{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01757944557133198, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.491228070175438, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Boundary work in inter-agency and interprofessional client transitions

Abstract This article analyses the accomplishment of boundary work performed by professionals engaged in inter-agency collaboration. As a means of building authority within a particular field, boundary work is found to be a common feature of most professional practices. By analysing the talk of Finnish professionals who work in the field of supported housing in mental health, the article investigates the ways professionals—as collective representatives of their service—talk about doing boundary work when transferring their clients to another agency. The study drew on the principles of exploratory case study design and ethnomethodology. A key finding from the analysis of professionals’ focus groups and team meetings indicated that boundary work is employed when disputes arise between supported housing and collaborating agencies. The article goes on to suggest that professionals accomplish boundary work by rhetorically presenting themselves as holders of “day-to-day evidence” of clients’ mundane living skills and serious ill-health. The paper concludes by arguing that in inter-agency collaboration, boundary work building on day-to-day evidence is used to influence the decision on the most appropriate living arrangement for the client. Boundary work is also used for boosting the authority of professionals as representatives of a relatively new and fixed-term agency in the service system.