b谷歌评论对医生重要吗？在数字平台上解读在线情感责任

IF 8.3 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE

Critical Perspectives on Accounting Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102768

Agathe Morinière , Irène Georgescu , Sea Matilda Bez

{"title":"b谷歌评论对医生重要吗？在数字平台上解读在线情感责任","authors":"Agathe Morinière , Irène Georgescu , Sea Matilda Bez","doi":"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The emergence of publicly available online feedback has prompted inquiries into the evolving context of professional evaluation, especially in the healthcare sector. Drawing on Illouz’s critical theory of emotional capitalism, this article unravels whether and how patients’ Google feedback changes the way doctors are held accountable. We draw on a qualitative analysis of Google’s patient feedback that is combined, when available, with doctors’ responses, coupled with 13 interviews with medical professionals and members of their administrative staff. Our contributions lie in conceptualising this Google online feedback as a form of ‘online emotional accountability’, a crucial characterisation that extends the current understanding of the phenomenon of online feedback for professionals. It sheds new light on a pivotal shift in which informal discussions about doctors’ behaviour and patients’ emotional satisfaction are made publicly available, placing professionals—especially doctors—under public scrutiny not only for their expertise but also for their role in managing the diverse emotional needs and expectations of their patients. Our findings uncover four critical implications of this online emotional accountability from a doctors’ perspective: (1) the feigned indifference; (2) the critiques of the commodification of medical work; (3) the potential competing goals between achieving patient emotional satisfaction and respecting professional ethics; and (4) the challenges of addressing patients’ feedback under public scrutiny.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48078,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","volume":"101 ","pages":"Article 102768"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Google Reviews matter for doctors? Unpacking online emotional accountability on a digital platform\",\"authors\":\"Agathe Morinière , Irène Georgescu , Sea Matilda Bez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The emergence of publicly available online feedback has prompted inquiries into the evolving context of professional evaluation, especially in the healthcare sector. Drawing on Illouz’s critical theory of emotional capitalism, this article unravels whether and how patients’ Google feedback changes the way doctors are held accountable. We draw on a qualitative analysis of Google’s patient feedback that is combined, when available, with doctors’ responses, coupled with 13 interviews with medical professionals and members of their administrative staff. Our contributions lie in conceptualising this Google online feedback as a form of ‘online emotional accountability’, a crucial characterisation that extends the current understanding of the phenomenon of online feedback for professionals. It sheds new light on a pivotal shift in which informal discussions about doctors’ behaviour and patients’ emotional satisfaction are made publicly available, placing professionals—especially doctors—under public scrutiny not only for their expertise but also for their role in managing the diverse emotional needs and expectations of their patients. Our findings uncover four critical implications of this online emotional accountability from a doctors’ perspective: (1) the feigned indifference; (2) the critiques of the commodification of medical work; (3) the potential competing goals between achieving patient emotional satisfaction and respecting professional ethics; and (4) the challenges of addressing patients’ feedback under public scrutiny.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"volume\":\"101 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102768\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000674\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000674","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

可公开获得的在线反馈的出现促使人们对不断变化的专业评估环境，特别是在医疗保健部门进行调查。利用伊洛兹的情感资本主义批判理论，这篇文章揭示了病人的谷歌反馈是否以及如何改变了医生被追究责任的方式。我们对谷歌的患者反馈进行了定性分析，这些反馈与医生的回答结合在一起，并与13名医疗专业人员及其管理人员进行了访谈。我们的贡献在于将这种谷歌在线反馈概念化为一种“在线情感责任”，这是一种重要的特征，扩展了目前对专业人士在线反馈现象的理解。它揭示了一个关键的转变，即关于医生行为和病人情感满意度的非正式讨论被公开，将专业人士——尤其是医生——置于公众监督之下，不仅因为他们的专业知识，还因为他们在管理病人不同的情感需求和期望方面所扮演的角色。我们的研究结果从医生的角度揭示了这种在线情绪问责的四个关键含义：(1)假装冷漠；(2)对医疗工作商品化的批评；(3)实现患者情感满足与尊重职业道德的潜在竞争目标；(4)在公众监督下处理患者反馈的挑战。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Do Google Reviews matter for doctors? Unpacking online emotional accountability on a digital platform

The emergence of publicly available online feedback has prompted inquiries into the evolving context of professional evaluation, especially in the healthcare sector. Drawing on Illouz’s critical theory of emotional capitalism, this article unravels whether and how patients’ Google feedback changes the way doctors are held accountable. We draw on a qualitative analysis of Google’s patient feedback that is combined, when available, with doctors’ responses, coupled with 13 interviews with medical professionals and members of their administrative staff. Our contributions lie in conceptualising this Google online feedback as a form of ‘online emotional accountability’, a crucial characterisation that extends the current understanding of the phenomenon of online feedback for professionals. It sheds new light on a pivotal shift in which informal discussions about doctors’ behaviour and patients’ emotional satisfaction are made publicly available, placing professionals—especially doctors—under public scrutiny not only for their expertise but also for their role in managing the diverse emotional needs and expectations of their patients. Our findings uncover four critical implications of this online emotional accountability from a doctors’ perspective: (1) the feigned indifference; (2) the critiques of the commodification of medical work; (3) the potential competing goals between achieving patient emotional satisfaction and respecting professional ethics; and (4) the challenges of addressing patients’ feedback under public scrutiny.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Perspectives on Accounting BUSINESS, FINANCE-

CiteScore

9.40

自引率

7.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Perspectives on Accounting aims to provide a forum for the growing number of accounting researchers and practitioners who realize that conventional theory and practice is ill-suited to the challenges of the modern environment, and that accounting practices and corporate behavior are inextricably connected with many allocative, distributive, social, and ecological problems of our era. From such concerns, a new literature is emerging that seeks to reformulate corporate, social, and political activity, and the theoretical and practical means by which we apprehend and affect that activity. Research Areas Include: • Studies involving the political economy of accounting, critical accounting, radical accounting, and accounting''s implication in the exercise of power • Financial accounting''s role in the processes of international capital formation, including its impact on stock market stability and international banking activities • Management accounting''s role in organizing the labor process • The relationship between accounting and the state in various social formations • Studies of accounting''s historical role, as a means of "remembering" the subject''s social and conflictual character • The role of accounting in establishing "real" democracy at work and other domains of life • Accounting''s adjudicative function in international exchanges, such as that of the Third World debt • Antagonisms between the social and private character of accounting, such as conflicts of interest in the audit process • The identification of new constituencies for radical and critical accounting information • Accounting''s involvement in gender and class conflicts in the workplace • The interplay between accounting, social conflict, industrialization, bureaucracy, and technocracy • Reappraisals of the role of accounting as a science and technology • Critical reviews of "useful" scientific knowledge about organizations