电视中对社会工作者和其他护理专业人员的描述

Maria Leedham
{"title":"电视中对社会工作者和其他护理专业人员的描述","authors":"Maria Leedham","doi":"10.1177/14680173241240980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social workers, alongside many professionals in “caring” domains, often feel they are poorly represented in television dramas. This study draws on a 172-million-word database to consider how social workers and seven other professional groups (cop, doctor, nanny, nurse, priest, teacher, and therapist) are portrayed in English-medium TV programs in the period 2010–2017. IMDb plot summaries are analyzed, and 200 examples per profession (n = 1,600) are classified as negative, positive, or neutral. Employing the methodology of corpus linguistics, the study contrasts with previous research as the focus is on the language surrounding mentions of professionals rather than on visual depictions or characters’ actions. The study evidences the prevalence of negative societal discourses around social workers as either judgmental bureaucrats or uncaring “childcatchers,” contextualizing the findings through comparison with other professionals. The analysis also suggests that social work characters on TV—in common with those from other female-dominated professions such as nanny or nurse—are frequently referred to in terms of their sexual availability or physical appearance. Findings will have practical relevance for those interested in the recruitment, job satisfaction, and retention of practitioners, and in reducing the stigmatization of social workers and their clients. The innovative methodology employed in the study offers particular insights for social work researchers and also scriptwriters. The study evidences the ongoing need to support media professionals and the general public to better understand the challenges facing the profession and thereby reduce the tendency toward a culture of blaming individuals for society's failings.","PeriodicalId":515680,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Depictions of social workers and other caring professionals on television\",\"authors\":\"Maria Leedham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14680173241240980\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social workers, alongside many professionals in “caring” domains, often feel they are poorly represented in television dramas. This study draws on a 172-million-word database to consider how social workers and seven other professional groups (cop, doctor, nanny, nurse, priest, teacher, and therapist) are portrayed in English-medium TV programs in the period 2010–2017. IMDb plot summaries are analyzed, and 200 examples per profession (n = 1,600) are classified as negative, positive, or neutral. Employing the methodology of corpus linguistics, the study contrasts with previous research as the focus is on the language surrounding mentions of professionals rather than on visual depictions or characters’ actions. The study evidences the prevalence of negative societal discourses around social workers as either judgmental bureaucrats or uncaring “childcatchers,” contextualizing the findings through comparison with other professionals. The analysis also suggests that social work characters on TV—in common with those from other female-dominated professions such as nanny or nurse—are frequently referred to in terms of their sexual availability or physical appearance. Findings will have practical relevance for those interested in the recruitment, job satisfaction, and retention of practitioners, and in reducing the stigmatization of social workers and their clients. The innovative methodology employed in the study offers particular insights for social work researchers and also scriptwriters. The study evidences the ongoing need to support media professionals and the general public to better understand the challenges facing the profession and thereby reduce the tendency toward a culture of blaming individuals for society's failings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":515680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Work\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173241240980\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173241240980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社工与许多 "关爱 "领域的专业人士一样,经常感到他们在电视剧中的形象不佳。本研究利用 1.72 亿字的数据库,研究了 2010-2017 年间英语电视节目中对社工和其他七个专业群体(警察、医生、保姆、护士、牧师、教师和治疗师)的描述。我们分析了 IMDb 剧情摘要,并将每个职业的 200 个例子(n = 1,600 个)分为负面、正面和中性。本研究采用语料库语言学的方法,与以往的研究形成鲜明对比,因为本研究的重点是围绕提及专业人士的语言,而不是视觉描绘或角色行为。研究证明,围绕社会工作者的负面社会论述普遍存在,这些论述要么把社会工作者说成是妄加评论的官僚,要么把他们说成是无情无义的 "儿童守护者",研究还通过与其他专业人士的比较,将研究结果与背景情况进行了对比。分析还表明,电视中的社工角色与其他以女性为主的职业(如保姆或护士)中的社工角色一样,经常被提到她们的性能力或外貌。研究结果将对那些对从业人员的招聘、工作满意度和留用,以及减少社会工作者及其服务对象的污名化感兴趣的人具有实际意义。研究中采用的创新方法为社会工作研究人员和剧本创作人员提供了特别的见解。这项研究证明,目前需要支持媒体专业人员和公众更好地了解社会工作专业所面临的挑战,从而减少将社会的失败归咎于个人的文化倾向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Depictions of social workers and other caring professionals on television
Social workers, alongside many professionals in “caring” domains, often feel they are poorly represented in television dramas. This study draws on a 172-million-word database to consider how social workers and seven other professional groups (cop, doctor, nanny, nurse, priest, teacher, and therapist) are portrayed in English-medium TV programs in the period 2010–2017. IMDb plot summaries are analyzed, and 200 examples per profession (n = 1,600) are classified as negative, positive, or neutral. Employing the methodology of corpus linguistics, the study contrasts with previous research as the focus is on the language surrounding mentions of professionals rather than on visual depictions or characters’ actions. The study evidences the prevalence of negative societal discourses around social workers as either judgmental bureaucrats or uncaring “childcatchers,” contextualizing the findings through comparison with other professionals. The analysis also suggests that social work characters on TV—in common with those from other female-dominated professions such as nanny or nurse—are frequently referred to in terms of their sexual availability or physical appearance. Findings will have practical relevance for those interested in the recruitment, job satisfaction, and retention of practitioners, and in reducing the stigmatization of social workers and their clients. The innovative methodology employed in the study offers particular insights for social work researchers and also scriptwriters. The study evidences the ongoing need to support media professionals and the general public to better understand the challenges facing the profession and thereby reduce the tendency toward a culture of blaming individuals for society's failings.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social workers’ perspectives on adapting methods during the COVID-19 pandemic Social workers in schools: A feasibility study of three local authorities Impact of COVID-19 on home care provision: A qualitative study Social work with Irish Travellers: Findings from a national evaluation Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants with different legal statuses in Canada
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1