Health Professionals, Support Workers and the Precariat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Following the theoretical themes of this book, this chapter primarily adopts a neo-Weberian approach to the analysis of health support workers. Health support workers are seen here, as throughout the volume, as paid frontline carers providing support to clients and their carers who are not qualified and registered as part of a profession (Manthorpe and Martineau 2008). The chapter starts by considering the notion of health professionalisation from a neo-Weberian viewpoint, which has brought with it considerable benefits for doctors and others based on a monopolistic position in the market in terms of income, status and power. More recently, though, there has been some debate about deprofessionalisation in a world in which the rewards of professions are often seen to have been diminished by various changing socio-political circumstances. For neo-Marxists this equates to proletarianisation linked to the labour process in capitalist development which is in turn related to membership of the precariat (Han 2018). In this sense, both of these perspectives have a bearing on the relative positioning of health support workers and their precarity or otherwise. They therefore merit initial consideration as they threaten to muddy the water in understanding the socioeconomic situation of this occupational group. Health support workers by definition do not fit the neo-Weberian notion of professions, but they are groups, as will be seen, whose conditions of work can very often be described as immiserated, even in comparison with those occupations at the bottom of the health professional pecking order and in relation to the proletariat in classic Marxist writing. It is on such health support workers that this chapter focuses – critically considering whether they can be seen as members of the precariat, which neo-Marxists sometimes believe has replaced the proletariat in terms of system-changing class consciousness within capitalism, or simply exist in a comparatively precarious position in the market from a neo-Weberian perspective. This discussion particularly centres on the comparative cases of Canada and the UK – in the latter case focused largely on England given the variations in each of the UK's four countries resulting from their increasingly devolved political authority. The chapter concludes by examining the policy implications of the analysis from the viewpoint of the theoretical concept of precarity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".