Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Decision-making and accountability

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution. / Goodwin, Dawn.
In: Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 44-59.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Goodwin, D 2014, 'Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution', Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12042

APA

Goodwin, D. (2014). Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution. Sociology of Health and Illness, 36(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12042

Vancouver

Goodwin D. Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2014 Jan;36(1):44-59. Epub 2013 Sept 20. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12042

Author

Goodwin, Dawn. / Decision-making and accountability : differences of distribution. In: Sociology of Health and Illness. 2014 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 44-59.

Bibtex

@article{25190c9555d94f5a94b3354b97412e5e,
title = "Decision-making and accountability: differences of distribution",
abstract = "The cognitive and individual framing of clinical decision-making has been undermined in the social sciences by attempts to reframe decision-making as being distributed. In various ways, shifts in understanding in social science research and theorising have wrested clinical decision-making away from the exclusive domain of medical practice and shared it throughout the healthcare disciplines. The temporality of decision-making has been stretched from discrete moments of cognition to being incrementally built over many instances of time and place, and the contributors towards decision-making have been expanded to include non-humans such as policies, guidelines and technologies. However, frameworks of accountability fail to recognise this distributedness and instead emphasise independence of thought and autonomy of action. In this article I illustrate this disparity by contrasting my ethnographic accounts of clinical practice with the professional codes of practice produced by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I argue that a {\textquoteleft}thicker{\textquoteright} concept of accountability is needed; one that can accommodate the diffuseness of decision-making and the dependencies incurred in collaborative work.",
keywords = "distributed decision-making, accountability, professional codes of practice, ethnography, autonomy",
author = "Dawn Goodwin",
year = "2014",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1111/1467-9566.12042",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "44--59",
journal = "Sociology of Health and Illness",
issn = "0141-9889",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision-making and accountability

T2 - differences of distribution

AU - Goodwin, Dawn

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - The cognitive and individual framing of clinical decision-making has been undermined in the social sciences by attempts to reframe decision-making as being distributed. In various ways, shifts in understanding in social science research and theorising have wrested clinical decision-making away from the exclusive domain of medical practice and shared it throughout the healthcare disciplines. The temporality of decision-making has been stretched from discrete moments of cognition to being incrementally built over many instances of time and place, and the contributors towards decision-making have been expanded to include non-humans such as policies, guidelines and technologies. However, frameworks of accountability fail to recognise this distributedness and instead emphasise independence of thought and autonomy of action. In this article I illustrate this disparity by contrasting my ethnographic accounts of clinical practice with the professional codes of practice produced by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I argue that a ‘thicker’ concept of accountability is needed; one that can accommodate the diffuseness of decision-making and the dependencies incurred in collaborative work.

AB - The cognitive and individual framing of clinical decision-making has been undermined in the social sciences by attempts to reframe decision-making as being distributed. In various ways, shifts in understanding in social science research and theorising have wrested clinical decision-making away from the exclusive domain of medical practice and shared it throughout the healthcare disciplines. The temporality of decision-making has been stretched from discrete moments of cognition to being incrementally built over many instances of time and place, and the contributors towards decision-making have been expanded to include non-humans such as policies, guidelines and technologies. However, frameworks of accountability fail to recognise this distributedness and instead emphasise independence of thought and autonomy of action. In this article I illustrate this disparity by contrasting my ethnographic accounts of clinical practice with the professional codes of practice produced by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I argue that a ‘thicker’ concept of accountability is needed; one that can accommodate the diffuseness of decision-making and the dependencies incurred in collaborative work.

KW - distributed decision-making

KW - accountability

KW - professional codes of practice

KW - ethnography

KW - autonomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885350021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1467-9566.12042

DO - 10.1111/1467-9566.12042

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 44

EP - 59

JO - Sociology of Health and Illness

JF - Sociology of Health and Illness

SN - 0141-9889

IS - 1

ER -