Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 796

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Professions and patriarchy

·1992·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Witz's book, based on her doctoral thesis, is primarily concerned to develop feminist and sociological theories of occupational development.But she does this through an analysis of the relationship between gender and the professionalization of medicine, midwifery, nursing and radiography in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.So, although making few concessions to the non-sociologist in its terminology, the book may be of interest to historians interested in the development of the division of labour in health care since the nineteenth century.Witz compares the "professional projects", that is the strategies to enhance labour market resources and opportunities adopted by members or would-be members of these four occupations.What is original about her thesis is not this neo-Weberian approach but her systematic attention to the significance of the gender of the agents engaging in such strategies.She draws attention to the ways in which gender-related factors are often implicitly embedded in social institutions and structures and to the ways in which women, at least in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, often had to work through men to achieve change in the public sphere.One of her general arguments is that, in comparison with the male-dominated institutions of civil society such as hospitals and medical schools, "it was the nineteenth-century patriarchal state which provided the weaker link in the chain of patriarchal closure" (p.196).Thus, in her analysis of women's campaign to enter medicine in the 1 860s and 1 870s, she argues that it was only when the women abandoned their emphasis on getting qualifications in favour of pursuing enabling legislation that they achieved at least a formal victory.Pro-registrationist nurses and midwives succeeded in getting a legally defined register on the statute books.But such successes were always constrained by women's relative inability to influence the form of, or access to credentials in other institutions.In her frustratingly brief case studies, Witz marshalls the details of what are, except for radiography, relatively well-known stories, in an often illuminating way.But, inevitably, many questions are left unexplored.Why, for example, given her stress on the state as a "weak link", does she not consider whether the 1858 Medical Act was the key to women's entry to medicine rather than the barrier that she suggests?As she herself admits in her preface, she underplays the ideological strategies and moral arguments which played a large part in these professional projects.The book is at times heavy going, but certainly should stimulate more research into female professional projects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.30-1248

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 796

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
1992-10-01
Volume
30
Issue
02
Pages
30-1248-30-1248
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W2065344786
Cited by
796
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Professions and patriarchy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.30-1248
The paper
Professions and patriarchy. (1992). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-1248

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.