Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The kill programme

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The kill programme: an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The kill programme: an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse. / McCabe, Darren; Hamilton, Lindsay.
In: New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30, No. 2, 07.2015, p. 95-108.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

McCabe, D & Hamilton, L 2015, 'The kill programme: an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse', New Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12046

APA

Vancouver

McCabe D, Hamilton L. The kill programme: an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse. New Technology, Work and Employment. 2015 Jul;30(2):95-108. Epub 2015 Jul 21. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12046

Author

McCabe, Darren ; Hamilton, Lindsay. / The kill programme : an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse. In: New Technology, Work and Employment. 2015 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 95-108.

Bibtex

@article{4fc27a1fc4354fbabe7abe46efa1dd44,
title = "The kill programme: an ethnographic study of {\textquoteleft}dirty work{\textquoteright} in a slaughterhouse",
abstract = "It has been argued that {\textquoteleft}dirty work{\textquoteright} is characterised by strong occupational and workgroup cultures. This literature has mainly focused on direct workers, but this article largely attends to indirect {\textquoteleft}dirty{\textquoteright} workers, specifically meat inspectors, through ethnographic research conducted in a UK slaughterhouse.Four arguments are developed; the first is that {\textquoteleft}dirty workers{\textquoteright} may not all display group cohesiveness; indeed, individualisation may be more evident depending upon the technology used, internationalisation and employment conditions.Second, there is complexity and diversity within {\textquoteleft}dirty work{\textquoteright} and even single occupations can contain considerable variety, rendering generalisations problematic. Third, we argue that much greater attention needs to be given to the wider contextual issues affecting {\textquoteleft}dirty work{\textquoteright}, specifically changing labour markets, itinerant labour, economic conditions and technologies. Finally, we argue that stigmatised work may become more so if it is equated with the low wage economy and/or undercutting conditions of employment throughexploiting migrant labour.",
keywords = "culture, {\textquoteleft}dirty work{\textquoteright}, economics, ethnography, group cohesion, identity, migrant labour, technology",
author = "Darren McCabe and Lindsay Hamilton",
year = "2015",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1111/ntwe.12046",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "95--108",
journal = "New Technology, Work and Employment",
issn = "0268-1072",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The kill programme

T2 - an ethnographic study of ‘dirty work’ in a slaughterhouse

AU - McCabe, Darren

AU - Hamilton, Lindsay

PY - 2015/7

Y1 - 2015/7

N2 - It has been argued that ‘dirty work’ is characterised by strong occupational and workgroup cultures. This literature has mainly focused on direct workers, but this article largely attends to indirect ‘dirty’ workers, specifically meat inspectors, through ethnographic research conducted in a UK slaughterhouse.Four arguments are developed; the first is that ‘dirty workers’ may not all display group cohesiveness; indeed, individualisation may be more evident depending upon the technology used, internationalisation and employment conditions.Second, there is complexity and diversity within ‘dirty work’ and even single occupations can contain considerable variety, rendering generalisations problematic. Third, we argue that much greater attention needs to be given to the wider contextual issues affecting ‘dirty work’, specifically changing labour markets, itinerant labour, economic conditions and technologies. Finally, we argue that stigmatised work may become more so if it is equated with the low wage economy and/or undercutting conditions of employment throughexploiting migrant labour.

AB - It has been argued that ‘dirty work’ is characterised by strong occupational and workgroup cultures. This literature has mainly focused on direct workers, but this article largely attends to indirect ‘dirty’ workers, specifically meat inspectors, through ethnographic research conducted in a UK slaughterhouse.Four arguments are developed; the first is that ‘dirty workers’ may not all display group cohesiveness; indeed, individualisation may be more evident depending upon the technology used, internationalisation and employment conditions.Second, there is complexity and diversity within ‘dirty work’ and even single occupations can contain considerable variety, rendering generalisations problematic. Third, we argue that much greater attention needs to be given to the wider contextual issues affecting ‘dirty work’, specifically changing labour markets, itinerant labour, economic conditions and technologies. Finally, we argue that stigmatised work may become more so if it is equated with the low wage economy and/or undercutting conditions of employment throughexploiting migrant labour.

KW - culture

KW - ‘dirty work’

KW - economics

KW - ethnography

KW - group cohesion

KW - identity

KW - migrant labour

KW - technology

U2 - 10.1111/ntwe.12046

DO - 10.1111/ntwe.12046

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 95

EP - 108

JO - New Technology, Work and Employment

JF - New Technology, Work and Employment

SN - 0268-1072

IS - 2

ER -