrats consider the client as being ‘far away’ from success in the labour market. The findings show how the immigrant category may be counterproductive and contribute to the ‘othering’ of clients who do not easily fit the eligibility criteria for courses and benefits. To gain further insights into why welfare services struggle to accommodate some clients and provide sufficient services to them, future research should aim to further unpack what the street-level bureaucrats categorise as the residual vagueness of (immigrant) clients.
2. Street-level categorisation is a dynamic categorisation work.
In their examination of the welfare services provided to immigrants, researchers have focused on the input or output of street-level categorisation or have described categorisation as an independent variable. In the current study, I have used analytical concepts from institutional ethnography in an abductive approach to explore how street-level bureaucrats (in NAV) mediate access to and the outcomes from services through their categorisation work. This perspective has contributed to the unpacking of street-level categorisation as a dynamic work where the caseworkers make use of two intersecting interpretive frameworks: the distinction between immigrants/non-immigrants and sensible/non-sensible cases. The combination of a street-level perspective and analytical concepts from institutional ethnography have been crucial to describe how categorisation is a continuous process the street-level bureaucrats carry out during their everyday work and not just a result of their employment of static categories to specific client characteristics. or something the caseworkers do in the first interaction with a client. I encourage future research to use the notion of categorisation work to further explore the services provided to (immigrant) clients in other welfare services.
3. The non-sensibleness of (some) immigrants is textually mediated.
One of the most frequent recommendations for how to improve service provision to immigrant clients is through increased cultural sensitivity among street-level bureaucrats. My findings suggest that the bureaucratic frames—more specifically the institutional texts—contribute to mediating the non-sensibleness of (some) immigrant cases. The textuality of the bureaucratic context, such as the organisation of services, the terms and boundaries for benefits or measures and the performance indicators used, are important elements in street-level bureaucrats making of immigrant clients. This is particularly the case regarding the making of ‘residual cases’, the vague ‘something more’ that the street-level bureaucrats cannot seem to fit in the institutional categories. Hence, it is seemingly limited help in accentuating increased reflectiveness and recognition of (cultural) diversity among street-level bureaucrats to achieve a more accurate categorisation of and service distribution to immigrant clients. To identify the processes and mechanisms that contribute to such differentiating practices, researchers need to consider ‘the street-level bureaucrat in context’, which is typically proposed by social workers for clients.
These findings have three corresponding implications for NAV. First, to be of help to the caseworkers, client categories should be based on specific needs or troubles, rather than partially concealed demographic variables such as ‘immigrant background’. Second, as the caseworkers categorise clients in a continuous process, the tools aimed at helping caseworkers differentiate between cases, such as the ‘need assessment’ needs to be adapted so that it is a useful part of their everyday work. Third, to change the outcomes of categorisation processes, there is need for a change in focus from the attitudes and knowledge of the individual caseworker to how the formulation of terms, conditions and measures promote specific differentiation-practices and contribute to create the vague ‘something more’ of (immigrant) clients.
References
Aamodt, I. (2018, Nov. 27). Hvorfor er det vanskeligere for innvandrere å komme i jobb? SSB Analyse 2018/23. https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og- lonn/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hvorfor-er-det-vanskeligere-for- innvandrere-a-komme-i-jobb
Aase, T. H., & Fossåskaret, E. (2014). Skapte virkeligheter: Om produksjon og tolkning av kvalitative data. Universitetsforlaget.
Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present (pp. 137-162). School of American Research Press: Distributed by the University of Washington Press.
Andersen, J. G. (2012). Universalization and de-universalization of unemployment protection in Denmark and Sweden. In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Eds.), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity (pp. 162-186). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805940.00014
Andreassen, T. A. (2018). Measures of accountability and delegated discretion in activation work: Lessons from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service. European Journal of Social Work, 22(4), 664- 675.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1423548
Anttonen, A., Häikiö, L., Stefánsson, K., & Sipilä, J. (2012). Universalism and the challenge of diversity. In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Eds.), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity (pp. 1- 15). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805940.00006
Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet. (2010). Retningslinjer for oppfølgingsvedtak i NAV. Vurdering av behov for bistand for å beholde eller skaffe seg arbeid og rett til aktivitetsplan etter Arbeids- og velferdsforvaltningsloven § 14a. [Internal guidance document]. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.
Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet. (2019). Mål- og disponeringsbrev 2019 til NAV fylke. [Internal guidance document]. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.
Barth, F. (1998). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference (pp. 9-38). Universitetsforlaget.
Bartels, K. P. R. (2013). Public encounters: The history and future of face-to- face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469-483.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02101.x
Belabas, W., & Gerrits, L. (2017). Going the extra mile? How street-level bureaucrats deal with the integration of immigrants. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 133-150.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12184
van Berkel, R. (2020). Making welfare conditional: A street‐level perspective. Social Policy & Administration, 54(2), 191-204.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12564
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3-10.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
Boccagni, P. (2015). (Super)diversity and the migration-social work nexus: A new lens on the field of access and inclusion? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 608-620.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.980291
Bouchard, G., & Carroll, B. W. (2002). Policy-making and administrative discretion: The case of immigration in Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 45(2), 239-257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2002.tb01082.x
Breimo, J. P. (2015). Rehabilitering. Samordningsproblematikk sett fra et ståsted. In K. Widerberg (Ed.), I hjertet av velferdsstaten (pp. 79- 100). Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Breit, E., Fossestøl, K., & Andreassen, T. A. (2018). From pure to hybrid professionalism in post-NPM activation reform: The institutional work of frontline managers. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(1), 28-44.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jox013
Brekke, J.-P., Fladmoe, A., & Wollebæk, D. (2020). Holdninger til innvandring, integrering og mangfold i Norge. Integreringsbarometeret 2020 (Rapport 2020/8). Institutt for Samfunnsforskning. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2657621
Brochmann, G. (2010). Innvandring og det flerkulturelle Norge. In I. Frønes & L. Kjølsrød (Eds.), Det norske samfunn (pp. 435-456). Gyldendal Akademisk.
