Abstract
In cancer medicine, particularly in drug research and development, structural changes in professionalism can be observed as examples. This field is characterized by a strong tension between social expectations concerning the control of existential risks to health, on the one hand, and strong commercial interests of a shareholder value-driven industry, on the other hand. Based on a qualitative empirical analysis, two subfields within the field of cancer medicine are reconstructed. One of these subfields—colon cancer therapy—could be interpreted as representing a renewal of the knowledge-power nexus. The pattern of the other subfield—brain tumour research—refers to a much more vulnerable professionalism. Both fields are characterized by development in professional work, which could be described with the hybridization concept. Therefore, the contrast between the two empirical examples presented still challenges the theoretical interpretation of contemporary professionalism.
Highlights
In cancer medicine, in drug research and development, structural changes in professionalism can be observed as examples
Schnell: Hybridization of Professionalism in the Field of Cancer Medicine the field of cancer medicine is interesting for the sociology of professions
As two empirical examples illustrate, hybridization can have many faces, and the ambivalence between power and vulnerability is still key to understanding contemporary professionalism
Summary
Observations at a symposium. 8 Sources: Interviews with medical managers. 9 Source: Interview with a medical manager. Differing from the colon cancer research field, in which profession and industry potently merged, the constellation of brain tumour research was defined by a vulnerability of professionalism, reinforced rather than qualified by hybridization Both examples resembled each other in that the medical development tended toward the direction of minimizing the target collectives of patients, while the industry constantly bore in mind the enlargement of the sales market. He came into conflict with the company’s marketing division, which was not susceptible to medical arguments According to these observations, an ideological discourse of professionalism paradoxically appeared to apply to the prestigious professor in the field of colon cancer rather than to the brain surgeon in the role of a medical manager. While the professor rejected fallibility by referring to his undeniable professional obligation for patients’ well-being, the brain surgeon turned out to be resistant to the company’s internal and external ideological appeals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
