Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Traynor, Michael; Boland, Maggie; Buus, Niels (2010)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Autonomy in decision-making has traditionally been described as a feature of professional work, however the work of healthcare professionals has been seen as steadily encroached upon by State and managerialist forces. Nursing has faced particular problems in establishing itself as a credible profession for reasons including history, gender and a traditional subservience to medicine. This paper reports on a focus group study of UK nurses participating in post-qualifying professional development in a London university in 2008. Three groups of nurses in different specialist areas comprised a total of 26 participants. The study uses accounts of decision-making to gain insight into contemporary professional nursing. The study also aims to explore the usefulness of a theory of professional work set out by Jamous and Peloille in 1970. The analysis draws on notions of interpretive repertoires and elements of narrative analysis. We identified two interpretive repertoires: ‘clinical judgement’ which was used to describe the different grounds for making judgements; and ‘decision-making’ which was used to describe organisational circumstances influencing decision-making. Jamous and Peloille’s theory proved useful for interpreting instances where the nurses collectively withdrew from the potential dangers of too extreme claims for technicality or indeterminacy in their work. However, their theory did not explain the full range of accounts of decision-making that were given. Taken at face value, the accounts from the participants depict nurses as sometimes practising in indirect ways in order to have influence in the clinical and bureaucratic setting. However, a focus on language use and in particular, interpretive repertoires, has enabled us to suggest that despite an overall picture of severely limited autonomy, nurses in the groups reproduced stories of the successful accomplishment of moral and influential action.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alaszewski, A. (1995). Restructuring health and welfare professions in the United Kingdom: the impact of internal markets. In T. Johnson, G. Larkin & M. Saks (Eds.), Health Professions and the State in Europe pp. 55 - 74). London: Routledge.
    • Atkinson, P., Reid, M., & Sheldrake, P. (1977). Medical Mystique. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 4(3), 243 - 280.
    • Benner, P. (1984). From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Menlow Park, Calif.: Addison-Wesley.
    • Benner, P., Tanner, C. A., & Chesla, C. (1996). Expertice in nursing practice. Caring, clinical judgement and ethics. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
    • Benner, P., & Wrubel, J. (1989). The Primacy of Caring: stress and coping in health and illness. California: Addison-Wesley.
    • Bixler, G. K., & Bixler, R. W. (1945). The Professional Status of Nursing. The American Journal of Nursing, 45(9), 730-735.
    • Brooks, P. (1984). Reading for the Plot: design and intention in narrative. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    • Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The Professions. Oxford: Clarendon.
    • Davies, C. (1995). Gender and the professional predicament in nursing. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    • Degeling, P., Maxwell, S., Kennedy, J., & Coyle, B. (2003). Medicine, management, and modernisation: a "danse macabre"? BMJ, 326, vol 7390, 649-652.
    • Dingwall, R., Rafferty, A. M., & Webster, C. (1988). An Introduction to the Social History of Nursing. London: Routledge.
    • Etzioni, A. (Ed.) (1969). The Semi-Professions and Their Organization. New York: The Free Press.
    • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Freidson, E. (1970). The Profession of Medicine: a study of the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago Il.: University of Chicago Press.
    • Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. Am.Psychol., 40(3), 266-275.
    • Greenhalgh, T. (1996). "Is my practice evidence-based?". British Medical Journal, 313, 957-958.
    • Griffiths, L. (1998). Humour as resistance to professional dominance in community mental health teams. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20 (6 ), 874-895.
    • Hagell, E. (1989). Nursing knowledge: women's knowledge. A sociological perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(3), 226-233.
    • Harrison, S., & Ahmad, W. (2000). Medical Autonomy and the UK State 1975 to 2025. Sociology, 34(1), 129-146.
    • Harrison, S., & Pollitt, C. (1994). Controlling Health Professionals; the future of work and organisation in the NHS. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    • Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: theory, method and practice pp. 161-182). London: Sage.