Brochmann, G., & Hagelund, A. (2011). Migrants in the Scandinavian welfare state. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10202-011-0003-3
Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1-33.
https://doi.org/10.1086/604228
Brodkin, E. Z. (2008). Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 317-336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701590587
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i253-i277.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093
Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940-949.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x
Brodkin, E. Z., & Marston, G. (Eds.) (2013). Work and the welfare state: Street-level organizations and workfare politics. Georgetown University Press.
Bundgaard, H., & Gulløv, E. (2006). Children of Different Categories: Educational Practice and the Production of Difference in Danish Day- Care Institutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(1), 145-155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830500335291
Burawoy, M. (1991). Reconstructing Social Theories. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, A. A. Ferguson, K. J. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrel, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger, J. Schiffman, & S. Ui (Eds.), Ethnography Unbound. Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis. University of California Press.
Buvik, K., Skatvedt, A., & Baklien, B. (2020). Feltsamtaler som datakilde i kvalitativ samfunnsforskning. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 61(03), 222-240.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2020-03-02
Campbell, M., & Gregor, F. (2004). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Altamira Press.
Campbell, M. L. (2016). Intersectionality, policy-oriented research and the social relations of knowing. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(3), 248-260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12083
Caswell, D., Marston, G., & Larsen, J. E. (2010). Unemployed citizen or 'at risk' client? Classification systems and employment services in Denmark and Australia. Critical Social Policy, 30(3), 384-404.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310367674
Cedersund, E. (2013). Categories of otherness: On the use of discursive positioning and stories in social work research. Nordic Social Work Research, 3(2), 130-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2013.826141
Chambon, A. (2013). Recognising the Other, understanding the Other: A brief history of social work and Otherness. Nordic Social Work Research, 3(2), 120-129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2013.835137
Crabtree, S. A., Husain, F., & Spalek, B. (2016). Islam and social work: Culturally sensitive practice in a diverse world. Policy Press.
Curwen, N., Haaland, H., & Wallevik, H. (2020). The potential of institutional ethnography in Norwegian development research and practice. Exploring child marriage in Nepal. In R. W. B. Lund & A. C. E. Nilsen (Eds.), Institutional ethnography in the Nordic region (pp. 176-188). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019999-14
Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the 'de-migranticization' of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207- 2225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1124129
Danso, R. (2015). An integrated framework of critical cultural competence and anti-oppressive practice for social justice social work research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 14(4), 572-588.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325014558664
Daugstad, G. (2005). Innvandrerbefolkningen er mangfoldig. Samfunnsspeilet, 4. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/179194
de Montigny, G. (2007). Ethnomethodology for Social Work. Qualitative Social Work, 6(1), 95-120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325007074168
de Montigny, G. (2021). Institutional Ethnography for Social Work. In P. C. Luken & S. Vaughan (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Institutional Ethnography (pp. 505-526). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54222-1_26
Det kongelige arbeids- og sosialdepartement. (2021). Tildelingsbrev til Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet for 2021. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ccfdb1de77a04e41ad49898 25a70e315/tildelingsbrev-til-arbeids-og-velferdsdirektoratet-med- vedlegg-pdf.pdf
Devault, M. L. (2021). Elements of an expansive institutional ethnography: A conceptual history of its North American origins. In P. C. Luken & S. Vaughan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of institutional ethnography (pp. 11-34). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54222-1_2
Devault, M. L., & McCoy, L. (2006). Institutional ethnography: Using interviews to investigate ruling relations. In D. E. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 15-44). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Devault, M. L., Venkatesh, M., & Ridzi, F. (2014). "Let's be friends": Working within an Accountability Circuit. In A. I. Griffith & D. E. Smith (Eds.), Under New Public Management. Institutional Ethnographies of Changing Front-Line Work (pp. 177-198). University of Toronto Press.
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442619463-011
Diedrich, A., Eriksson-Zetterquist, U., & Styhre, A. (2011). Sorting people out: The uses of one-dimensional classificatory schemes in a multidimensional world. Culture and Organization, 17(4), 271-292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.590305
Diedrich, A., & Styhre, A. (2013). Constructing the employable immigrant: The uses of validation practices in Sweden. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 13(4), 759-783.
Djuve, A. B., & Kavli, H. C. (2015). Facilitating user involvement in activation programmes: When carers and clerks meet pawns and queens. Journal of Social Policy, 44(2), 235-254.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000804
Djuve, A. B., & Kavli, H. C. (2019). Refugee integration policy the Norwegian way - why good ideas fail and bad ideas prevail. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 25(1), 25-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258918807135
Djuve, A. B., Sandbæk, M. L., & Lunde, H. (2011). Likeverdige tjenester? Storbyens tjenestetilbud til en etnisk mangfoldig befolkning. (Fafo- rapport 2011: 35).
Djuve, A. B., & Tronstad, K. R. (2011). Innvandrere i praksis. Om likeverdig tjenestetilbud i NAV. (Fafo-rapport 2011:07).
