Search results

This chapter presents a sociological analysis of the work involved in producing neuroimaging scans used in clinical practice. Drawing on fieldwork in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units in hospitals and free-standing imaging centers; in-depth interviews with technologists, radiologists, and neurologists; and reviews of relevant medical literatures, this analysis demonstrates how assembly line techniques structure neuroimaging work. Neuroimages (after being ordered by the referring clinician) are created in an image production line where scans of brains, breasts, livers, and other body parts are all produced: although some facilities may focus on one area of the body, most create an array of scans. Following MRI scans as they are produced demonstrates how medical work emphasizes repetition, specialization, and efficiency – key features of mass production. On the medical assembly line, the organization of work aims to transform patients into objects – ones that multiply as scans are created and circulated. Neurologists, radiologists, and technologists are positioned as skilled workers who manage the flow of bodies and the production of knowledge with the aim of producing health or, at the very least, knowledge of illness. Patients are also actors who actively impact the imaging production process. Previous scholarship has shown that diagnostic work involves a distributed form of expertise; one that involves patients, other medical professionals, machines, and neurologists. This chapter demonstrates that the deployment and synchronization of this expertise is a form of labor, involving distinct professions, professional hierarchies, and reimbursement systems. Working conditions are central to the production of MRI scans as knowledge and contribute to the social shaping of neuroimaging techniques.

Despite a substantial body of research on physician incomes and hours, there has been surprisingly little study of part-time work in the professions or on the organizational structures that support or inhibit part-time arrangements. To assess the factors associated with the presence and prevalence of part-time work in radiology practices, we conducted structured interviews with 69 practice administrators and 13 self-employed or retired radiologists. Patterns of part-time work are heavily gendered; men use it as a transition to retirement while women seek it early in their careers to balance work and family needs. As hypothesized, larger practices, academic practices, and those affiliated with larger organizations were significantly more likely to have part-time radiologists. Controlling for level of competition between practices, those that had recently experienced increased competition were less likely to have part-time radiologists. Neither difficulty recruiting radiologists to the practice nor length of the average workweek for full-time radiologists were associated with having part-time radiologists in the practice. Practices that had a senior partner or administrator who supported the concept of part-time work were more likely to offer this option to physicians. We expected that radiology practices would have explicit policies regarding part-time work; however few of the practices had any formal policies on this career option. As a result, radiologists seeking part-time work early in their careers were at a distinct disadvantage in negotiations. Fear of the stigma and related career consequences may restrain male radiologists from seeking part-time work early in their careers. Despite acceptance in some practices and a growing presence of part-time radiologists in the specialty as a whole, there are significant and persistent barriers to part-time work arrangements other than as a transition to retirement.

Sociologists have paid little attention to what people mean when they call themselves “professionals” in their everyday talk. Typically, when occupations lack the characteristics of self-control associated with the established professions, such talk is dismissed as desire for greater status. An ethnography of speaking conducted among several technicians’ occupations suggests that dismissing talk of professionalism may have been premature. The results of this study indicate that among technicians, professional talk highlights dynamics of respect, collaboration, and expertise crucial to the horizontal divisions of labor that are common in postindustrial workplaces, but have very little to do with the desire for occupational power.

Business ethics provide a potent source of competitive advantage, placing increasing pressure on organizations to create and maintain an ethical workforce. Nonetheless, ethical breaches continue to permeate corporate life, suggesting that there is something missing from how we conceptualize and institutionalize organizational ethics. The current effort seeks to fill this void in two ways. First, we introduce an extended ethical framework premised on sensemaking in organizations. Within this framework, we suggest that multiple individual, organizational, and societal factors may differentially influence the ethical sensemaking process. Second, we contend that human resource management plays a central role in sustaining workplace ethics and explore the strategies through which human resource personnel can work to foster an ethical culture and spearhead ethics initiatives. Future research directions applicable to scholars in both the ethics and human resources domains are provided.

Industry 5.0 focuses on human–machine collaboration and sustainability with collaborative robots (CoBots) and artificial intelligence (AI) penetration via different technology-enabled devices. Such devices have gained increasing interest to facilitate more efficient, effective, and budget-friendly outcomes in major sectors, including healthcare. The healthcare sector has been evolving at an increasing speed across the globe. In this context, challenges and opportunities have arisen in terms of improving patient outcomes and improving the efficiency of healthcare practitioners’ work. Hence, the adoption of CoBots and AI-enabled devices in this sector is now crucial, and they have been implemented in several domains in healthcare, including diagnosis, medication development, and treatment. However, the successful implementation depends on the users’ attitudes toward the adoption. While extant studies have shown that such devices have significant practical advantages from the patients’ perspective, little is known about healthcare practitioners’ willingness to adopt tech-enabled devices. Thus, this study focuses on the adoption of CoBots and AI-enabled devices in the healthcare sector by examining Turkish medical doctors’ attitudes toward adopting them in their daily operations. The study supplements current literature on Industry 5.0 in healthcare, sheds light on real-life practices, and proposes future directions.

From the very beginning of medical practice, physicians have enjoyed a degree of autonomy which exceeds that of almost any other profession. Although regulated by state medical boards, and limited by the threat of litigation, physicians are generally held in high esteem by society and allowed to practice medicine as they see fit. Physicians have usually been allowed to prescribe any drug for any disease, including the so-called “off-label” uses for which Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been obtained. They can also use new or untested medical devices and surgical procedures, as long as they obtain informed consent from the patient. Society has trusted doctors to do the right thing for their patients, and thus tried not to interfere with the sacred doctor–patient relationship.

Customers today expect businesses to cater to their individual needs by tailoring the products they purchase to their own preferences. The term “Industry 5.0” refers to a new wave of manufacturing that aims to meet each customer's unique demands. Even while Industry 4.0 allowed for mass customization, that wasn't good enough before, customers today demand individualized products at scale, and Industry 5.0 is driving the transition from mass customization to mass personalization to meet these demands. It caters to the individual needs of each consumer by meeting their demands. More specialized components for use in medicine are made possible by the widespread customization made possible by Industry 5.0. These individualized parts are included into the medical care of the patient to meet their specific needs and preferences. In the current medical revolution, an enabling technology of Industry 5.0 can produce medical implants, artificial organs, bodily fluids, and transplants with pinpoint accuracy. With the advent of AI-enabled sensors, we now live in a world where data can be swiftly analyzed. Machines may be programmed to make complex choices on the fly. In the medical field, these innovations allow for exact measurement and monitoring of human body variables according to the individual's needs. They aid in monitoring the body's response to training for peak performance. It allows for the digital dissemination of accurate healthcare data networks. In order to collect and exchange relevant patient data, every equipment is online.

This chapter introduces two core notions from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory to paradox studies. Specifically, it offers the notions of decision paradox and deparadoxization as potential generative theoretical devices for paradox scholars. Drawing on these devices, the paper shifts focus to the everyday and mundane nature of decision paradox and the important role of deparadoxization (i.e., generating latency) in working through paradox. This contribution comes at a critical juncture for paradox scholarship, which has begun to converge around core theories, by opening up additional and possibly alternative theoretical pathways for understanding paradox. These ideas respond to recent calls in the literature to widen our theoretical repertoire and align scholarship more closely with the rich, pluralistic traditions of paradox studies.