IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v136-137y2015ip81-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational closure in nursing work reconsidered: UK health care support workers and assistant practitioners: A focus group study

Author

Listed:
  • Traynor, Michael
  • Nissen, Nina
  • Lincoln, Carol
  • Buus, Niels

Abstract

In healthcare, occupational groups have adopted tactics to maintain autonomy and control over their areas of work. Witz described a credentialist approach to occupational closure adopted by nursing in the United Kingdom during the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, the recent advancement of assistant, ‘non-qualified’ workers by governments and managers forms part of a reconfiguration of traditional professional work. This research used focus groups with three cohorts of healthcare support workers undertaking assistant practitioner training at a London university from 2011 to 13 (6 groups, n = 59). The aim was to examine how these workers positioned themselves as professionals and accounted for professional boundaries. A thematic analysis revealed a complex situation in which participants were divided between articulating an acceptance of a subordinate role within traditional occupational boundaries and a usurpatory stance towards these boundaries. Participants had usually been handpicked by managers and some were ambitious and confident in their abilities. Many aspired to train to be nurses claiming that they will gain recognition that they do not currently get but which they deserve. Their scope of practice is based upon their managers' or supervisors' perception of their individual aptitude rather than on a credentialist claim. They ‘usurp’ nurses claim to be the healthcare worker with privileged access to patients, saying they have taken over what nursing has considered its core work, while nurses abandon it for largely administrative roles. We conclude that the participants are the not unwilling agents of a managerially led project to reshape the workforce that cuts across existing occupational boundaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Traynor, Michael & Nissen, Nina & Lincoln, Carol & Buus, Niels, 2015. "Occupational closure in nursing work reconsidered: UK health care support workers and assistant practitioners: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 136, pages 81-88.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:136-137:y:2015:i::p:81-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615003020
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruth Endacott & Margaret O'Connor & Allison Williams & Pamela Wood & Lisa McKenna & Debra Griffiths & Cheryle Moss & Phillip Della & Wendy Cross, 2018. "Roles and functions of enrolled nurses in Australia: Perspectives of enrolled nurses and registered nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 913-920, March.
    2. Traynor, Michael & Buus, Niels, 2016. "Professional identity in nursing: UK students' explanations for poor standards of care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 186-194.
    3. Gerbrand Tholen, 2022. "Within-Occupation Forms of Positional Labour Market Advantage in Three Skilled Occupations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(2), pages 273-291, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:136-137:y:2015:i::p:81-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.