Dokken, A. T. (2015). Innvandrere og Økonomisk Sosialhjelp. Arbeid og velferd, 15(3), 45-60.
Dubois, V. (2010). The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices. Ashgate.
Dunn, R. G. (2018a). C. Wright Mills and the tradition of social criticism. In Toward a pragmatist sociology: John Dewey and the legacy of C. Wright Mills (pp. 27-49). Temple University Press.
Dunn, R. G. (2018b). The social pragmatism of John Dewey. In Toward a pragmatist sociology: John Dewey and the legacy of C. Wright Mills (pp. 51-81). Temple University Press.
Drange, I., & Orupabo, J. (2018). Lær meg å bli ansettbar. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 2(02), 111-126.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2018-02-01
Dzamarija, M. T. (2019). Slik definerer SSB innvandrere. ssb.no. https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/slik- definerer-ssb-innvandrere
Eikenaar, T., de Rijk, A. E., & Meershoek, A. (2016). What's in a Frame? How Professionals Assess Clients in Dutch Work Reintegration Practice. Social Policy & Administration, 50(7), 767-786.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12151
Eliassi, B. (2015). Constructing cultural Otherness within the Swedish welfare state: The cases of social workers in Sweden. Qualitative Social Work, 14(4), 554-571.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325014559091
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226206851.001.0001
Emerson, R. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25(2), 121-134.
https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1977.25.2.03a00010
https://doi.org/10.2307/800289
Eriksson, M., & Nissen, M. A. (2017). Categorization and changing service user positions. Nordic Social Work Research, 7(3), 183-187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2017.1378476
Erlien, T. H. (2017). Nav-reformen som politisk prosjekt. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 34(04), 366-378.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-3053-2017-04-04
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three political economies of the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology, 20(3), 92-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1990.11770001
Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street- level bureaucracy. Ashgate.
Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street- level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368-386.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch106
Fargion, S., Nagy, A., & Berger, E. (2018). Access to social services as a rite of integration: Power, rights, and identity. Social Policy & Administration.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12447
Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2009). Reorganizing the welfare state administration. Public Management Review, 11(3), 281-297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798198
Fjeldheim, S., Levin, I., & Engebretsen, E. (2015). The theoretical foundation of social case work. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(sup1), 42-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2015.1067900
Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019). Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health, 4 (Suppl 1), e000882.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in frontline service organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 290- 306.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12144
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., & Borg, E. (2014). NAV-reformen 2014. En oppfølgingsstudie av lokalkontorenes organisering etter innholdsreformen. (AFI-rapport 2014:13). Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet.
https://doi.org/10.7577/afi/rapport/2014:13
Friberg, J. H., Djuve, A. B., & Elgvin, O. (2013). Innvandrerne som skulle klare seg selv når EØS-avtalens frie flyt av arbeidskraft møter velferdsstatens bakkebyråkrati. (Fafo-rapport 2013:31).
Friberg, J. H., & Elgvin, O. (2016). Når velferdsstaten bryter tilliten ned: Somaliske innvandrere i møte med NAV. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 57(03), 257-284.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2016-03-02
Frøyland, K., Maximova-Mentzoni, T., & Fossestøl, K. (2016). Sosialt arbeid og oppfølging av utsatt ungdom i NAV. Tiltak, metoder, samarbeid og samordning i og rundt NAV-kontoret. Sluttrapport fra evaluering av utviklingsarbeid i 15 prosjektområder. (AFI-rapport 2016:1). Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet.
https://doi.org/10.7577/afi/rapport/2016:1
Fuertes, V., & Lindsay, C. (2016). Personalization and street-level practice in activation: The case of the UK's work programme. Public Administration, 94(2), 526-541.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12234
Garsten, C., & Jacobsson, K. (2013). Sorting people in and out: The plasticity of the categories of employability, work capacity and disability as technologies of government. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 13(4), 825-850.
Gjersøe, H. M. (2020). Frontline provision of integrated welfare and employment services: Organising for activation competency. International Journal of Social Welfare, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12464
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (4. paperback printing). Aldine.
Gobo, G. (2004). Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 405-426). SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191.d34
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(2), 123-132.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089124189018002001
Griffith, A. I., & Smith, D. E. (Eds.). (2014). Under new public management: Institutional ethnographies of changing frontline work. University of Toronto Press.
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442619463-003
Grødem, A. S. (2016). Migration as a challenge to the Nordic welfare states. In N. Veggeland (Ed.), The current Nordic welfare state model (p. 27). NOVE Science Publishers.
Gubrium, J. F. (2016). From the iron cage to everyday life. In J. F. Gubrium, T. A. Andreassen, & P. K. Solvang (Eds.), Reimagining the human service relationship (pp. 3-32). Columbia University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7312/gubr17152
Gubrium, J. F., & Järvinen, M. (2014). Troubles, problems, and clientization. In J. F. Gubrium & M. Järvinen (Eds.), Turning Troubles into Problems (pp.1-14). Routledge Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203798010
Hacking, I. (1985). Making up people. In T. Heller, M. Sosna, & D. Wellbery (Eds.), Reconstructing individualism (pp. 161-171). Stanford University Press.
