“暴行故事”和职业关系

R. Dingwall
{"title":"“暴行故事”和职业关系","authors":"R. Dingwall","doi":"10.1177/003803857700400401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is argued that social interaction involves the reciprocal typification of parties to any encounter in the light of the social theories which those parties have available to them. One element of such theories is a conception of the social structure of one's society, including a taxonomy of occupations. Two problems are generated within this taxonomy, that of inclusion, defining what properly falls within some category, and that of exclusion, defining what properly falls out with that category. One way in which these problems are resolved is in the telling of \"atrocity stories\" which assert and defend the rational character of an occupation and its members against illegitimate claims to its work or to social superiority. These arguments are examined in the light of data derived from a participant-observation study of health visitors, a type of British public health nurse occupying an interstitial role between health and welfare services. The uncertainities of their situation and the role of atrocity stories are examined through a consideration of their relationships with doctors, social workers, other nurses, and ancillary health workers.","PeriodicalId":85554,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of work and occupations","volume":"4 1","pages":"371 - 396"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1977-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/003803857700400401","citationCount":"148","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Atrocity Stories\\\" and Professional Relationships\",\"authors\":\"R. Dingwall\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/003803857700400401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is argued that social interaction involves the reciprocal typification of parties to any encounter in the light of the social theories which those parties have available to them. One element of such theories is a conception of the social structure of one's society, including a taxonomy of occupations. Two problems are generated within this taxonomy, that of inclusion, defining what properly falls within some category, and that of exclusion, defining what properly falls out with that category. One way in which these problems are resolved is in the telling of \\\"atrocity stories\\\" which assert and defend the rational character of an occupation and its members against illegitimate claims to its work or to social superiority. These arguments are examined in the light of data derived from a participant-observation study of health visitors, a type of British public health nurse occupying an interstitial role between health and welfare services. The uncertainities of their situation and the role of atrocity stories are examined through a consideration of their relationships with doctors, social workers, other nurses, and ancillary health workers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":85554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of work and occupations\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"371 - 396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1977-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/003803857700400401\",\"citationCount\":\"148\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of work and occupations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857700400401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of work and occupations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857700400401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 148

摘要

有人认为,社会互动涉及各方在任何遭遇的相互类型化,根据这些各方所拥有的社会理论。这些理论的一个要素是对一个社会的社会结构的概念,包括职业分类。在这个分类法中产生了两个问题,一个是包含,定义什么应该属于某个类别,另一个是排除,定义什么应该属于那个类别。解决这些问题的一种方法是讲述“暴行故事”,这些故事主张并捍卫一种职业及其成员的理性特征,反对对其工作或社会优越感的非法要求。这些论点是根据一项健康访问者(一种介于健康和福利服务之间的英国公共卫生护士)的参与式观察研究得出的数据进行检验的。通过考虑他们与医生、社会工作者、其他护士和辅助卫生工作者的关系,研究了他们处境的不确定性和暴行故事的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"Atrocity Stories" and Professional Relationships
It is argued that social interaction involves the reciprocal typification of parties to any encounter in the light of the social theories which those parties have available to them. One element of such theories is a conception of the social structure of one's society, including a taxonomy of occupations. Two problems are generated within this taxonomy, that of inclusion, defining what properly falls within some category, and that of exclusion, defining what properly falls out with that category. One way in which these problems are resolved is in the telling of "atrocity stories" which assert and defend the rational character of an occupation and its members against illegitimate claims to its work or to social superiority. These arguments are examined in the light of data derived from a participant-observation study of health visitors, a type of British public health nurse occupying an interstitial role between health and welfare services. The uncertainities of their situation and the role of atrocity stories are examined through a consideration of their relationships with doctors, social workers, other nurses, and ancillary health workers.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信