2018/04/24 by Caroline A Clarke, Caroline Clarke, David Knights · 44 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Health Professions · Medicine · Psychology · #Cliché #Craft #Economics #Epistemology #History #Human-Animal Interaction Studies #Indeterminacy (philosophy) #Law #Political science #Positive economics #Psychology #Public relations #Rigour #Social psychology #Sociology #Veterinary Practice and Education Studies #Vetting #Work (physics) #Zoonotic diseases and public health
paper · doi:10.1177/0018726717745605
published in Human Relations 71(10), 1395-1421 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2018/04/24 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Is vetting a craft that must be learned owing to the limitations of scientific discipline, or simply a question of practice makes perfect? This question arose from our empirical research on veterinary surgeons (vets), who we found were often struggling with the divergence between the precise and unambiguous knowledge underlying the training and the unpredictability and imprecision of their everyday practices. These are comparatively underexplored issues insofar as the literature on vets tends to be descriptive and statistical, focusing primarily on clinical matters and associated human-animal interactions. Our cliché title has a question mark because while many vets remain embedded in the disciplined ‘certainties’ and causal regularities within their training, in practice this ordered world is rarely realized, and they are faced with indeterminacy where the ‘perfect’ solution eludes them. Vets often turn these unrealistic ideals of expertise back in on themselves, thus generating doubt and insecurity for any failure in their practices. In analysing vets’ experiences, we pay attention to the anatomical models of science, where linear causal analysis is expected to provide orderly and predictable outcomes or ‘right’ answers to problems, as well as notions of expertise that turn out to be illusory.