Search

The discourse of deservingness has been mobilised against certain groups in the UK society navigating UK labour markets, among them refugees and asylum seekers. These discourses, leading to the stigmatisation of the unemployed are coupled with an emphasis on the importance of individuals taking responsibility to develop their 'employability'. Little attention has been paid to scrutinise the contrast between the deservingness rhetoric and policy making with the actual conditions newcomers, and in particular refugees and asylum seekers, are confronted with when seeking employment. Our paper fills such a gap by indicating key contradictions at the heart of labour market integration in the UK. On the one hand, the emphasis on deservingness is coupled with policy discourses that construct an environment shaped by welfare and labour market chauvinism. On the other hand, the policy architecture is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways in terms of the support mechanisms necessary to ensure that newcomers can successfully integrate into the labour market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Specialist, associate specialist and specialty (SAS) doctors constitute a marginalised professional group who can struggle to achieve the professional development they desire. Our primary objective was to understand, from a theoretically informed perspective, the ways in which the professional identity of SAS doctors influences their professional development opportunities, including through appraisal. Ten UK SAS doctors participated in indepth, narrative interviews. Participants were drawn from six medical specialities, and ranged in experience (2.5--15 years) and country of primary medical qualification. Interview transcripts were analysed via critical discourse analysis using Figured Worlds theory. The position of SAS doctors within the Figured World was at times unstable, ambiguous and context dependent. They were often relative outsiders, not immediately trusted by colleagues. Some found their development needs eclipsed by the priorities of colleagues, typically consultants and postgraduate trainees. Appraisal was often not perceived to have successfully addressed these issues. This study enhances our understanding of the lived experience of SAS doctors, which is often in stark contrast to formal policy on the range of roles that they can fulfil. The struggles and successes of SAS doctors described here suggest that there is scope to improve the professional status and professional development opportunities for SAS doctors, including through appraisal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]