At odds: How intraprofessional conflict and stratification has stalled the Ontario paramedic professionalization project

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
M. Brydges, J. Dunn, G. Agarwal, W. Tavares
{"title":"At odds: How intraprofessional conflict and stratification has stalled the Ontario paramedic professionalization project","authors":"M. Brydges, J. Dunn, G. Agarwal, W. Tavares","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joac016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Historically, self-regulation has provided some professions with power and market control. Currently, however, governments have scrutinized this approach, and priorities have shifted toward other mandates. This study examines the case of paramedics in Ontario, Canada, where self-regulation is still the dominant regulatory model for the healthcare professions but not for paramedics. Instead, paramedics in Ontario are co-regulated by government and physician-directed groups, with paramedics subordinate to both. This paper, which draws on interviews with paramedic industry leaders analyzed through the lens of institutional work, examines perspectives on the relevance of self-regulation to the paramedic professionalization project. Participants had varying views on the importance of self-regulation in obtaining professional status, with some rejecting its role in professionalization and others embracing regulatory reform. Because paramedics disagree on what being a profession means, the collective professionalization project has stalled. This research has implications for understanding the impact of intraprofessional relationships and conflict on professionalization projects.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Historically, self-regulation has provided some professions with power and market control. Currently, however, governments have scrutinized this approach, and priorities have shifted toward other mandates. This study examines the case of paramedics in Ontario, Canada, where self-regulation is still the dominant regulatory model for the healthcare professions but not for paramedics. Instead, paramedics in Ontario are co-regulated by government and physician-directed groups, with paramedics subordinate to both. This paper, which draws on interviews with paramedic industry leaders analyzed through the lens of institutional work, examines perspectives on the relevance of self-regulation to the paramedic professionalization project. Participants had varying views on the importance of self-regulation in obtaining professional status, with some rejecting its role in professionalization and others embracing regulatory reform. Because paramedics disagree on what being a profession means, the collective professionalization project has stalled. This research has implications for understanding the impact of intraprofessional relationships and conflict on professionalization projects.
分歧:专业内部的冲突和分层如何阻碍安大略省护理人员专业化项目
从历史上看,自我监管为一些职业提供了权力和市场控制。然而,目前,各国政府已经仔细审查了这种方法,优先事项已经转向其他任务。这项研究考察了加拿大安大略省护理人员的情况,在那里,自我监管仍然是医疗专业的主要监管模式,但对护理人员来说却不是。相反,安大略省的护理人员由政府和医生指导的团体共同监管,护理人员从属于这两个团体。本文通过对护理行业领导者的采访,从机构工作的角度进行分析,考察了自我监管与护理专业化项目的相关性。与会者对自我监管在获得专业地位方面的重要性有不同的看法,一些人反对其在专业化方面的作用,另一些人则支持监管改革。由于护理人员对职业的含义意见不一,集体专业化项目陷入停滞。本研究有助于理解专业内部关系和冲突对专业化项目的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信