Managing Conflict: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Exploring Collaborating Under Conditions of Mandate In English Health and Wellbeing Boards

Abstract

The focus of this thesis is related to the interactions that occur between people collaborating under conditions of mandate and how these interactions are managed, in a health, social care and public health context in England. In adopting a constructivist approach to Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006) the basic social process of managing conflict was constructed which is a substantive theory grounded in the data. The substantive grounded theory was developed from the interviews and observations of thirty mandated collaborating members of a North East Health and Wellbeing Board, as they collaborated under conditions of mandate for the organising and provision of local care.

The constant comparison analysis of the data revealed that when collaboratives in a health, social care and public health context are mandated, essential elements of the process are omitted and this allows conflict as a multifaceted issue to manifest within the interactions between individuals. Conflict in relation to this study was conceptualised as being located in, interacting identities, democratising the decision-making practices and coping with the traditions of others. Conflict for these participants developed as a result of health and social care professionals and democratically elected members, being mandated to collaborate for the integration of local care. Decision-making practises that had traditionally been left to the professional members of this group.

The participants in this study were analysed as managing conflict through the three conceptual domains of: interacting orientations, interacting positions and interacting strategies.These findings represent the first study of mandated collaboration at the micro-sociological level which explores the interactions between people who collaborate under conditions of mandate.