条条大路通罗马:挪威劳工和福利办公室关于医学客观伤害的酌情推理

Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold
{"title":"条条大路通罗马:挪威劳工和福利办公室关于医学客观伤害的酌情推理","authors":"Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold","doi":"10.7577/PP.2283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done. ","PeriodicalId":53464,"journal":{"name":"Professions and Professionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7577/PP.2283","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices\",\"authors\":\"Ole Kristian Sandnes Håvold\",\"doi\":\"10.7577/PP.2283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done. \",\"PeriodicalId\":53464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7577/PP.2283\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7577/PP.2283\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professions and Professionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/PP.2283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自由裁量权可能挑战正式的司法原则,因为它可能涉及对同一类型案件的不平等待遇。本文探讨了不同挪威劳工和福利办公室(NAV)的一线工人对同一虚构案件所表现出的自由裁量推理。一线工作人员参加了一个焦点小组,在那里他们看到了一个关于用户的病例的小短文,该病例具有医学客观结果,即严重的头部受伤。分析的重点是一线工作人员在提出如何处理案件的建议之前的推理。调查结果表明,虽然在焦点小组的推理中采用了不同的途径,但在处理案件方面得出了相同的结论。本文认为,指导一线工人行动的制度逻辑通过一种“行动规范”来推断推理过程,该规范规定了应该如何做。
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
All Roads Lead to Rome: Discretionary Reasoning on Medically Objective Injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices
Discretion may challenge the formal principle of justice as it may involve unequal treatment of the same type of case. This article explores the discretionary reasoning exhibited by the frontline workers at different Norwegian Labour and Welfare offices (NAV) towards the same fictitious case. Frontline workers participate in a focus group where they are presented with a vignette concerning the case of a user with medically objective findings, that is, a severe head injury. The analysis focuses on the reasoning of the frontline workers before they come up with a suggestion as to how to proceed with the case. The findings demonstrate that while different avenues are pursued in the reasoning of the focus groups, the same conclusion is reached as to the treatment of the case. The article argues that the institutional logic which guides the frontline workers actions infers the reasoning process through a “norm of action” that states how it ought to be done. 
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
Professions and Professionalism
Professions and Professionalism Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Professions and Professionalism (P&P) is an open-access, net-based, peer-reviewed and English-language journal. The Journal invites research-based empirical, theoretical or synoptic articles focusing on traditional professions as well as other knowledge-based occupational groups approached from any perspective or discipline. By prioritizing no single theoretical horizon or methodological approach, the journal creates a space for the development of the research field. Aims: To develop the study of professions and professionalism theoretically and empirically, To contribute to the development of the study of professions and professionalism as an international interdisciplinary field of research, To become an important publication channel for the international research community.
期刊最新文献
School Counsellors’ Professional Practice in Health Promotion, Prevention and Remedial Work in Swedish Schools Professional Regulation and Change in Times of Crisis: Differing Opportunities Within and Across Ecologies The Enactment of Professional Boundary Work: A Case Study of Crime Investigation Editorial: The Research Literacy of Teachers Educational Research Literacy: Philosophical Foundations and Empirical Applications
×
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