Suchergebnisse

In sociological research on relationships between professionals and volunteers, professionals are often contrasted with volunteers as abstracted, distinct and homogeneous groups. Focusing on healthcare in selected modern societies, and adopting a neo-Weberian and complementary boundary work perspective, this essay argues the landscape is more complex than between paid groups with exclusionary social closure and the unwaged in the market. First, diversification exists within health professions themselves based on social closure, with hierarchies and differential scopes of practice. Second, unpaid volunteers vary in responsibility depending on factors like employment sector and social background, including qualifications and experience. Third, in the paid workforce, there are interstitial non-professionalised health occupations, such as the neglected, lower educated health support workers, forming the largest, most heterogeneous healthcare labour force. Drawing on studies of healthcare, it is argued that recognising the diversification and interplay between professionals, volunteers and support workers is vital for enhancing health policy.

This paper outlines a neo-Weberian approach to state-sponsored social closure in professional formation. Despite its advantages, state decision-making is not typically well-defined or examined in neo-Weberian analyses. Neo-Weberianism is differentiated from Max Weber's own work on social action and rationality, which generally provides a more subtle interpretation of state socio-political processes. The paper explores how policy formation can be more incisively analyzed inside the black box of state decision-making from a Weberian perspective. This is exemplified by the passage of the 1858 Medical Act in the United Kingdom establishing the state-supported medical profession. While further work is necessary in filling in the black box, this paper charts an important future path for neo-Weberian analyses of professions, and their relationship with the state.

Professions now operate in a more critical modern Western societal context. This has typically led to a major political challenge by the state to the self-regulation of such groups. It is argued, though, that the reasons for this are more complex than a knee-jerk reaction to the growing number of emerging professional scandals. Accordingly, tools are provided from a neo-Weberian perspective to analyse changes in state-profession relations — bringing state actors to the fore in a novel way. Their application is illustrated mainly through a case study of Canadian health profession regulation. ; Hoy en día, las profesiones operan de manera más crítica en el contexto de la sociedad occidental moderna. Esto ha provocado un mayor desafío político por parte del Estado en lo relacionado a la autorregulación de tales grupos. Sin embargo, se defiende que las razones para tal son más complejas de lo que una reacción automática al aumento del número de escándalos profesionales emergentes. En este sentido, son dadas herramientas de la perspectiva neo-weberiana para analizar los cambios a las relaciones Estados-profesión—movilizando para un primer plano a actores del Estado de manera novedosa. Esta aplicación está ilustrada en gran parte a través de un caso de estudio de la regulación de las profesiones de salud en Canada. ; Les professions agissent aujourd'hui d'une façon plus critique dans le contexte de la société occidentale moderne, ce qui a conduit à un plus grand défi politique pour l'État en ce qui concerne l'autorégulation de ces groupes. Cependant, les raisons à cela sont plus complexes qu'une simple réaction automatique à l'augmentation du nombre de scandales professionnels qui ont éclaté. Plusieurs outils sont donnés du point de vue néo-weberien pour analyser les changements dans les rapports État-professions —en mettant en avant des acteurs de l'État sous un jour nouveau. Cette application est illustrée majoritairement à travers un cas d'étude de la réglementation des professions de la santé au Canada. ; As ...

The professionalization of veterinary medicine in Britain has been little studied by social scientists, although as a classic instance of an occupation that has achieved exclusionary social closure it merits examination from a neo-Weberian perspective. Therefore, this paper explores how it has attained this position through state action in an historical and contemporary context using neo-Weberianism as a theoretical lens. In charting the different stages and forms of professional regulation in veterinary medicine, group self-interest is identified as a central driver, following the neo-Weberian idiom. However, contrary to the position adopted by some neo-Weberians, the professionalization process is seen as being more complex than simply being interest-based, with the public interest being upheld. As such, through the case of veterinary medicine, it is claimed professional self-interests and the public interest can be co-terminous and mutually achieve a dynamic equilibrium. They do not have to form part of a zero-sum game.

Bringing together leading academics worldwide, this collection compares and critically examines the ways in which different countries are regulating healthcare in general, and health professions in particular, in the interest of users and the wider public

This timely comparative study assesses the role of medical doctors in reforming publicly funded health services in England and Canada. Respected authors from health and legal backgrounds on both sides of the Atlantic consider how the high status of the profession uniquely influences reforms. With summaries of developments in models of care, and the participation of doctors since the inception of publicly funded healthcare systems, they ask whether professionals might be considered allies or enemies of policy-makers. With insights for future health policy and research, the book is an important contribution to debates about the complex relationship between doctors and the systems in which they practice

ABSTRACTIn this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary on an article entitled 'Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts' (Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2). Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf's use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time. While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf's use of them. The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts.