Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia
Do you wish to request the book?
Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia
2024
Overview
Introduction
In October 2023, the Podiatry Board of Australia commissioned an independent review of the regulation of podiatric surgery in Australia, with a remit to re‐evaluate the regulatory framework, identify any risks to patient safety and recommend improvements to public protection. It reported in March 2024 and set out 14 key recommendations. The review was prompted by a number of complaints about podiatric surgeons but also reflected calls for reform by the medical profession and several critical media reports. This paper sets out to examine the review report, alongside the concerns of the medical profession and the media articles expressed within it, through the lens of an established sociological framework focused on interprofessional conflict and the contested use of professional titles.
Methods
As a review rather than the research paper, the Independent Review of Podiatric Surgery (the ‘Paterson Report’) served as data for the sociological analysis, adopting a Neo‐Weberian and Bordieuan framework to examine the strategies adopted by the medical profession and media reports cited in the report, consistent with the exercise of professional power.
Results
The sociological analysis provides insights into the ways in which professions seek to maintain symbolic, social, cultural and economic privileges and rewards through the exclusion of competitors, using strategies such as social closure, symbolic violence, symbolic devaluation, gatekeeper roles, and jurisdictional disputes.
Conclusions
The review report acknowledges the influence of the medical profession and its opposition to the practice of podiatric surgery and use of the title ‘podiatric surgeon’. The arguments made and strategies deployed are consistent with those found in the wider literature. In light of these findings, the implications for the future of podiatric surgery are considered in terms of professional practice, use of professional title, and access to public funding.
