Vocabularies of realism in professional socialization

Abstract

IN OUR research on professional socialization, we have often been tempted to define professional socialization as “the decline of idiosyncracy”, a view which comes very close to that of Norman Ryder [ I]. The referents for that facetious definition were repeated observations that, in the course of being socialized into professionals, people do indeed begin to speak alike. The process of professional socialization involves taking on a professional identity and a special outlook upon one’s work which is shared with colleagues but distinguished sharply from the outlook which laymen have of the profession. These acquired professional perspectives are expressed in common vocabularies [2]. In this paper, we concentrate upon one major set of common vocabularies, namely the language which the evolving professional acquires for handling the problems of mistakes or failures at work. How do trainees learn to handle their own human fallibility? Everett Hughes’ “Mistakes at Work” is the classic paper on this problem [3]. Our data substantially confirm one of his major points: The very concepts of mistake and failure are lay concepts; in the process of professional socialization they fade away or become redefined during the acquisition of perspectives which place emphasis upon the process of doing the work rather than the outcome of the work. Hughes also touches upon an implied bargain between profession and society [4]. A profession claims to have a special expertise in defined areas of high human interest. On the basis of accepting a profession’s claim to expertise (as well as good motives), a public conveys upon the profession the license to practice its expertise and the mandate to determine how the work should be done. Now, presumably the license can be withdrawn. We come, then, to the issue of the accountability of professions to their public. In addition to criticisms of the medical profession which come from various consumer and political groups, sharp questions about the extent to which the profession of medicine is justified in maintaining that it is adequately policing and regulating professional conduct have recently been raised in serious sociological work. The writings of Arlene Daniels [5], [6] and Eliot Freidson [7] particularly come to mind here. The work of Donald Light on how psychiatrists view suicide also has implications for the accountability of psychiatrists [8]. How to analyse and determine accountability of the professions involves complex conceptual and methodological issues. We believe that basic to any analysis of accountability is an understanding of how the professionals themselves define the issues, and how they come to so define them. This paper, therefore, focuses upon the perspectives of the professionals themselves. We will present data about how trainees in two specialties of medicine view issues which, from a lay point of view, are issues of failure of work. In our conclusion, we will discuss the implications of our findings for the issue of accountability.