Contained in:
Book Chapter

Risorse umane e professioni nell’ufficio per il processo

  • Annalisa Tonarelli

The arrival of clerks to the trial office entails readjustments with respect to the division of labor by questioning the mutual jurisdictions of magistrates and clerical staff, that is, the set of activities that a given profession successfully claims in the division of labor. Drawing on the results of the research conducted as part of the Agile Justice project, the paper highlights the outcomes of this readjustment by enhancing the point of view of the actors directly involved, namely magistrates, administrative staff and clerks. The perspective adopted looks at these professional groups not so much from their prerogatives of role and function, but from the processes of interaction between actors who defend their autonomy and jurisdiction within a dynamic of mutual recognition. Centrality is thus given to what people do in concrete working relationships by looking at the negotiated order within organizations.

  • Keywords:
  • new professionalities,
  • interactions between workers,
+ Show More

Annalisa Tonarelli

University of Florence, Italy - ORCID: 0000-0002-9565-6453

  1. Abbott, Andriew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Espert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Barber, Bernard. 1963. “Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions”. Daedalus, 92, 4: 669-688.
  3. Bechky, Beth A. 2003. “Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupazional Juristdiction”. American Journal of Sociology. 109, 3: 720-752.
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “La force du droit. Eléments pour une sociolgie du champe juridique”. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 64: 3-19.
  5. Champy, Florent. 2012. La sociologie des professions. Parigi: Presse Universitaire de France.
  6. Garapon, Antoin. 2001. Bien juger. Essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Paris: Odil Jacob.
  7. Gualmini, Elisabetta. 2003. L’amministrazione nelle democrazie contemporanee. Bari: Laterza.
  8. Hughes, Everett. 1976. “The Social Drama of Work”. Mid-American Review of Sociology 1,1: 1-7.
  9. Latour, Bruno. La fabrique du droit. Une ethnographie du Conseil d’Etat. Paris: La Decouverte.
  10. Osborne, David, e Gaebler, Ted, (a cura di). 1992. Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books Inc.
  11. Powell, Walter W., e Di Maggio, Paul .J. (a cura di). 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
  12. Strauss, Anselm. 1978. “Social world perspective”. Studies in Symbolic Interaction-Volume 1: 119-128.
  13. Vigour, Cécile. 2008. “Ethos et légitimité professionnels à l’épreuve d’une approche managériale : le cas de la justice belge”. Sociologie du travail. 50:71-90.
PDF
  • Publication Year: 2023
  • Pages: 67-86
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2023 Author(s)

XML
  • Publication Year: 2023
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2023 Author(s)

Chapter Information

Chapter Title

Risorse umane e professioni nell’ufficio per il processo

Authors

Annalisa Tonarelli

Language

Italian

DOI

10.36253/979-12-215-0316-6.06

Peer Reviewed

Publication Year

2023

Copyright Information

© 2023 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Bibliographic Information

Book Title

Giustizia sostenibile

Book Subtitle

Sfide organizzative e tecnologiche per una nuova professionalità

Editors

Paola Lucarelli

Peer Reviewed

Number of Pages

270

Publication Year

2023

Copyright Information

© 2023 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Publisher Name

Firenze University Press

DOI

10.36253/979-12-215-0316-6

ISBN Print

979-12-215-0315-9

eISBN (pdf)

979-12-215-0316-6

Series Title

Studi e saggi

Series ISSN

2704-6478

Series E-ISSN

2704-5919

15

Fulltext
downloads

24

Views

Export Citation

1,303

Open Access Books

in the Catalogue

1,746

Book Chapters

3,161,365

Fulltext
downloads

3,987

Authors

from 820 Research Institutions

of 63 Nations

63

scientific boards

from 339 Research Institutions

of 43 Nations

1,148

Referees

from 346 Research Institutions

of 37 Nations