Hagelund, A., Øverbye, E., Hatland, A., & Terum, L. I. (2016). Sanksjoner- Arbeidslinjas nattside? Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 1(01), 24-43.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-3076-2016-01-02
Hagues, R. J., Cecil, D., & Stoltzfus, K. (2019). The experiences of German social workers working with refugees. Journal of Social Work, 21(1) 46-68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017319860305
Häikiö, L., & Hvinden, B. (2012). Finding the way between universalism and diversity: A challenge to the Nordic model. In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Eds.), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity (pp. 69-89). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805940.00009
Hall, C., Juhila, K., Parton, N., & Pösö, T. (Eds.). (2007). Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities, and practices. Jessica Kingsley Publ.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Handulle, A., & Vassenden, A. (2020). 'The art of kindergarten drop off': How young Norwegian-Somali parents perform ethnicity to avoid reports to Child Welfare Services. European Journal of Social Work, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2020.1713053
Hardoy, I., & Zhang, T. (2010). Innvandrere i arbeid: Hjelper arbeidsmarkedstiltak? Søkelys på arbeidslivet,27(4), 343-363
https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-7989-2010-04-05
Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2011). Categories and categorization: Towards a comprehensive sociological framework. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 12(2), 229-247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2011.579450
Healy, L. M. (2007). Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics. International Social Work, 50(1), 11-26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872807071479
Hedlund, M., & Moe, A. (2010). Redefining relations among minority users and social workers: Redefinisjon av relasjoner mellom brukere med minoritetsbakgrunn og sosialarbeidere. European Journal of Social Work, 13(2), 183-198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691451003690924
Helgøy, I., Kildal, N., & Nilssen, E. (2010). Mot en ny yrkesrolle i Nav? (Working Paper 2010-1). Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/1956/5357
Hermansen, A. S. (2017). Et egalitært og velferdsstatlig integreringsparadoks?: Om sosioøkonomisk integrering blant innvandrere og deres etterkommere i Norge. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 1(01), 15-34.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2017-01-02
Holm-Hansen, J., Haaland, T., & Myrvold, T. (2007). Flerkulturelt barnevern-En kunnskapsoversikt (NIBR-Rapport 2007: 10). NIBR. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12199/5705
https://doi.org/10.7577/nibr/notat/2007/118
Høgsbro, K. (2015). Evidence and research designs in applied sociology and social work research. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(sup1), 56-70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2015.1066706
Hupe, P. (2013). Dimensions of Discretion: Specifying the Object of Street- Level Bureaucracy Research. DMS - Der Moderne Staat, Vol. December 2013, Issue 2. hdl.handle.net/1765/51015
https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v6i2.10
Hupe, P. (2019a). Conceptualizing government-in-action. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context (pp. 2-14). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00010
Hupe, P. (2019b). Conceptualizing street-level bureaucracy in context. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context (pp. 31-47). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00012
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2019). Positioning street-level bureaucracy research. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context (pp. 15-30). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00011
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00028
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00042
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00012
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00022
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00013
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00009
Hvinden, B., & Johansson, H. (2007). Citizenship in Nordic welfare states: Dynamics of choice, duties and participation in a changing Europe (p. 248). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933527
Hylland Eriksen, T. (2007). Complexity in social and cultural integration: Some analytical dimensions. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1055- 1069.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599481
Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139197182
IMDi. (2021). Indikatorer for integrering. Tilstand og utviklingstrekk ved inngangen til 2021. Integrerings- og mangfoldsdirektoratet. https://www.imdi.no/contentassets/03d9d7b5995943de8010f8182e4c 2a91/indikatorer-for-integrering-2021.pdf
Ingold, T. (2014). That's enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383-395.
https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.1.021
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2014). Global Definition of Social Work. Global definition of social work, IFSW. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social- work/
Järvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2003). Indledning: At skabe en klient. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), At skabe en klient: Institutionelle identiteter i socialt arbejde. (pp. 9-29). Hans Reitzel Forlag.
Järvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2003). Institutionelle paradokser. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), At skabe en klient: Institutionelle identiteter i socialt arbejde (pp. 227-243). Hans Reitzel Forlag.
Järvinen, M., & Miller, G. (2015). Social Constructionism Turned Into Human Service Work. Qualitative Sociology Review, 11(2), 198-214.
Jenkins, R. (1994). Rethinking ethnicity: Identity, categorization and power. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 17(2), 197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1994.9993821
Jenkins, R. (2000). Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology, 48(3), 7-25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392100048003003
Jensen, T. G., Weibel, K., & Vitus, K. (2017a). 'There is no racism here': Public discourses on racism, immigrants and integration in Denmark. Patterns of Prejudice, 51(1), 51-68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2016.1270844
Joas, H., & W. Knöbl. (2009). Social theory: Twenty introductory lectures. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878432
Jönsson, J. H. (2013). Social work beyond cultural otherisation. Nordic Social Work Research, 3(2), 159-167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2013.834510
Juhila, K. (2007). Creating a "Bad" Client: Disalignments of Institutional Identities in Social Work Interaction. In C. Hall, K. Juhila, N. Parton, & T. Pösö (Eds.), Constructing Clienthood in Social Work and Human Services: Interaction, Identities and Practices (pp. 83-95). Jessica Kingsley Publ.
Juhila, K., Pösö, T., Hall, C., & Parton, N. (2007). Introduction: Beyond a universal client. In C. Hall, K. Juhila, N. Parton, & T. Pösö (Eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities and practices (pp. 11-26). Jessica Kingsley Publishing.
