MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401454262 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-110.2.34

Regulating Professions: The Emergence of Professional Self-Regulation in Four Canadian Provinces

2024· article· en· W4401454262 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Sciences and Governance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Regulating Professions: The Emergence of Professional Self-Regulation in Four Canadian ProvincesTracey L. AdamsUniversity of Toronto Press, 2018Through legislation, states have granted prominent professions such as medicine and law powers of self-regulation—a type of regulation that gives medicine the authority to govern itself by means of a body constituted mainly of professionals. These powers include regulating entry to practice; ensuring conformation to standards of practice; and governing practitioner behavior in terms of ethical and social responsibilities. Current research on professional regulation, however, tends to center on the origins of professions or recent changes. Far less attention has been devoted to historical trends and patterns—something remediated by Tracey Adams in Regulating Professions: The Emergence of Professional Self-Regulation in Four Canadian Provinces.Adams, a sociologist who specializes in sociologies of work, occupations, and professions, argues that developments in Canada illuminate self-regulation broadly, particularly in Anglo-American settings such as the United States and United Kingdom, where professional regulatory patterns developed similarly. Importantly, however, “self-regulating professions in medicine and law were legislated in Canada before other nations followed suit” (p. 258). Her original and exhaustive comparative research shows, furthermore, why Canada is a worthwhile case study to analyze issues and processes around professional self-regulation. Medicine and law, for example, have been self-regulating, continuously, for two centuries in Canada; and, significantly, according to Adams, it persists despite efforts to dismantle or undermine it elsewhere in the world. Adams also makes a strong case that her findings will help sociologists refine and expand their theoretical tools for understanding all professions and how they operate in society.As a foundation for these arguments, Adams skillfully defines self-regulation, contextualizes it historically for North America, and summarizes existing scholarship and sociological conclusions on professional self-regulation. Then, she examines professional self-regulation in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia). She shows in Chapter 2 that, while the processes in each province that resulted in self-regulation in the 19th-century were distinct, common regulatory forms and institutions emerged; and, in a case study of the medical profession, she compares developments in Ontario and Quebec to those in the United Kingdom and United States to conclude that even though all 3 countries share an “Anglo-American” model of regulation, there are consequential differences (eg: the colonial state’s elimination of British distinctions between physicians and surgeons in response to a tiny population; and the heavy involvement of physicians in colonial politics and provincial legislatures). Chapter 3 examines what was regulated and how by scrutinizing legislative debates and preambles, and by considering who won professional self-regulation and why. Through systematic study of legislative records to glean the motivations and power of state actors, Adams identifies the importance of professional expertise and social capital to regulatory outcomes.Chapter 4 focuses on the professional projects pursued by medicine, dentistry, and land surveying. These case studies demonstrate that, while most theories of professionalization emphasize how groups win occupational privileges in contests with the state, such campaigns did not figure in the Canadian context. More significant, Adams finds, were state-profession relations, social capital, and professionals’ widespread involvement in provincial governments.Chapter 5 documents regulatory activity between 1900 and 1940, especially controversies pertaining to 3 new professional groups: nurses, optometrists, and engineers.A detailed case study in Chapter 6 on the regulation of “drugless healers” such as chiropractors, osteopaths, and naturopaths illuminates not only the strategies used by these occupational groups that sought professional status in the twentieth century, but also the tactics employed by the medical profession to thwart their aspirations.Of particular interest to JMR readers, Adams expertly lays out in a final chapter the theoretical consequences of her findings for our general understanding of professional self-regulation today. Whereas she emphasizes the centrality of the state to self-regulation throughout the study, here she offers novel insights into common theoretical approaches to professional regulation—namely, neo-Weberian, Foucauldian, and ecological (Abbott)—that promise to inform future research and thinking on medical regulation globally.Regulating Professions represents an important and useful contribution to the field of research on medical licensing and regulation. It is the first comparative history of self-regulating professions across early French and British colonies, and across several Canadian provinces. Most of the sizable literature on the medical and law professions in North America examines factors around the emergence of those groups, with scant focus on change over time—especially around how and why professional regulation gets modified in response to debates and controversies and to new professional standards, ethical issues, or social responsibilities—a scarcity successfully remedied by this book. A focus on the explanatory power of state actors in processes around self-regulation, moreover, also makes Adams’ methods and findings stand out within the scholarship on medical professionalization and regulation.This is a deeply-researched and readable historical study filled with relevant insights for medical regulation today. Its findings will certainly be useful and interesting to researchers and regulators alike. It overviews developments around self-regulation comparatively across Canadian (English and French), American, and British contexts—demonstrating with sound and captivating historical evidence that the picture in Canada is at once unique, divergent, similar, and instructive. Especially helpful is Table 2.1 (pp. 66-67), which graphically compares nineteenth-century developments around self-regulation in all three settings. It is worth noting that Dr. Adams is also co-editor of the 2019 multi-author volume Gender, Age and Inequality in the Professions, which examines experiences of professional work and careers, including in the health professions, through an intersectional lens at the intersection of gender and age.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,775
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,931

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,340 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle