Search

In the article the authors comment on the views of sociologists Rona Campbell and Sam Porter, on a paper on feminist theory and the sociology of human reproduction written by them. The authors clarify that while feminists and midwives may hold ideas in common, feminist and midwifery practice are diverse and contested fields and there is no intrinsic affinity between the two. In their earlier paper they argued that feminism is not disinterested in its response to midwifery. It is further argued that differences which have become increasingly vociferous within feminism have tended to be neglected within the sociology of health and illness, and proposed that post-structuralist approaches might provide a fruitful, although certainly not unproblematic, counterpoint to a range of modernist feminist perspectives as they relate to gender and reproduction. In response to Campbell and Porter's criticism for ignoring recent midwifery and social science research on midwifery practice, it is clarified that the authors never intended to question midwifery's credentials in working with childbearing women.

Mastery of esoteric knowledge is one of the central features assigned by sociologists to fully professionalised service occupations, together with an orientation towards public service. There are, nevertheless, different views about the best way in which this education and socialisation can be provided for new recruits for practitioner roles. Some maintain that the university provides an ideal training ground. Critics of this view, however, call for a rejection of 'university diploma mills' and a return to the type of apprenticeship socialisation common during the premodern era. This paper tests the usefulness of these perspectives in understanding the occupational socialisation of Newfoundland and Labrador midwives. Three major styles of training- traditional apprenticeship, vocational schooling and university education - can be discerned. In comparison to both apprenticeship and academic styles of occupational socialisation, only vocational training nicely blended the art and science of midwifery to produce competent and committed professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of physician dominance are a foundational contribution of medical sociology to the study of health care, but must be revisited in the light of ongoing changes in medicine. As non‐physician specialists like nurse practitioners grow in number and acquire more autonomy, increasing medical profession differentiation presents a challenge for traditional physician dominance theories. After evaluating potential theoretical explanations for subordinate occupations' autonomy gains, we conduct a state‐level quantitative analysis of variation in nursing policies across U.S. states. We construct our dependent variable, nursing autonomy, using seven state‐level advanced practice nursing policies adopted from 2001–2017. Using an ordered scale, we code nurse practitioner, nurse anaesthetist, nurse midwife and clinical‐nurse‐specialist practice and prescription polices according to each policy's autonomy level. We then use time‐series regression to examine theory‐driven propositions regarding nursing autonomy change. Nursing autonomy has increased over time, signalling a general erosion of physician dominance. However, we find differential patterns of policy adoption, indicating that erosion is not uniform. Physicians have maintained dominance in relatively prestigious specialties (e.g. anaesthesiology) while dominance declined in others (e.g. obstetrician). Factors external to the profession, such as consumer power, continue to influence within‐profession dynamics. Examining ongoing professional differentiation in medicine illustrates how physician dominance depends on shifting social and professional contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]