4.7 Article

Medical women - towards full integration? An analysis of the specialty choices made by two cohorts of Norwegian doctors

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 331-343

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00138-6

关键词

medical women; choice of specialty; gender differences; Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Norway, as in most Western countries, doctors' choice of specialty has been strongly gendered. Female physicians have tended both to specialise to a lesser degree and to enter other specialities than male colleagues. In spite of the increase of women in medicine, previous studies have not managed to show any changes in this pattern. Comparing data from two cohorts of Norwegian doctors, authorised in 1970-73 and 1980-83 respectively, this article demonstrates that changes are in fact taking place. The changes are, however, not unequivocal. Firstly, women in these cohorts specialise to a very high degree and just as much as their male colleagues. Secondly, women doctors of the 1980s cohort spread their choice of specialisation over more fields than their predecessors did. They have, for example, started to enter surgery, although still not as often as men. Thirdly, proportionally more doctors of the 1980s cohort than the 1970s cohort have chosen general practice as their main specialty, and this applies to both women and men. Fourthly, there are tendencies towards an increasing concentration of women in some disciplines such as obstetrics and gynaecology, as well as paediatrics. These changes in doctors' pattern of specialisation are discussed as consequences of socially shaped individual preferences, structural aspects of the Norwegian health system and the existence of gendered closure mechanisms within specific medical fields. Although the medical profession still appears as a gender differentiated community, the article gives a more dynamic and in some respects a more optimistic picture than earlier studies. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据