Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

McGivern, Gerry and Fischer, Michael D.. (2012) Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling. Social Science & Medicine, Vol.74 (No.3). pp. 289-296. ISSN 02779536

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP_McGivern_McGivern__Fischer_SSM_2012_Reactivity__Reactions_to_Regulatory_Transparency_in_Medicine_Psychotherapy__Counselling_(Authors'_version).pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader

Download (355Kb)
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.035

Abstract

We explore how doctors, psychotherapists and counsellors in the UK react to regulatory transparency, drawing on qualitative research involving 51 semi-structured interviews conducted during 2008–10. We use the concept of ‘reactivity mechanisms’ (Espeland & Sauder, 2007) to explain how regulatory transparency disrupts practices through simplifying and decontextualizing them, altering practitioners’ reflexivity, leading to defensive forms of practice. We make an empirical contribution by exploring the impact of transparency on doctors compared with psychotherapists and counsellors, who represent an extreme case due to their uniquely complex practice, which is particularly affected by this form of regulation. We make a contribution to knowledge by developing a model of reactivity mechanisms, which explains how clinical professionals make sense of media and professional narratives about regulation in ways that produce emotional reactions and, in turn, defensive reactivity to transparency.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Health services administration -- Great Britain, Transparency in government, Psychotherapy -- Great Britain, Counseling -- Great Britain
Journal or Publication Title: Social Science & Medicine
Publisher: Elsevier BV
ISSN: 02779536
Date: 2012
Volume: Vol.74
Number: No.3
Page Range: pp. 289-296
Identification Number: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.035
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder: Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)
Grant number: RES-153-25-0095 (ESRC)
References: Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What's Measured Is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System. Public Administration, 84(3), 517-538. Blomgren, M., & Sunden, E. (2008). Constructing a European healthcare market: The private healthcare company Capio and the strategic aspect of the drive for transparency. Social Science and Medicine, 67(10), 1512-1520. Bosk, C. (2003). Forgive and Remember Managing Medical Failure 2nd Ed: Managing Medical Failure Chicago Chicago University Press. Brin, D. (1998). The Transparent Society. New York: Perseus Books. Currie, G., & Brown, A. D. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56(5), 563-586. Department of Health. (2007). Trust, Assurance and Safety - The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century. London: Department-of-Health. Department-of-Health. (2007). Trust, assurance and safety: The regulation of health professionals (Cm 7013). HMSO. Department-of-Health. (2011). Enabling Excellence: Autonomy and Accountability for Health and Social Care Staff (Cm 8008). London: HMSO. Doran, T., Fullwood, C., Kontopantelis, E., & Reeves, D. (2008). Effects of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework. Lancet, 372, 728-736. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1-40. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2005). Economics Language and Assumptions: How Theories Can Become Self-fulfilling Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8-24. Fischer, M. D. (in press). Organizational turbulence, trouble and trauma: Theorising the collapse of a mental health setting. Organization Studies. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin. Freud, S. (1937). Analysis Terminable and Interminable S.E., vol. 23. London: Hogarth Press. Gabbay, J., & Le May, A. (Eds.) (2010). Practice-based Evidence for Healthcare: Clinical Mindlines: Routledge. Gabriel, Y. (1998). The Use of Stories. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage. Gabriel, Y. (2008). Spectacles of Resistance and Resistance of Spectacles. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 310. Harrison, S., Moran, M., & Wood, B. (2002). Policy emergence and policy convergence: the case of 'scientific-bureaucratic medicine' in the United States and United Kingdom. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4(1), 1-24. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2008). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Take Hold and Others Come Unstuck Arrow Books Ltd Heimer, C. (2008). Thinking about how to avoid thought: Deep norms, shallow rules, and the structure of attention. Regulation and Governance, 2, 30-47. Heimer, C., Coleman-Petty, J., & Culyba, R. (2005). Risk and rules: the ‘legalization’ of medicine. In B. Hutter & M. Power (Eds.), Organizational Encounters with Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services Public Administration Review, 66,(4), 515-521. Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006). Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hood, C., Rothstein, H., & Baldwin, R. (2004). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. Kennedy, I., Howard, R., Jarman, B., & Maclean, I. (2001). Learning from Bristol - The Report of the Inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984- 1995. Levay, C., & Waks, C. (2007). Professions and the Pursuit of Transparency in Healthcare: Two Cases of Soft Autonomy. Organization Studies, 30(5), 509-527. McDonald, R., Checkland, K., Harrison, S., & Coleman, A. (2009). Rethinking collegiality: Restratification in English general medical practice 2004-2008. Social Science and Medicine, 68(7), 1199-1205. McGivern, G., & Ferlie, E. (2007). Playing Tick Box Games: Interrelating Defences in Professional Appraisal. Human Relations, 60(9), 1361-1385. Merton, R. (1948). The Self-Fulfilling Prophesy. In R. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure pp. 475-490). New York: Free Press. O'Neill, O. (2006). Transparency and the Ethics of Communication. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency? The Key to Better Governance. Oxford Oxford University Press. Oliver, R. (Ed.) (2004). What is Transparency? . New York: McGraw-Hill. Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Power, M. (2004). The Risk Management of Everything: Rethinking the Politics of Uncertainty: Demos. Power, M. (2007). Organizing Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The Discipline of Rankings: Tight Coupling and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63-82. Smith, J. (2004). Safeguarding Patients: Lessons from the past - Proposals for the future. The Shipman Inquiry (CM 6394). Strathern, M. (2000). The Tyranny of Transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309 - 321. Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The Gold Standard: The Challenges of Evidence- Based Medicine and Standardization in Healthcare. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Tsoukas, H. (1997). The tyranny of light and the paradoxes of the information society Futures, 29(9), 827-843. Vattimo, G. (Ed.) (1992). The Transparent Society. Oxford: Polity Press. Waring, J. (2009). Constructing and reconstructing narratives of patient safety. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1722-1731. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18(4), 429-442.
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/45260

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us