If changes to the material structures of work have ushered us into a “new economy,” cultural scholars assume that there must also be changes to ideological structures of work. Extant scholarship on precarious professionals and on the role of emotions in 21st‐century work find that passion may be an important cultural component of white‐collar work in the new economy. Using data from engineers, nurses, and graphic designers who work in either less precarious or more precarious contexts, this paper contributes the first emic definition of work passion as the experiences of attraction, enjoyment, motivation, and perseverance. Because I find overwhelming adherence and conceptual consistency among professionals in my sample, I argue that the pursuit of work passion constitutes a coherent ideology of work, which I call the passion paradigm. I argue that the passion paradigm is compatible with and protects structures of work in the new economy because its logic of hyper individualism motivates workers to work hard and work well as a practice of self‐care, shifting the locus of critique further away from institutions and more toward the self. Adherence to and institutionalization of the passion paradigm may have myriad consequences, opening up broad areas of future research.
Empirical studies have found that altruism and self-interest are the two primary motivations for enrollment in clinical trials. Some studies have shown that in some cases these two motivations are contingent upon each other, which complicates our understanding of motivation. In this study, we interviewed 27 people with Parkinson’s disease about their willingness to enroll in a hypothetical clinical trial. Through inductive, grounded theory analysis of the interview transcripts, we find four different contingent relationships between altruism and self-interest. It is important for ethicists to be aware of these more complex motivations because some are ethically problematic and others not. Moreover, practitioners need to be aware of these contingent relationships so that they can understand the motivations of the research participants.
The scholarship on patient hope in biomedical technologies describes two narratives of hope: the biomedical and the individual. The biomedical narrative represents patients’ beliefs that the institution of science will eventually produce treatment for their disease, whereas the individual narrative represents patients’ beliefs that they can alter their prognosis through affective and behavioral modifications. The distinct analytical categories of “biomedical” and “individual,” however, fail to account for the fact that patient hope has been found to be much more complex. Building upon extant literature, we contribute to the understanding of the complexity of patient hope in biomedical technologies by examining a case that highlights interdependencies between the biomedical and individual narratives: hope in stem cell technologies (SCTs). We draw upon interviews with patients with Parkinson’s Disease, and find two narratives of hope: a biomedical narrative, as captured above, and an additional hybrid narrative, which we call a nature narrative. The nature narrative reflects patients’ beliefs that scientists will eventually create SCTs that will allow their individual body to naturally heal itself, which combines a biomedical and an individual narrative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.