T. Adams, I. Kirkpatrick, Pamela S. Tolbert, J. Waring
This essay is composed of commentaries from four scholars critically evaluating Noordegraaf’s article ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’. All four scholars, in different ways and from their different perspectives, question the dichotomy at the heart of Noordegraaf’s article, arguing that professionals have always been connective and connected, and moreover, that protective professionalism has not disappeared. They recommend more conceptual development to unpack the changing nature of connectivity and protectionism, as well as more attention to inequalities within and among professions, power, and professional agency.
{"title":"From protective to connective professionalism: Quo Vadis professional exclusivity?","authors":"T. Adams, I. Kirkpatrick, Pamela S. Tolbert, J. Waring","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa014","url":null,"abstract":"This essay is composed of commentaries from four scholars critically evaluating Noordegraaf’s article ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’. All four scholars, in different ways and from their different perspectives, question the dichotomy at the heart of Noordegraaf’s article, arguing that professionals have always been connective and connected, and moreover, that protective professionalism has not disappeared. They recommend more conceptual development to unpack the changing nature of connectivity and protectionism, as well as more attention to inequalities within and among professions, power, and professional agency.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42377488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims to gain a better understanding on micro processes of how frontline professionals use institutional logics in their day-to-day work. It contributes to the growing literature on the dynamics between institutions and the professional frontline. To further develop this field of study, a conceptual framework is presented that integrates institutional logics, vocabularies of practice, and narratives as central concepts. By adopting a composite narrative approach and identifying vocabularies of practice, the article interprets how frontline professionals make use of different logics to make sense of a new principle introduced in their professional field. Findings are based on a case study of professional patient collaboration in healthcare. The article composes five narratives that act as vehicles through which healthcare professionals use five logics: a medical professional logic, managerial logic, commercial logic, consultation logic, and patient-centeredness logic. It argues that frontline professionals use vocabularies of practice to assemble narratives that help them to navigate between a plurality of logics. It further shows that professionals move fluently from one narrative to another, critiquing the ideas of adherence to a dominant logic and conflict solving. The article finalizes with a discussion that advocates for a process studies perspective and a stronger focus on micro processes in research on professional performance in the context of institutional plurality.
{"title":"Logic fluidity: How frontline professionals use institutional logics in their day-to-day work","authors":"Eline M ten Dam, Maikel Waardenburg","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article aims to gain a better understanding on micro processes of how frontline professionals use institutional logics in their day-to-day work. It contributes to the growing literature on the dynamics between institutions and the professional frontline. To further develop this field of study, a conceptual framework is presented that integrates institutional logics, vocabularies of practice, and narratives as central concepts. By adopting a composite narrative approach and identifying vocabularies of practice, the article interprets how frontline professionals make use of different logics to make sense of a new principle introduced in their professional field. Findings are based on a case study of professional patient collaboration in healthcare. The article composes five narratives that act as vehicles through which healthcare professionals use five logics: a medical professional logic, managerial logic, commercial logic, consultation logic, and patient-centeredness logic. It argues that frontline professionals use vocabularies of practice to assemble narratives that help them to navigate between a plurality of logics. It further shows that professionals move fluently from one narrative to another, critiquing the ideas of adherence to a dominant logic and conflict solving. The article finalizes with a discussion that advocates for a process studies perspective and a stronger focus on micro processes in research on professional performance in the context of institutional plurality.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48911674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary on an article entitled ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’ (M Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2) Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf’s use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf’s use of them The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts
{"title":"Connective professionalism: Towards (yet another) ideal type","authors":"T. Adams, S. Clegg, Gil Eyal, M. Reed, M. Saks","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa013","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary on an article entitled ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’ (M Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2) Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf’s use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf’s use of them The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46211812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditionally, professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, and academics are protected. They work within well-defined jurisdictions, belong to specialized segments, have been granted autonomy, and have discretionary spaces. In this way, they can be socialized, trained, and supervised, case-related considerations and decisions can be substantive (instead of commercial), and decisions can be taken independently. Ideally, these decisions are authoritative and accepted, both by clients as well as society (stakeholders) who trust professional services. This ideal-typical but also ‘ideal’ imagery always had its flaws; nowadays, shortcomings are increasingly clear. ‘Protective professionalism’ is becoming outdated. Due to heterogeneity and fragmentation within professional fields, the interweaving of professional fields, and dependencies of professional actions on outside worlds, professionals can no longer isolate themselves from others and outsiders. At first sight, this leads to a ‘decline’, ‘withering away’, or ‘hollowing out’ of professionalism. Or it leads to attempts to ‘reinstall’, ‘reinvent’, or ‘return to’ professional values and spaces. In this article, we avoid such ‘all or nothing’ perspectives on changing professionalism and explore the ‘reconfiguration’ of professionalism. Professional identities and actions can be adapted and might become ‘hybrid’, ‘organized’, and ‘connected’. Professional and organizational logics might be interrelated; professionals might see organizational (or organizing) duties as belonging to their work; and professional fields might open up to outside worlds. We particularly explore connective professionalism, arguing that we need more fundamental reflections and redefinitions of what professionalism means and what professionals are. We focus on the question of how professional action can be related to others and outsiders and remain ‘knowledgeable’, ‘autonomous’, and ‘authoritative’ at the same time. This can no longer be a matter of expertise, autonomy, and authority as fixed and closed entities. These crucial dimensions of professional action become relational and processual. They have to be enacted on a continuous basis, backed by mechanisms that make professionalism knowledgeable, independent, and authoritative in the eyes of others.
{"title":"Protective or connective professionalism? How connected professionals can (still) act as autonomous and authoritative experts","authors":"M. Noordegraaf","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa011","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, and academics are protected. They work within well-defined jurisdictions, belong to specialized segments, have been granted autonomy, and have discretionary spaces. In this way, they can be socialized, trained, and supervised, case-related considerations and decisions can be substantive (instead of commercial), and decisions can be taken independently. Ideally, these decisions are authoritative and accepted, both by clients as well as society (stakeholders) who trust professional services. This ideal-typical but also ‘ideal’ imagery always had its flaws; nowadays, shortcomings are increasingly clear. ‘Protective professionalism’ is becoming outdated. Due to heterogeneity and fragmentation within professional fields, the interweaving of professional fields, and dependencies of professional actions on outside worlds, professionals can no longer isolate themselves from others and outsiders. At first sight, this leads to a ‘decline’, ‘withering away’, or ‘hollowing out’ of professionalism. Or it leads to attempts to ‘reinstall’, ‘reinvent’, or ‘return to’ professional values and spaces. In this article, we avoid such ‘all or nothing’ perspectives on changing professionalism and explore the ‘reconfiguration’ of professionalism. Professional identities and actions can be adapted and might become ‘hybrid’, ‘organized’, and ‘connected’. Professional and organizational logics might be interrelated; professionals might see organizational (or organizing) duties as belonging to their work; and professional fields might open up to outside worlds. We particularly explore connective professionalism, arguing that we need more fundamental reflections and redefinitions of what professionalism means and what professionals are. We focus on the question of how professional action can be related to others and outsiders and remain ‘knowledgeable’, ‘autonomous’, and ‘authoritative’ at the same time. This can no longer be a matter of expertise, autonomy, and authority as fixed and closed entities. These crucial dimensions of professional action become relational and processual. They have to be enacted on a continuous basis, backed by mechanisms that make professionalism knowledgeable, independent, and authoritative in the eyes of others.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49134778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: AI-enabled business models in legal services: from traditional law firms to next-generation law companies?","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141211323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Professionals need to develop increasingly innovative solutions to complex problems, which are often cocreated through client–professional collaborations, but this demand creates a theoretical and practical tension. On the one hand, professionals need to establish long-standing relationships with clients so they can deeply understand their client’s business and develop more effective solutions. On the other hand, such strong relationships can breed similar perspectives that undermine their ability to develop more innovative ideas. To resolve this conflict, we introduce a new contextual condition to the literature that is fundamentally associated with innovation in organizations—the stakes of an innovation project—and develop theory explaining how it creates conditions under which familiarity either enhances or undermines innovation in teams. Using a mixed-method approach to study an innovation contest held in the legal industry, we found that under lower-stakes conditions, collaboration in new teams was positively associated with innovation and produced significantly more innovative outcomes than collaboration in long-standing teams. But under higher-stakes conditions, these effects reversed. When exploring the mechanisms underlying our results, we found that familiarity was valuable for innovation under higher-stakes conditions primarily because teams with shared perspectives took greater risks on more innovative ideas during the selection stage of the innovation process.
