Aggravated Labor: Experiences of Therapists and Qualitative Sociologists with Regulation and Standardization

• In Event: 382 - Regular Session. Jobs, Occupations, and Professions

Abstract

This paper examines the control of professional work through regulation—that is to say, through the arms-length application of rules rather than through hierarchical management and supervision. We draw on qualitative interviews to explore the experiences of two different types of regulated professionals: mental health providers working under Utilization Management (UM), and qualitative sociologists overseen by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). We argue that the regulators of expert work must solve a characteristic problem: that professionals rather than regulators control knowledge about the work. To manage this problem, regulators typically turn to standardization, which may create two sources of aggravation for regulated professionals: the burden of communicating in standardized language (which often occurs through forms and other paperwork) and the burden of complying with standardized bureaucratic decisions. We found striking similarities in the experiences of the groups of workers in our study, but also distinct differences—both in their particular encounters with standardization, and in their modes of resistance. We contend that the experiences we describe are likely to be familiar to other types of regulated professionals, and that more attention needs to be paid to the coercive dimensions of standardization, particularly standardized communication.

Authors

• Sarah Louise Babb, Boston College

• Jeremiah Morelock, Boston College