Influence of the Structure of the Organizational Field of Small Animal Veterinary Medicine on the Processes of Professionalization of Veterinarians
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2022-4-247-273
Abstract
This text was conceived as an attempt to describe the organizational field of veterinary medicine of companion animals in Russia and its impact on the processes of formation of the profession of veterinarians of companion animals as a separate professional group. Having emerged in the early 1990s in Russia as a separate branch of veterinary medicine, veterinary medicine of companion aimals has gone from intuitive practices of treating dogs and cats to a complex organizational field with many actors. Despite such rapid development, this area, unlike agricultural veterinary medicine, still considerably lacks strong institutional regulation. The profession of a veterinarian of companion animals does not live in the conventional continental model of professionalization for our region but it is market–oriented and develops through the veterinarians’ own efforts while they do not exist outside veterinary clinics — their own organizational field. The article 248 offers a description of this organizational field and analyzes the influence of its structure on the processes of professionalization of veterinarians of companion animals.
About the Author
Ya. I. Scheglov
Sociological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yakov I. Scheglov — phd-student
St. Petersburg
References
1. Becker H. (1994) The nature of the profession. Ethics of Success: Bulletin of Re- 271 searchers, Consultants and decision makers, issue 3/94. — in Russ.
2. Domnitsky I.Yu. (2017) History of veterinary medicine: a short course of lectures for students of the specialty “Veterinary Medicine”, Saratov. — in Russ.
3. Professional standard “Veterinarian” dated August 23, 2018 № 547n. — in Russ.
4. Abbott A. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, University of Chicago Press.
5. Brown C. A., Elliott J., Schmiedt C. W., Brown S. A. (2016) Chronic kidney disease in aged cats: clinical features, morphology, and proposed pathogeneses. Veterinary pathology, 53(2): 309–326.
6. Carr-Saunders A. M., Wilson P. A. (1933) The Professions. Clarendon.
7. Carr-Saunders A. M., Wilson P. A. (1944) Professions. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York: The Macmillan Company. Vol. 12.
8. Collins R. (1990) Market closure and the conflict theory of the professions. Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the study of the professions: 24‒43.
9. Fligstein N. (2001) The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-FirstCentury Capitalist Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10. Freidson E. (1988) Profession of Medicine. A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge, University of Chicago Press.
11. Goode W. J. (1957) Community within a community: The professions. American sociological review, 22(2): 194–200.
12. Greenwood E. (1957) Attributes of a profession. Social work: 45–55.
13. Larson M. (1977) The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis, California: Universityof California.
14. Leicht K. T., Fennell M. L., Freidson E. (2003) Professional work, a sociological approach. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(1).
15. Liu S. (2018) Boundaries and professions: Toward a processual theory of action. Journal of Professions and Organization, 5(1): 45–57.
16. Macdonald K., Ritzer G. (1988) The sociology of the professions: dead or alive? Work and Occupations, 15(3): 251–272.
17. McKinlay J. B., Arches J. (1985) Towards the proletarianization of physicians. International journal of health services, 15(2): 161–195.
18. Millerson G. (2013) The qualifying associations, Routledge.
19. Muzio D., Brock D. M., Suddaby R. (2013) Professions and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of management studies, 50(5): 699‒721.
20. Narayan U. (1999) The Project of Feminist Epistemology: Perspective from.
21. Parkin F. (1979) Marxism and Class Theory: A bourgeois critique, London: Tavistock. Parsons T. (1939) The professions and social structure. Social forces, 17(4): 457–467.
22. Powell W. W., DiMaggio P. J. (Eds) (2012) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, University of Chicago press.
23. Saks M. (2015) The professions, state and the market: Medicine in Britain, the United States and Russia, Routledge.
24. Scott W. R. (2008) Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization studies, 29(2): 219–238.
25. Suddaby R., Muzio D. (2015) Theoretical perspectives on the professions. The Oxford handbook of professional service firms: 25–47.
26. Suddaby R., Viale T. (2011) Professionals and field-level change: Institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59(4): 423–442.
27. Svensson L. G., & Evetts J. (2010) Sociology of professions. Continental and Anglo-Saxon Traditions, Gothenburg: Daidalos.
28. Wilensky H. L. (1964) The professionalization of everyone? American journal of sociology, 70(2): 137–158.
Review
For citations:
Scheglov Ya.I. Influence of the Structure of the Organizational Field of Small Animal Veterinary Medicine on the Processes of Professionalization of Veterinarians. Sociology of Power. 2022;34(3-4):247-273. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2022-4-247-273
Views:
75
Email this article 