Julkunen, I., & Rauhala, P.-L. (2013). Otherness, social welfare and social work - A Nordic perspective. Nordic Social Work Research, 3(2), 105-119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2013.834266
Käkelä, E. (2019). Narratives of power and powerlessness: Cultural competence in social work with asylum seekers and refugees. European Journal of Social Work. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1693337
Kalleberg, R. (2007). A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 137-160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078033
Kallio, J., & Kouvo, A. (2015). Street-level Bureaucrats' and the General Public's Deservingness Perceptions of Social Assistance Recipients in Finland. Social Policy & Administration, 49(3), 316-334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12094
Kane, A. A. (2020). Navs vurdering av brukeres bistandsbehov: Rettssikkerhet ved overgang til arbeid. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 23(01), 35-48.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-3076-2020-01-03
Kann, I. C., Dokken, T., & Yin, J. (2019). Arbeidsledige innvandrere - hvor lenge er de ledige og hva gjør de etterpå? Arbeid og velferd, 4, 25-44.
Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats' decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, Vol 70(2), 247-257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02131.x
Kipperberg, E. (2015). Når verden banker på: Fra det globale til det lokale. In E. Kipperberg (Ed.), Når verden banker på. Nye utfordringer for profesjonsutøvelse (pp. 25-56). Fagbokforlaget.
Kivisto, P., & Wahlbeck, Ö. (2013). Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare States. In P. Kivisto & Ö. Wahlbeck (Eds.), Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare States (pp. 1-21). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318459
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318459.0005
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318459_1
Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalism and the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830903250881
Kriz, K., & Skivenes, M. (2010). "Knowing our society" and "fighting against prejudices": How child welfare workers in Norway and England perceive the challenges of minority parents. British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2634-2651.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq026
Künzel, S. (2014). Implementing activation policies: An analysis of social and labour market policy reforms in continental Europe with a focus on local case studies in France and Germany. Peter Lang AG.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Gyldendal akademisk.
Kymlicka, W., & Banting, K. (2006). Immigration, multiculturalism, and the welfare state. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(3), 281-304.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00027.x
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House.
Lindqvist, R., & Lundälv, J. (2018). Activation, medicalisation and inter- organisational cooperation in health insurance - Implications for frontline social work in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 21(4), 616-627.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1293010
Liodden, T. M. (2015). Asylpolitikk. Usikkerhet og tvil i asylavgjørelser. In K. Widerberg, I hjertet av velferdsstaten. En invitasjon til institusjonell etnografi (pp. 191-219). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Lipsky, M. ([1980] 2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Ludwig‐Mayerhofer, W., Behrend, O., & Sondermann, A. (2014). Activation, public employment services and their clients: The role of social class in a continental welfare state. Social Policy & Administration, 48(5), 594-612.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12046
Lund, R. (2015). Doing the Ideal Academic. Gender, Excellence and Changing Academia [Ph.D.]. Aalto University.
Lund, R., & Magnussen, M.-L. (2018). Intersektionalitet, virksomhedskundskab og styringsrelationer: Institutionel Etnografi og hverdagens sociale organisering. Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 42(04), 268-283.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-1781-2018-04-05
Lund, R. W. B., & Nilsen, A. C. E. (2020a). Institutional ethnography in the Nordic region. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019999
Lund, R. W. B., & Nilsen, A. C. E. (2020b). Introduction. Conditions for doing institutional ethnography in the Nordics. In R. W. B. Lund & A. C. E. Nilsen (Eds.), Institutional ethnography in the Nordic region (pp. 3-20). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019999-1
Lundberg, K. G. (2012). Uforutsigbare relasjoner. Brukererfaringer, Nav- reformen og levd liv. [Ph.D.] Universitetet i Bergen.
Lundberg, K. (2018). The Welfare Subject in the One-Stop Shop: Agency in Troublesome Welfare Encounters. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 45, 119.
Magnussen, M.-L. (2020). «Jeg er klar til å bidra»: Utforskning og utfordring av bakkebyråkraters kategorisering av flyktninger som prøver å komme i jobb i dagens Norge. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 23(01), 63-75.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-3076-2020-01-05
Mäkitalo, Å. (2002). Categorizing work: Knowing, arguing, and social dilemmas in vocational guidance. University of Gothenburg. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/15603
Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting Practices as Situated Knowing: Dilemmas and Dynamics in Institutional Categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 495-516.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030054003
Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2002). Invisible People: Institutional Reasoning and Reflexivity in the Production of Services and "Social Facts" in Public Employment Agencies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 160- 178.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0903_02
Mannay, D., & Morgan, M. (2015). Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the 'waiting field.' Qualitative Research, 15(2), 166-182.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113517391
Mathiesen, I. H., & Volckmar-Eeg, M. G. (in press). En abduktiv tilnærming til institusjonell etnografi - Et bidrag til sosiologisk kunnskapsutvikling. Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift.
Maxwell, J. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. Rog, The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214- 253). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n7
Maynard‐Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S16-S23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02633.x
Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2009). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=269758
McCoy, L. (2006). Keeping the institution in view: Working with interview accounts of everyday experience. In D. E. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 109-126). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
McDonald, C., & Marston, G. (2006). Room to move? Professional discretion at the frontline of welfare-to-work. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 171-182.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2006.tb00004.x
McGregor, C., Dalikeni, C., Devaney, C., Moran, L., & Garrity, S. (2020). Practice Guidance for Culturally Sensitive Practice in Working with Children and Families Who Are Asylum Seekers: Learning from an Early Years Study in Ireland. Child Care in Practice, 26(3), 243-256. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1555137
Merton, R. K. (1949). On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range [1949]. In C. Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J. Moody, & S. Pfaff (Eds.), Contemporary sociological theory (pp. 448-459). Wiley Blackwell.
