東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Ambivalent Adventures with Standards.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Ambivalent Adventures with Standards./
Author:	Wong, Jade Chelsea Zheng-Chen.
Description:	1 online resource (213 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-03, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-03B.
Subject:	Public administration. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29254741click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798841794318

Ambivalent Adventures with Standards.
Wong, Jade Chelsea Zheng-Chen.

Ambivalent Adventures with Standards. - 1 online resource (213 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-03, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2022.

Includes bibliographical references

This dissertation is about one of the most despised activities that health and human service professionals are obligated to do: maintaining documentary standards. Documentary standards are the written rules that specify how a person writes, types, clicks, fixes, stores, arranges, and reports on activities and objects. Not surprisingly, people's complaints about documentary standards are legion. They routinely lambast clicking boxes in the putative name of effectiveness and focusing on paper rather than on people as pointless, time-consuming, and counterproductive to the goals at hand. Drawing from 16-months of ethnographic fieldwork at a large, federally-funded healthcare organization in Midwestern United States, I ask, what accounts for professionals' sustained determination to maintain standards, even those they are vexed by? To answer this question, this dissertation will offer an account based on ambivalence. The account rests on two claims. First, standards are plastic. Their meanings, practices, and consequences change depending on the situation they are in. A standard that seems trivial in one context might become immensely consequential in another. After all, even the smallest slip from standards-a document incorrectly filled-in, not filled in at all, misplaced, or lost in transit-can really make a difference not only to an organization's receipt of money and possibility of malpractice claims, but also to the life and death of patients. Second, humans are ambivalent. Humans are capable of holding contradictory views towards the same object or task, which enables them to view the once seemingly trivial standard as immensely consequential, even embracing some standards as a cause. Taken together, my argument is this: a standard's potential to shift from the realm of triviality to the realm of consequentiality, alongside humans' capacity to mobilize ambivalence, is what commits professionals to maintaining standards. To make this argument, I will recount a series of adventures with standards. We will join healthcare professionals as they audit electronic medical records (chapter 1), devise schemes to get frontline workers to click boxes (chapter 2), conduct a risk audit of the clinical environment (chapter 3), and engage in activities to contort cervical cancer screening documentation into standardized form (chapter four). I will draw attention to the dizzying array of work-all the frustrations and seeming futility as well as the passion, pleasure, and even a sense of personal duty-involved in maintaining standards, and articulate the effects of that work on interpersonal relations, professional power, and social and organizational reproduction. Along the way, I will pay attention to ambivalence-how it is provoked, mobilized, and to what effects-to show how professionals use ambivalence to help them come to terms with the seeming absurdity of their work. In so doing, this dissertation aims to help professionals who work in health and human service organizations better understand and productively do something about their own ambivalence in settings that foster ambivalence.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798841794318Subjects--Topical Terms:

531287
Public administration.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Documentary standardsIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Ambivalent Adventures with Standards.
LDR:04428nmm a2200385K 4500 001 2359661
005 20230917194927.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2022 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798841794318
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29254741
035 $a AAI29254741
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Wong, Jade Chelsea Zheng-Chen. $3 3700275
245 1 0 $a Ambivalent Adventures with Standards.
264 0 $c 2022
300 $a 1 online resource (213 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-03, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Carr, E. Summerson.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2022.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a This dissertation is about one of the most despised activities that health and human service professionals are obligated to do: maintaining documentary standards. Documentary standards are the written rules that specify how a person writes, types, clicks, fixes, stores, arranges, and reports on activities and objects. Not surprisingly, people's complaints about documentary standards are legion. They routinely lambast clicking boxes in the putative name of effectiveness and focusing on paper rather than on people as pointless, time-consuming, and counterproductive to the goals at hand. Drawing from 16-months of ethnographic fieldwork at a large, federally-funded healthcare organization in Midwestern United States, I ask, what accounts for professionals' sustained determination to maintain standards, even those they are vexed by? To answer this question, this dissertation will offer an account based on ambivalence. The account rests on two claims. First, standards are plastic. Their meanings, practices, and consequences change depending on the situation they are in. A standard that seems trivial in one context might become immensely consequential in another. After all, even the smallest slip from standards-a document incorrectly filled-in, not filled in at all, misplaced, or lost in transit-can really make a difference not only to an organization's receipt of money and possibility of malpractice claims, but also to the life and death of patients. Second, humans are ambivalent. Humans are capable of holding contradictory views towards the same object or task, which enables them to view the once seemingly trivial standard as immensely consequential, even embracing some standards as a cause. Taken together, my argument is this: a standard's potential to shift from the realm of triviality to the realm of consequentiality, alongside humans' capacity to mobilize ambivalence, is what commits professionals to maintaining standards. To make this argument, I will recount a series of adventures with standards. We will join healthcare professionals as they audit electronic medical records (chapter 1), devise schemes to get frontline workers to click boxes (chapter 2), conduct a risk audit of the clinical environment (chapter 3), and engage in activities to contort cervical cancer screening documentation into standardized form (chapter four). I will draw attention to the dizzying array of work-all the frustrations and seeming futility as well as the passion, pleasure, and even a sense of personal duty-involved in maintaining standards, and articulate the effects of that work on interpersonal relations, professional power, and social and organizational reproduction. Along the way, I will pay attention to ambivalence-how it is provoked, mobilized, and to what effects-to show how professionals use ambivalence to help them come to terms with the seeming absurdity of their work. In so doing, this dissertation aims to help professionals who work in health and human service organizations better understand and productively do something about their own ambivalence in settings that foster ambivalence.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Public administration. $3 531287
650 4 $a Technical communication. $3 3172863
653 $a Documentary standards
653 $a Determination
653 $a Professional
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0617
690 $a 0635
690 $a 0643
690 $a 0624
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Social Work, Policy, and Practice. $3 3700276
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-03B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29254741 $z click for full text (PQDT)