Michele A “Shelly” DeBiasse, Shannon M. Peters, Baderha Bujiriri
{"title":"Dress codes written for dietetics education programs: A Foucauldian discourse analysis","authors":"Michele A “Shelly” DeBiasse, Shannon M. Peters, Baderha Bujiriri","doi":"10.1177/09593535221126797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organized in the US in 1917, dietetics emerged from the discipline of home economics as an “acceptable” area of study for women. Since its inception, dietetics has lacked diversity; most dietetics professionals identify as white, cisgender, heterosexual, middle to upper-middle-class women. In the supervised practice setting, interns are expected to dress “professionally” and follow health/safety protocols. Given the field’s history, it is reasonable to suspect that dress codes—rules/expectations regarding what employees/participants can/cannot wear—for dietetics programs may be problematic. To explore this, we conducted a discourse analysis using a Foucauldian feminist approach, drawing on the notion of governmentality. Eighty-five dietetics dress codes, supplemented with survey questions, from US-based accredited dietetics education programs were analyzed. Three primary discursive effects were identified: “Invisibilizing” informs dietetics students/interns how to be professional and modest. “Protecting” highlights dress to promote health and safety. “Normalizing” privileges conforming to thin, cisgender, white European women of higher SES. These findings show how the dress codes reify a “model” dietitian and privilege/oppress/discipline some bodies over others, supporting criticisms of dietetics dress codes as discriminatory and oppressing/privileging select societal groups. Recommendations are provided to address biases and prevent dress codes from negatively impacting diversity/inclusion in the profession.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535221126797","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Organized in the US in 1917, dietetics emerged from the discipline of home economics as an “acceptable” area of study for women. Since its inception, dietetics has lacked diversity; most dietetics professionals identify as white, cisgender, heterosexual, middle to upper-middle-class women. In the supervised practice setting, interns are expected to dress “professionally” and follow health/safety protocols. Given the field’s history, it is reasonable to suspect that dress codes—rules/expectations regarding what employees/participants can/cannot wear—for dietetics programs may be problematic. To explore this, we conducted a discourse analysis using a Foucauldian feminist approach, drawing on the notion of governmentality. Eighty-five dietetics dress codes, supplemented with survey questions, from US-based accredited dietetics education programs were analyzed. Three primary discursive effects were identified: “Invisibilizing” informs dietetics students/interns how to be professional and modest. “Protecting” highlights dress to promote health and safety. “Normalizing” privileges conforming to thin, cisgender, white European women of higher SES. These findings show how the dress codes reify a “model” dietitian and privilege/oppress/discipline some bodies over others, supporting criticisms of dietetics dress codes as discriminatory and oppressing/privileging select societal groups. Recommendations are provided to address biases and prevent dress codes from negatively impacting diversity/inclusion in the profession.