专家服务工作者的诚信沟通

IF 0.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Phillipa K. Chong, A. Bourgoin
{"title":"专家服务工作者的诚信沟通","authors":"Phillipa K. Chong, A. Bourgoin","doi":"10.3384/vs.2001-5992.2020.7.1.65","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the fastest-growing occupational groups in the US is expert service workers: knowledge workers who sell their expert knowledge and services on the free market. In this paper, we offer a comparative case study of how expert service workers, whom are hired for their professional evaluations, navigate the tensions of the expert service-client relation in a specific but critical way: How do they convince others that their professional recommendations are credible? Specifically, we draw on two disparate cases of expert evaluators, book reviewers and management consultants, and document two communicative patterns that these professional groups use to build the credibility of their professional recommendations: (i) transparency and (ii) distanciation. Similarities in the credibility tactics of these two sets of expert service workers from two very different worlds, the Arts and business, suggest their generalizable value. Hence, we conclude by discussing how our findings offer a general approach we call, the evaluative triangle, for studying the credibility tactics of expert claims across multiple worlds of work.","PeriodicalId":41258,"journal":{"name":"Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici","volume":"22 1","pages":"65-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicating Credibility by Expert Service Workers\",\"authors\":\"Phillipa K. Chong, A. Bourgoin\",\"doi\":\"10.3384/vs.2001-5992.2020.7.1.65\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the fastest-growing occupational groups in the US is expert service workers: knowledge workers who sell their expert knowledge and services on the free market. In this paper, we offer a comparative case study of how expert service workers, whom are hired for their professional evaluations, navigate the tensions of the expert service-client relation in a specific but critical way: How do they convince others that their professional recommendations are credible? Specifically, we draw on two disparate cases of expert evaluators, book reviewers and management consultants, and document two communicative patterns that these professional groups use to build the credibility of their professional recommendations: (i) transparency and (ii) distanciation. Similarities in the credibility tactics of these two sets of expert service workers from two very different worlds, the Arts and business, suggest their generalizable value. Hence, we conclude by discussing how our findings offer a general approach we call, the evaluative triangle, for studying the credibility tactics of expert claims across multiple worlds of work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"65-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-5992.2020.7.1.65\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-5992.2020.7.1.65","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在美国,增长最快的职业群体之一是专业服务工作者:在自由市场上出售专业知识和服务的知识工作者。在本文中,我们提供了一个比较案例研究,研究专家服务工作者是如何被雇佣来进行专业评估的,他们如何以一种特定但关键的方式处理专家服务与客户关系的紧张关系:他们如何让别人相信他们的专业建议是可信的?具体来说,我们借鉴了专家评价者、书评家和管理顾问的两个不同案例,并记录了这些专业团体用来建立其专业建议可信度的两种沟通模式:(i)透明度和(ii)距离。这两组来自艺术和商业这两个截然不同的世界的专家服务人员在可信度策略上的相似之处,表明了他们的普遍价值。因此,我们通过讨论我们的发现如何提供一种我们称之为“评估三角”的一般方法来总结,用于研究跨多个工作世界的专家声明的可信度策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Communicating Credibility by Expert Service Workers
One of the fastest-growing occupational groups in the US is expert service workers: knowledge workers who sell their expert knowledge and services on the free market. In this paper, we offer a comparative case study of how expert service workers, whom are hired for their professional evaluations, navigate the tensions of the expert service-client relation in a specific but critical way: How do they convince others that their professional recommendations are credible? Specifically, we draw on two disparate cases of expert evaluators, book reviewers and management consultants, and document two communicative patterns that these professional groups use to build the credibility of their professional recommendations: (i) transparency and (ii) distanciation. Similarities in the credibility tactics of these two sets of expert service workers from two very different worlds, the Arts and business, suggest their generalizable value. Hence, we conclude by discussing how our findings offer a general approach we call, the evaluative triangle, for studying the credibility tactics of expert claims across multiple worlds of work.
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
Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici
Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
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