{"title":"High-stakes innovation: When collaboration in teams enhances (or undermines) innovation in professional service firms","authors":"Johnathan R. Cromwell, H. Gardner","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Professionals need to develop increasingly innovative solutions to complex problems, which are often cocreated through client–professional collaborations, but this demand creates a theoretical and practical tension. On the one hand, professionals need to establish long-standing relationships with clients so they can deeply understand their client’s business and develop more effective solutions. On the other hand, such strong relationships can breed similar perspectives that undermine their ability to develop more innovative ideas. To resolve this conflict, we introduce a new contextual condition to the literature that is fundamentally associated with innovation in organizations—the stakes of an innovation project—and develop theory explaining how it creates conditions under which familiarity either enhances or undermines innovation in teams. Using a mixed-method approach to study an innovation contest held in the legal industry, we found that under lower-stakes conditions, collaboration in new teams was positively associated with innovation and produced significantly more innovative outcomes than collaboration in long-standing teams. But under higher-stakes conditions, these effects reversed. When exploring the mechanisms underlying our results, we found that familiarity was valuable for innovation under higher-stakes conditions primarily because teams with shared perspectives took greater risks on more innovative ideas during the selection stage of the innovation process.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42076684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A plethora of studies have documented the changing nature of professional work and the organizations in which it takes place. Among the most documented trends are the emergence of managerial–professional hybrid workers and professional (re)stratification. Although the links between these two trends have been noted, their interconnections have not been fully explored. This article analyzes data from a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada, to explore the extent to which they experience conflicting logics, hybridity, resistance, and restratification. Findings indicate that many engineers could be classified as hybrid, as they see managerial roles as an extension of engineering. At the same time, many others see managers as oppositional to engineers, with different priorities. On the whole, there is evidence of restratification as the work experiences, professional attitudes, and responses to conflicting logics (hybridity or resistance) vary between managers and employees. This restratification has the potential to undermine professional unity.
{"title":"Professional employees and professional managers: conflicting logics, hybridity, and restratification","authors":"T. Adams","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A plethora of studies have documented the changing nature of professional work and the organizations in which it takes place. Among the most documented trends are the emergence of managerial–professional hybrid workers and professional (re)stratification. Although the links between these two trends have been noted, their interconnections have not been fully explored. This article analyzes data from a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada, to explore the extent to which they experience conflicting logics, hybridity, resistance, and restratification. Findings indicate that many engineers could be classified as hybrid, as they see managerial roles as an extension of engineering. At the same time, many others see managers as oppositional to engineers, with different priorities. On the whole, there is evidence of restratification as the work experiences, professional attitudes, and responses to conflicting logics (hybridity or resistance) vary between managers and employees. This restratification has the potential to undermine professional unity.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44492257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Interprofessional demarcation is one of the key themes in the study of the professions. This study aims to understand the symbolic resources activated when an elite profession faces challenges to its task jurisdiction from a new, emerging profession. I attempt to answer the following question: ‘How are status symbols used to maintain jurisdictional boundaries between professions?’ I analyzed ethnographic material concerning one of the most elite and ancient professions: Scottish advocates—known as barristers outside Scotland. I found that when faced with competition from other professions, advocates engaged in differentiation through the use of status symbols such as professional dress in and out of court, ceremonies, and everyday rituals. I observed two concurrent processes of differentiation: the maintenance of stability of status symbols and the maintenance of mobility of status symbols, that is, the ongoing cycle of imitation and avoidance, which happens on the boundary of two competing professions. Building on the Simmel effect (1890), I argue that imitation and distinctiveness preserve professional differentiation, and that managing the stability of some symbols and the mobility of others allow elite professionals to maintain their superior status.