Midtbøen, A. H. (2016). Discrimination of the Second Generation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Norway. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(1), 253-272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0406-9
McLaughlin, H. (2009). What's in a name: "Client", "patient", "customer", "consumer", "expert by experience", 'service user'--What's next? British Journal of Social Work, 39(6), 1101-1117.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm155
Merton, R. K. (1938). Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science, 5(3).
https://doi.org/10.1086/286513
Molander, A. (2017). Discretion in the welfare state: Social rights and professional judgment. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315450483
Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state: Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214-230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00564.x
Morissens, A., & Sainsbury, D. (2005). Migrants' Social Rights, Ethnicity and Welfare Regimes. Journal of Social Policy, 34(04), 637.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279405009190
Moseley, A., & Thomann, E. (2021). A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation. Policy & Politics, 49(1), 49-67.
https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15967973532891
Mügge, L., & van der Haar, M. (2016). Who is an immigrant and who requires integration? Categorizing in European policies. In B. Garcés- Mascareñas & R. Penninx (Eds.), Integration processes and policies in Europe. Contexts, levels and actors (pp. 77-90). Springer Open.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_5
Mykhalovskiy, E., Hastings, C., Comer, L., Gruson-Wood, J., & Strang, M. (2021). Teaching Institutional Ethnography as an Alternative Sociology. In P. C. Luken & S. Vaughan (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Institutional Ethnography (pp. 47-64). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54222-1_4
NESH. (2018, December 4). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi. Forskningsetikk. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum- sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for-samfunnsvitenskap- humaniora-juss-og-teologi/
Nilsen, A. C. E. (2016). In-between discourses: Early intervention and diversity in the Norwegian kindergarten sector. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 11(1), 64-85.
https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v11i1.136
Nilsen, A. C. E. (2017). Bekymringsbarn blir til. En institusjonell etnografi av tidlig innsats som styringsrasjonal i barnehagen [Ph.D.] Universitetet i Agder, Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet.
Nilsen, A. C. E. (2021). Professional Talk: Unpacking Professional Language.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54222-1_19
In P. C. Luken & S. Vaughan (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Institutional Ethnography (pp. 259-374). Palgrave Macmillan.
Nilsen, A. C. E., & Steen-Johnsen, T. (2020). The early childhood care and development mission and the institutional circuit of evidence. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 18(1), 84-98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X19860558
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). (2020). What is NAV? https://www.nav.no/en/home/about-nav/what-is-nav
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). (2021a). Årsrapport NAV 2020. https://www.nav.no/no/nav-og-samfunn/om- nav/a%CC%8Arsrapport/navs-arsrapport-for-2020
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). (2021b). Helt ledige. Innvandrerbakgrunn. https://www.nav.no/no/nav-og- samfunn/statistikk/arbeidssokere-og-stillinger-statistikk/helt-ledige
Nothdurfter, U., & Hermans, K. (2018). Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work: Literature review. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(3), 294-304.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12308
NOU 2017: 2. (2017). Integrasjon og tillit. Langsiktige konsekvenser av høy innvandring. Brochmann-utvalget. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c072f7f37da747539d2a0b0f ef22957f/no/pdfs/nou201720170002000dddpdfs.pdf
Nybom, J. (2013). Activation and 'coercion' among Swedish social assistance claimants with different work barriers and socio‐demographic characteristics: What is the logic? International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol 22(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00858.x
Olsen, G., & Oltedal, S. (2020). The use of a client-feedback system in activation encounters. Nordic Social Work Research, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2020.1769714
Ploesser, P. M., & Mecheril, P. P. (2012). Neglect - recognition - deconstruction: Approaches to otherness in social work. International Social Work, 55(6), 794-808.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872811416143
PROBA. (2018). Organisering av ungdomsarbeid ved seks nav kontorer. (PROBA-rapport nr. 2018-08). https://proba.no/wp- content/uploads/probarapport-2018-08-organisering-av- ungdomsarbeid-ved-seks-nav-kontorer.pdf
Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). A signalling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: How public officials interpret signals and cues. Social Policy & Administration, 52(7), 1367-1378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12369
Rankin, J. (2017). Conducting analysis in institutional ethnography: Guidance and cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917734472.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917734472
Richmond, M. E. (1922). What is social case work?: An introductory description. Russell Sage Foundation.
Roberts, S. E. (2019). The bureaucratic and political work of immigration classifications: An analysis of the temporary foreign workers program and access to settlement services in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 21(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-019-00693-w
Robinson, K. (2014). Voices from the front line: Social work with refugees and asylum seekers in Australia and the UK. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1602-1620.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct040
Rua, M. (2012). Erfaringer fra en fengselsstudie - institusjonell etnografi i praksis. Sosiologisk Årbok, 1, 21.
Rudie, I. (1997). Feltarbeidet som møteplass: Kartlegging eller tekstlesing? In E. Fossåskaret, O. L. Fuglestad, & T. H. Aase (Eds.), Metodisk feltarbeid. Produksjon og tolkning av kvalitative data (pp. 117-141). Universitetsforlaget.
Rugkåsa, M. (2012). Likhetens dilemma: Om sivilisering og integrasjon i den velferdsambisiøse norske stat. Gyldendal Akademisk.
