Nursing is not like organised crime: A theoretically informed commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article aims to contest misrepresentations and distortions of sociological writings on the nursing profession. BACKGROUND: During the latest ICN congress in Montreal, it has been suggested that professions, and the nursing profession for that matter, are thought of by sociologists in a similar way as organised crime, meaning that it is like a 'money sponge' sucking resources out of society, without however giving anything in return. Allegedly, there would be a distinct branch of sociology depicting the professions in this light. DISCUSSION: By sketching out relevant sociological ideas, including the sociology of nursing, I explain that there is no tradition portraying the professions as mafias. I demonstrate that while both the professions and organised crime are socially organised, they are radically different in legitimacy. The caring professions are themselves different in ethos from the classic professions, all the more so from criminal organisations. A distinct stream of research in sociology has been devoted to nursing, without however suggesting such an analogy. CONCLUSION: I lament that attendees to the ICN congress were indeed given an inaccurate representation of sociological thinking. Sociologists addressing nursing as a profession tend to highlight processes of emancipation, autonomy, vindication and social justice, as care work is essential to the broader socioeconomic order. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: While nursing as a profession is socially organised, the power devices and tactics it deploys in the sociopolitical arena are characterised by their legitimacy. Unlike organised crime, nursing policymaking is situated within a framework of lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".