{"title":"Symbolic demarcation: the role of status symbols in preserving interprofessional boundaries","authors":"Sabina Siebert","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Interprofessional demarcation is one of the key themes in the study of the professions. This study aims to understand the symbolic resources activated when an elite profession faces challenges to its task jurisdiction from a new, emerging profession. I attempt to answer the following question: ‘How are status symbols used to maintain jurisdictional boundaries between professions?’ I analyzed ethnographic material concerning one of the most elite and ancient professions: Scottish advocates—known as barristers outside Scotland. I found that when faced with competition from other professions, advocates engaged in differentiation through the use of status symbols such as professional dress in and out of court, ceremonies, and everyday rituals. I observed two concurrent processes of differentiation: the maintenance of stability of status symbols and the maintenance of mobility of status symbols, that is, the ongoing cycle of imitation and avoidance, which happens on the boundary of two competing professions. Building on the Simmel effect (1890), I argue that imitation and distinctiveness preserve professional differentiation, and that managing the stability of some symbols and the mobility of others allow elite professionals to maintain their superior status.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47169907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Legal services markets and their professions are transforming, through market liberalisation, regulatory disruption and a broader set of societal shifts. This paper argues that the nature and scale of these changes requires a re-evaluation of the role that rigid jurisdictional boundaries play within the system of the legal professions. Legal Professionalism developed on the basis of strong control over its professional boundaries. Recent discussion of the contemporary legal services market has focused on the competitive threat that new entrants bring to these established boundaries. This paper argues that such a focus underplays the nature of the disruption across boundaries of expert knowledge. It focuses on legal services as an exemplar site of regulatory disruption to professional boundaries and draws on the analysis of two key sites (ABS and Wealth Management) to ask what is the nature of connected claims of expertise and what drivers for connectivity do they indicate? Through this analysis of connected professional claims within legal services, this paper focusses attention on a new approach to professional work that is becoming more important. In doing so, it advances the research agenda on professions and organisations, not just within legal services in England and Wales, but for other professional sectors and other jurisdictions.
{"title":"Law’s boundaries: Connections in contemporary legal professionalism","authors":"A. Francis","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa003","url":null,"abstract":"Legal services markets and their professions are transforming, through market liberalisation, regulatory disruption and a broader set of societal shifts. This paper argues that the nature and scale of these changes requires a re-evaluation of the role that rigid jurisdictional boundaries play within the system of the legal professions. Legal Professionalism developed on the basis of strong control over its professional boundaries. Recent discussion of the contemporary legal services market has focused on the competitive threat that new entrants bring to these established boundaries. This paper argues that such a focus underplays the nature of the disruption across boundaries of expert knowledge. It focuses on legal services as an exemplar site of regulatory disruption to professional boundaries and draws on the analysis of two key sites (ABS and Wealth Management) to ask what is the nature of connected claims of expertise and what drivers for connectivity do they indicate? Through this analysis of connected professional claims within legal services, this paper focusses attention on a new approach to professional work that is becoming more important. In doing so, it advances the research agenda on professions and organisations, not just within legal services in England and Wales, but for other professional sectors and other jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43822487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reviewer Acknowledgment","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141227645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：