Dress codes written for dietetics education programs: A Foucauldian discourse analysis

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
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.
为营养学教育课程编写的着装规范:福柯式话语分析
1917年,营养学在美国成立,从家政学中脱颖而出,成为女性“可接受”的研究领域。从一开始,营养学就缺乏多样性;大多数营养学专业人士认为自己是白人、顺性别、异性恋、中上层阶级女性。在有监督的实习环境中,实习生被要求穿着“专业”,并遵守健康/安全协议。考虑到该领域的历史,我们有理由怀疑,营养学项目的着装规范——关于员工/参与者能穿什么/不能穿什么的规定/期望——可能存在问题。为了探讨这一点,我们使用福柯式的女权主义方法进行了话语分析,并借鉴了治理的概念。研究人员分析了来自美国认可的营养学教育项目的85项营养学着装规范,并辅以调查问题。研究发现了三个主要的话语效应:“隐形化”告诉营养学学生/实习生如何变得专业和谦虚。“保护”凸显着装,促进健康安全。“正常化”符合苗条、顺性别、社会地位较高的欧洲白人女性的特权。这些发现表明,着装规范是如何使“模范”营养师具体化的,并对某些团体给予特权/压迫/约束,从而支持了对饮食着装规范的批评,认为这是歧视性的,是对特定社会群体的压迫/特权。提出了解决偏见和防止着装规范对职业多样性/包容性产生负面影响的建议。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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