逻辑流动性:一线专业人员如何在日常工作中使用制度逻辑

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Professions and Organization Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jpo/joaa012
Eline M ten Dam, Maikel Waardenburg
{"title":"逻辑流动性:一线专业人员如何在日常工作中使用制度逻辑","authors":"Eline M ten Dam, Maikel Waardenburg","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa012","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n 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\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa012\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Professions and Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

本文旨在更好地理解一线专业人员如何在日常工作中使用制度逻辑的微观过程。它为越来越多的关于机构和专业一线之间动态的文献做出了贡献。为了进一步发展这一研究领域,提出了一个概念框架,将制度逻辑、实践词汇和叙事作为中心概念。通过采用复合叙事方法和识别实践词汇,文章解释了一线专业人员如何利用不同的逻辑来理解在其专业领域引入的新原则。研究结果基于一项医疗保健领域专业患者合作的案例研究。这篇文章组成了五个叙事,作为医疗专业人员使用五种逻辑的载体:医疗专业逻辑、管理逻辑、商业逻辑、咨询逻辑和以患者为中心的逻辑。它认为,一线专业人员使用实践词汇来组装叙事,帮助他们在多种逻辑之间导航。它进一步表明,专业人士能够流利地从一种叙事转移到另一种叙事,批评坚持主导逻辑和解决冲突的想法。文章最后进行了讨论,主张从过程研究的角度,在制度多元化的背景下,在研究职业绩效时更加关注微观过程。
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
Logic fluidity: How frontline professionals use institutional logics in their day-to-day work
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.
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK Elite lawyers in Türkiye: Educational capital, status hierarchies, and feminization The customer is always right? Corporate client influence and women’s attainment in large US law firms Discipline, caregiving, and identity work of frontline professionals: Talking about the acts of compliance and resistance in the everyday practices of social workers Intra-professional collaboration and organization of work among teachers: How entangled institutional logics shape connectivity
×
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