Rugkåsa, M., & Ylvisaker, S. (2019). From culturalisation to complexity - A critical view on the cultural competence discourse in social work. Nordic Social Work Research, 0(0), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2019.1690558
Rysst, M. (2020). Kulturelle verdier og barnevernet: Ulike forståelser av "barnets beste." In H. Nordby & A. Halsa (Eds.), Verdier i barnevern (pp. 89-112). Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP.
https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.103.ch5
Røyrvik, E. A. (2019). Kulturbegrepet og representasjonskrisen. Norsk antropologisk tidsskrift, 30(02), 99-120.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2898-2019-02-02
Sandbæk, M. L., & Djuve, A. B. (2012). Fortellinger om motivasjon. Hva er gode arbeidsmetoder i NAVs AMO-kurs for innvandrere? (Fafo- rapport 2012: 27).
Schütze, C., & Johansson, H. (2020). The importance of discretion for welfare services to minorities: Examining workload and anti-immigration attitudes. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 426- 443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12410
Seltzer, M., & Haldar, M. (2015). The other Chicago school-A sociological tradition expropriated and erased. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(sup1), 25-41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2015.1067638
Senghaas, M., Freier, C., & Kupka, P. (2018). Practices of activation in frontline interactions: Coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany. Social Policy & Administration, 53, 613-626.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12443
Skjefstad, N. (2013). Er det rom for sosialt arbeid i NAV? Fontene Forskning, 1, 76-88.
Smith, D. E. (1978). 'K is mentally ill.' The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology,12(1),23-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200103
Smith, D. E. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. University of Toronto Press.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic. A Feminist Sociology. Open University Press/Milton Keynes.
Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Altamira Press.
Smith, D. E. (2006). Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In Institutional ethnography as practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Smith, D. E. (2014). Discourse as Social Relations: Sociological Theory and the Dialogic of Sociology. In D. E. Smith & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Incorporating Texts into Institutional Ethnographies (pp. 225-253). University of Toronto Press.
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442667082-015
Smith, D. E., & Turner, S. M. (2014a). Introduction. In Incorporating texts into institutional ethnographies (pp. 3-14). University of Toronto Press.
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442667082-006
Smith, D. E., & Turner, S. M. (Eds.). (2014b). Incorporating texts into institutional ethnographies. University of Toronto Press.
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442667082
SSB. (2020, Nov. 11). Registrerte arbeidsledige blant innvandrere. https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og-lonn/statistikker/innvarbl/kvartal/2020- 11-11
Standing, G. (2011). Labour market policies, poverty and insecurity. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(3), 260-269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00778.x
St.mld. nr 33. (2015-2016). NAV i en ny tid-For arbeid og aktivitet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-33- 20152016/id2501017/
Swedberg, R. (2017). Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 189-206.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053604
Talleraas, C. (2019). Who are the transnationals? Institutional categories beyond "migrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1599133
Talleraas, C. (2020a). Institutionalising transnationalism: The national welfare system's encounter with people who lead transnational lives. [Ph. D.] Universitetet i Oslo, Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet.
Talleraas, C. (2020b). Complementing theories: Institutional ethnography and organization theory in institutional analysis. In R. W. B. Lund & A. C. E. Nilsen (Eds.), Institutional Ethnography in the Nordic Region (pp. 51-64). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019999-4
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001
Terum, L. I., & Jessen, J. T. (2015). Den tvetydige aktiveringen. En studie av veiledere ved lokale NAV-kontor. Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning, 18(2), 96-109.
Terum, L. I., Torsvik, G., & Øverbye, E. (2018). Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities in Activation Programme? Evidence from a Vignette Experiment. Journal of Social Policy, 47(1), 39-56.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279417000113
Testa, D. (2017). Hospitals, nationality, and culture: Social workers, experiences and reflections. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review, 29(2), 96-107.
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss2id280
Thomann, E., & Rapp, C. (2018). Who Deserves Solidarity? Unequal Treatment of Immigrants in Swiss Welfare Policy Delivery: Who Deserves Solidarity? Policy Studies Journal, 46(3), 531-552.
https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12225
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Tronstad, K. R., Nygaard, M., & Bask, M. (2018). Accumulation of welfare problems among immigrants in Norway (NIBR-rapport 2018: 8). NIBR. https://www.imdi.no/contentassets/1960eb95349149f5afac37f6649a3 886/accumulation-of-welfare-problems-among-immigrants-in- norway.pdf
Tuastad, S., Handulle, A., & Alfonso, N. P. (2017). Etnosentrisk barnevern? In I. Studsrød & S. Tuastad (Eds.), Barneomsorg på norsk. I samspill og spenning mellom hjem og stat (pp. 125-153). Universitetsforlaget.