    • Horton, R. (1995). Evidence-based medicine, in its place. Lancet, 346(8978), 785.
    • Hunter, D. (1994). From tribalism to corporatism: the managerial challenge to medical dominance. In J. Gabe, D. Kelleher & G. Williams (Eds.), Challenging Medicine pp. 1-22). London: Routledge.
    • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Jamous, H., & Peloille, B. (1970). Professions or Self-Perpetuating System; changes in the French University-Hospital System. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Professions and Professionalisation pp. 109-152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Katz, F. (1969). Nurses. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The Semi-Professions and Their Organization pp. 54- 81). New York: The Free Press.
    • Kennedy, I. (1981). The unmasking of medicine. London ; Boston: George Allen & Unwin.
    • Kitson, A. (1997). Using evidence to demonstrate the value of nursing. Nursing Standard, 11(28), 34-39.
    • Lamond, D., & Thompson, C. (2000). Intuition and Analysis in Decision making and Choice. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(2), 411-414.
    • Larson, M. S. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.
    • Lightfoot, J., Baldwin, S., & Wright, K. (1992). Nursing by Numbers? Setting staffing levels for district nursing and health visiting services. University of York: SPRU.
    • Øvretveit, J., Mathias, P., & Thompson, T. (Eds.) (1997). Interprofessional working for health and social care. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    • Paley, J. (2002). Caring as a Slave Morality. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(1), 25-35.
    • Pinder, R., Petchey, R., Shaw, S., & Carter, Y. (2005). What's in a care pathway? Towards a cultural cartography of the new NHS. Sociology of Health & Illness 27(6), 759-779.
    • Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: theory, method and practice pp. 144-160). London: Sage.
    • Prentice, S. (1991). What will we find at the market? Health Visitor, 65(1), 9-11.
    • Rafferty, A. M. (1993). Decorous didactics: early explorations in the art and science of caring c. 1860-90. In A. Kitson (Ed.), Nursing: art and science pp. 48-84). London: Chapman and Hall.
    • Rafferty, A. M. (1996). The Politics of Nursing Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    • Rathbone, W. (1892). Evidence to the select committee of the House of Lords on Metropolitan hospitals. Parliamentary Papers. London: HMSO.
    • Reverby, S. (1987). A caring dilemma: womanhood and nursing in historical perspective. Nursing Research, 36(1), 5-11.
    • Rolfe, G. (1999). Insufficient Evidence: the problems of evidence-based nursing. Nurse Education Today, 19, 433 - 442.
    • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). The Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language, 50(4), 697-735.
    • Salhani, D., & Coulter, I. (2009). The politicis of interprofessional working and the struggle for professional autonomy in nursing. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1221-1228.
    • Salvage, J. (1988). Professionalisation-or struggle for survival? A consideration of current proposals for the reform of nursing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13(4), 515-519.
    • Simpson, A. (2007). The impact of team processes on psychiatric case management. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(4), 409-418.
    • Smith, R. (1991). Where is wisdom? The poverty of medical evidence. British Medical Journal, 303, 789-790.
    • Stewart, J., Stansfield, K., & Tapp, D. (2004). Clinical nurses' understanding of autonomy: accomplishing patient goals through interdependent practice. J Nurs Adm, 34(10), 443- 450.
    • Strong, P., & Robinson, J. (1990). The NHS-Under New Management. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    • Traynor, M. (1999). Managerialism and Nursing: beyond profession and oppression. London: Routledge.
    • Traynor, M. (2009). Indeterminacy and technicality revisited: how medicine and nursing have responded to the evidence based movement. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(4), 494-507
    • Tschudin, V. (1999). Nurses matter: reclaiming our professional identity. London: Macmillan.
    • Walby, S., & Greenwell, J. (1994). Medicine and Nursing. Professions in a Changing Health Service. London: Sage.
    • Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article