Search

In the Scandinavian countries, reablement has become a principle permeating all parts of elderly care, hence potentially transforming care and care work. This article explores the advent of new knowledge paradigms and practices of physiotherapists and occupational therapists transforming reabling care in particular ways, leading to what we term a logic of training emerging in the field. These professional groups have obtained a dominant position as reablement specialists in Norway and Denmark, where our extensive fieldwork was performed as part of a 3‐year research project. Taking inspiration from Annemarie Mol's concept of logic, we study how professional practices are organised and infused with specific values, meanings and ideals in situated contexts. We hence explore the logic of training, its abstracted image of the body and rational goal‐oriented model for progress measurement and its ramifications when addressing ageing bodies in a complex field marked by the unpredictabilities of the social and lived bodies, administrative rules and temporalities and the quest for empowering and involving clients. The paper concludes by pointing at new contradictions arising when practicing reabling care and particularly points out the tensions arising in care relations, where ambitions on empowering and disciplining the client and the elderly body may collide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey—and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top‐tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top‐tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top‐tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top‐tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric‐informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]