Tummons, J. (2017). Institutional Ethnography, Theory, Methodology, and Research: Some Concerns and Some Comments. In J. Reid & L. Russell (Eds.), Perspectives on and from Institutional Ethnography (Vol. 15, pp. 147-162). Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1042-319220170000015003
Tønseth, H., & Grebstad, U. (2019). 56 prosent av sosialhjelpsutbetalingene går til innvandrere. https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og- kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/56-prosent-av- sosialhjelpsutbetalingene-gar-til-innvandrere
Torres, S. (2006). Elderly immigrants in Sweden: 'Otherness' under construction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(8), 1341- 1358.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830600928730
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Sustainable Development - 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Retrieved Sept. 6, 2021 from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
Valtonen, K. (2001). Immigrant Integration in the welfare state: Social work's growing arena. European Journal of Social Work, 4(3), 247-262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/714889976
van der Haar, M. (2006). When diversity matters. In J. W. Duyvendak, T. Knijn, & M. Kremer (Eds.), Policy, people, and the new professional (pp. 97-108). Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9789048504251.007
Van Hootegem, A., Abts, K., & Meuleman, B. (2020). Differentiated distributive justice preferences? Configurations of preferences for equality, equity and need in three welfare domains. Social Justice Research, 33(3), 257-283.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00354-9
Van Parys, L. (2019). Specifying the dependent variable in street-level bureaucracy research. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context (pp. 49-69). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631.00014
Vassenden, A. (2010). Untangling the different components of Norwegianness*: Components of Norwegianness. Nations and Nationalism, 16(4), 734-752.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2009.00438.x
Vassenden, A. (2018). Produktive anomalier: Teoriutvikling i empirisk sosiologi. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 2(02), 145-163.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2018-02-03
Vassenden, A., & Vedøy, G. (2019). Recurrence, eruptions, and a transnational turn: Three decades of strained relations between migrants to Norway and the Child Welfare Services. Child & Family Social Work, 24(4), 582-591.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12639
Vike, H. (2018). Street-level bureaucracy and crosscutting cleavages in municipal worlds. Comparative Social Research, 33, 247-265.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0195-631020180000033016
Villadsen, K. (2003). Det sociale arbejde som befrielse. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), At skabe en klient. Institutionelle identiteter i socialt arbejde (pp. 192-226). Hans Reitzel Forlag.
Vitus, K. (2003). Indvandrerbørn leger dårligt; institutionel konstruktion af farlig fritid. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), At skabe en klient. Institutionelle identiteter i socialt arbejde (pp. 136-163). Hans Reitzel Forlag.
Vitus, K. (2014). Wild girls and the deproblematization of troubled lives. In J. F. Gubrium & M. Järvinen (Eds.), Turning Troubles into Problems. Clientization in Human Services (pp. 85-101). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G. (2015). Situasjoner, skjønnsutøvelse og strategier: Om arbeidsprosessen med arbeidsevnevurderinger i NAV. [MA] http://hdl.handle.net/10852/46179
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G. (2020). "I don't know what to do-Could it be cultural?" The operationalization of cultural sensitivity among street- level workers in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Social Policy & Administration, 0(0).
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12615
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G., & Enoksen, E. (2020). Navigating the multifaceted landscape of culture and social work: A qualitative evidence synthesis of cultural competence and cultural sensitivity in practice. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 2.
https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.314
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G., & Vassenden, A. (2021). Emotional creaming: Street‐ level bureaucrats' prioritisation of migrant clients 'likely to succeed' in labour market integration. International Journal of Social Welfare, 1-11.
Volckmar-Eeg, M. G., & Vassenden, A. (submitted). Kasteball eller flipperspill? Innlåsning av innvandrere med "språkutfordringer" i NAV. Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning.
Wadel, C. (2014). Feltarbeid i egen kultur (C. C. Wadel & O. L. Fuglestad, Eds.). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Walby, K. (2007). On the Social Relations of Research: A Critical Assessment of Institutional Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(7), 1008-1030.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407305809
Walby, K. (2013). Institutional ethnography and data analysis: Making sense of data dialogues. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(2), 141-154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.661207
Weber, M. (1971). Makt og byråkrati. Gyldendal.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell Publishers.
Weick, K. E. (2006). Faith, evidence, and action: Better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1723-1736.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068351
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, M. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Widerberg, K. (2015a). En invitasjon til institusjonell etnografi. In K. Widerberg, I hjertet av velferdsstaten-En invitasjon til institusjonell etnografi (1. utgave, pp. 13-31). Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Widerberg, K. (Ed.). (2015b). I hjertet av velferdsstaten: En invitasjon til institusjonell etnografi (1. utgave). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Widerberg, K. (2020). In the name of the welfare state. Investigating ruling relations in a Nordic context. In R. W. B. Lund & A. C. E. Nilsen (Eds.), Institutional ethnography in the Nordic region (pp. 21-36). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429019999-2
Williams, C., & Soydan, H. (2005). When and How Does Ethnicity Matter? A Cross-National Study of Social Work Responses to Ethnicity in Child Protection Cases. British Journal of Social Work, 35(6), 901-920.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch281
Yan, M. C. (2005). How cultural awareness works: An empirical examination of the interaction between social workers and their cultures. Canadian Social Work Review / Revue Canadienne de Service Social, 22(1), 5- 29.
Ylvisaker, S., Rugkåsa, M., & Eide, K. (2015). Silenced stories of social work with minority ethnic families in Norway. Critical and Radical Social Work, 3(2), 221-236.
https://doi.org/10.1332/204986015X14331614908951
Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674981423
Zulfikar, T. (2014). Researching my own backyard: Inquiries into an ethnographic study. Ethnography and Education, 9(3), 373-386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2014.919869
Ødegård, A. M., Dapi, B., Alsos, K., Dølvik, J. E., Fløtten, T., Kavli, H. C., & Tønder, A. H. (2020). Trender i arbeidslivs- og velferdspolitikken fram mot 2035. (Fafo-rapport 2020: 32). https://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2020/20767.pdf
Øversveen, E., & Forseth, U. (2018). Fremmed i NAV: Arbeidslinja i praksis. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 2(04), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2018-04-01
Åsheim, H. (2018). Aktivitetsplan som styringsverktøy. Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 35(04), 242-258.
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-7989-2018-04-01
Åsheim, H. (2019). «Du vil ha behov for ytterligere arbeidstrening». En studie av begrunnelser i arbeidsavklaringsprosess. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, 3(04), 238-253.
