University of Twente Student Theses

Login

The meaningfulness of ZSM in Groningen

Zielman, E. (2018) The meaningfulness of ZSM in Groningen.

[img] PDF
938kB
Abstract:In 2009 the police and the public prosecution decided that something had to be done about the long process times of the settlement of cases of common crime (Salet & Terpstra, 2015). New policies were made. One of the new policies that was made is ZSM. The intention is that ZSM should contribute to a meaningful settlement and prosecution of criminal cases. According to Salet and Terpstra (2017, p. 2) the definition of this meaningful intervention is: “a context- and personally oriented (selective) and where possible a fast intervention, which is carried out carefully”. This decision has to be recognizable, visible and noticeable for the suspect, victim, society and the employee involved in ZSM (Salet & Terpstra, 2017, p. 2). The main research question of this research is: “To what extent do the properties of sensemaking from Weick influence the perceived meaningfulness of ZSM?”. Sensemaking has according to Weick (1995) seven properties that will lead to sensemaking. With the data that was gathered through interviewing twelve employees of ZSM the four sub questions and the main research question were answered. The first sub question is: “To what extent is ZSM perceived as meaningful by the Police, Public Prosecution, SHN, 3RO and Child Protective Services?” The answer on this question is that ZSM in general is rated with a 1,4. The respondents were quite positive of ZSM. The respondents think that ZSM is way better than how it was before ZSM, but some improvements to make ZSM more meaningful can be made. The second sub question is: “To what extent are the four interventions within ZSM perceived as meaningful by the police, public prosecution, SHN, 3RO and Child Protective Services?” The intervention that is rated as most meaningful is workforce 3RO, with a score of 1,3. The intervention that was rated second most meaningful is making amends, with a score of 1,6. The intervention that comes in third is mediation in criminal law, with a score of 1,7. The intervention that is rated least meaningful is JIB, with a score of 1,9. The third sub question is: To what extent are the properties of Weick’s sensemaking theory present at ZSM in Groningen?” From the seven properties two are fully present, one is present and three are not sufficiently present. Sensemaking is grounded in identity construction and sensemaking is focused on and by extracted cues are both fully present at ZSM in Groningen. Sensemaking is enactive of sensible environments is present at ZSM in Groningen. Sensemaking is retrospective, sensemaking is social and sensemaking is ongoing are not sufficiently present at ZSM in Groningen. That sensemaking is retrospective is not sufficiently present is because of the lack of feedback that is given within ZSM. That sensemaking is social is not sufficiently present at ZSM is because the feeling of a joint ZSM team is not present enough among the respondents. That sensemaking is ongoing is not sufficiently present at ZSM is because every individual at ZSM does his or her own thing. They all have their own work processes instead of one joint work process. The fourth and last sub question is: “Is there a relation between the properties of sensemaking and the perceived meaningfulness?”. The answer on this question is that there is a relationship between the properties of sensemaking and the perceived meaningfulness. There is a direct relationship between the properties sensemaking is grounded in identity construction, sensemaking is retrospective, sensemaking is social and sensemaking is ongoing and the perceived meaningfulness. The other three properties (sensemaking is enactive of sensible environments, sensemaking is focused on and by extracted cues and sensemaking is driven by plausibility rather than accuracy) are present at ZSM Groningen, but these properties are not properties that the respondents are aware of and therefor have not a direct relationship with their perceived meaningfulness. They do have an indirect relationship with the perceived meaningfulness, because without the respondents awareness these properties do influence the perceived meaningfulness. The answer on the main research question is that all the properties have an influence on the perceived meaningfulness, but sensemaking is retrospective, sensemaking is social and sensemaking is ongoing have the greatest influence on the perceived meaningfulness. There are multiple points of improvements that are part of these properties that would increase the perceived meaningfulness of ZSM a lot. These improvements are discussed in this research.
Item Type:Essay (Master)
Faculty:BMS: Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences
Subject:88 social and public administration
Programme:Public Administration MSc (60020)
Link to this item:http://purl.utwente.nl/essays/74935
Export this item as:BibTeX
EndNote
HTML Citation
Reference Manager

 

Repository Staff Only: item control page