Analyzing Narratives of Expertise: Toward the Development of a Burkeian Pentadic Scheme

Abstract

Recent work in the sociology of professions highlights the central importance of abstract discourse in professionalization processes. Drawing on the work of Kenneth Burke, I argue that broadening the focus of analysis from "abstract discourse" to "narratives of expertise" will provide the ability to (1) more clearly analyze the social cofiditions that are conducive to the efficacy of abstraction as a basis for a claim of expertise and (2)'theorize and empirically examine the formation and maintenance of a collective professional identity. To assist in the reformulation of professionalization studies around narratives of expertise, I develop a modified extension of Burke's five key terms of dramatism (act, agent, scene, agency, and purpose). Burke's pentadic scheme enables researchers to show how narratives of expertise ground jurisdictional claims and the constitution of professional identity in one of the elements of pentad. I illustrate the empirical power of the pentadic scheme through an examination of claims of psychotherapeutic expertise, particularly claims of marital and familial expertise.Recent scholarship in the sociology of professions has stressed that successful claims of professional expertise require the development and ownership of an abstract discourse through which a professional group advances claims of jurisdiction over a set of problems (Abbott 1988). Although Andrew Abbott discusses a number of elements important to any analysis of the division of expert labor, he identifies the key factor in jurisdictional contests as the ability of a professional group to advance their claim of expertise in a discourse that maintains an "optimal level of abstraction" relative to current systemic conditions and properties of jurisdictional locales, such as the workplace, public opinion, and the legal sphere. Abbott's (1988, p. 98) focus on the cognitive components that "dominate the structuring of jurisdictions . . . [and] the conduct of jurisdictional contests" continues a long tradition of emphasizing the importance of some form of special knowledge as the most distinctive and defining characteristic of professional occupations (Barber ).Despite the attention given to abstract discourse in the literature on professions, how Direct all correspondence to abstract discourse actually works to advance, maintain, and expand professional jurisdictions remains underdeveloped. In what follows, I appropriate elements of Kenneth Burke's work to argue that current theorizations of the importance of abstract discourse for professionalization need to be expanded, critiqued, and reframed by broadening the focus of analysis from "abstract discourse" to "narratives of expertise." More importantly, I show how the development of a Burkeian pentadic scheme can assist researchers in the theoretical and empirical analysis of narratives of expertise. I illustrate the empirical power of the pentadic scheme through an analysis of narratives of familial expertise in the system of psychotherapeutic professions. THE BURKEIAN PENTA...

Forming the Central Framework for a Science of Marital Quality: An Interpretive Alternative to Marital Satisfaction as a Proxy for Marital Quality

“…Although concern for marriage and divorce had been growing since the mid-1800s and the establishment of social scientific disciplines such as psychology and sociology had been solidified for several decades, an ostensibly scientific approach to the study of marriage was not thoroughly under way until the 1920s and 1930s. Early advocates of a scientific approach recognized that they needed to advance their knowledge claims in a social context of competing claims of expertise over marriage and family life (Knapp, 1999). Noting that ''most of the writing on the subject of marriage'' had hitherto been done ''by the dramatist, the essayist, and the novelist,'' early advocates of a marital science argued that ''it ought to be the province of science [and] the concern of the physiologist, the psychologist, and the sociologist as well'' (Groves & Ogburn, 1928, p. 125).…”

Rethinking construction expertise with posthumanism

“…But importantly, these standards are not simply determined by professional bodies and peers (such as RIBA, CIOB etc.) as suggested by much sociological writing on expertise (Evetts, 2006;Friedson, 2001;Knapp, 1999;Larson, 1977), they are also mediated through a networked array of nonhuman actors such as documents, bureaucracies, and other standardizing technologies through which expertise can be consistently measured. And importantly, as Latour (1987) explains, the larger this network is, the more powerful a particular strand of expertise becomes (see Eyal, 2013).…”

“…For her, admitting that our expertise, and indeed all agency, derives from nonhuman ingredients is not only an ontological matter (Barad, 2003), or a form of progressive politics (Haraway, 1991), it can also be an ethical strategy. However, Bradiotti, like Barad and indeed Haraway, is far from clear on exactly how 'posthuman' human expertise is recognized as such; through what process do these assemblages of interactions between humans and nonhumans become durable and stable, that is, how do they become legitimately socially valued (Knapp, 1999;Larson, 1977) and/or deliver measurable outcomes (Ericcson and Lehman, 1996;Ericcson et al 2007). Arguably the thinker that has done the most to help us understand how expertise is produced in a consistently recognizable fashion within our posthuman condition, is the influential STS scholar and philosopher, Bruno Latour.…”

“…Here the politics of expertise is not only explainable in terms of the legitimizing action of professional bodies and class structures (Friedson, 2001;Knapp, 1999;Larson, 1977) the minutiae of linguistic rules (Boudeau's (2013), or the social interaction of human actors (Gluch and Räisänen (2009), Dossick and Neff (2011), but also the on-going boundary work around which human agency is differentiated from its Other (cf. Cooren et al 2006).…”

“…Sociologists have similarly defined expertise through human notions of agency to examine the socialized capacities that enable human actors to define, delineate and control the legitimacy and value of their skills and knowledge, especially through professional institutions and discourses (Evetts, 2006;Friedson, 2001;Knapp, 1999;Larson, 1977). And again, within these sociological studies the primary object of analysis is people, their agency to modify a world, populated by active humans, and more passive nonhumans, through the acquisition of certain practices, knowledge, institutions and languages.…”