The transforming object of the veterinarian’s clinical gaze
Avainsanat:
veterinarian work, the object of activity, animal-human relationsAbstrakti
Although veterinary profession’s function in society is very important there are relatively a few
scientific studies about veterinary profession or how veterinarians’ experience their work. In the field
of study of work approaches based in activity theory (AT), has been held during last 15 years as a
promising theoretical and practical tool. As such there is no unified definition of activity theory. One
of the central concepts in AT is the notion of object in understanding and explaining human activity.
Idea is that when we understand the object of activity we have found the key to understand activity
system. Human activity is seen multidimensional system or structure. When applying AT in research
important is how the subject interprets and approaches the problem space of her/his activity system. In
this article I will focus on how municipal veterinarian in mixed practice experiences her/his work,
animals and clients. I use activity theoretical notions to interpret the results.
The empirical material was collected by means of participant observation and interviews of two
veterinarians – man and woman - in Eastern Finland during the time period June 2006 – October 2007.
Observation time was altogether 3.5 working weeks, including approximately 120 – 130 consultations
with clients in consulting rooms and in the farms. The analyses of the notes and interviews were made
by theory driven content analysis. For analytical purposes I formed a typical case of two veterinarians
whose work I observed. I refer to the case by an acronym “the Vet”.
The activity of veterinarian is described as a continuum preventive – curative/clinical – euthanasia.
My interpretation is that for the veterinarian animals are the object of clinical gaze in the realm of
socio-economic organisation. By clinical gaze is meant a perceptual model than mere to seeing, more
to functions like speaking, touching and knowing. But in this system the owners of animals form a
critical factor. Client’s way to take care of their animals defines whether they are favourite clients or
not for the Vet and does the Vet feel that s/he is in the same boat or not with the client. The Vet feels
that the owners of production animals understand her/his work better than owners of the pets. May be
the idea of production defines animals as objects more clearly and thus easier to agree about activities
than the idea about animal as a companion or friend?
Activity theoretical concepts apply well in analysing veterinarian’s work in socio-economic system
where animals are used to satisfy human needs. But the notion of animal as object of veterinarian’s
clinical gaze seems not to be enough in defining the special nature of veterinary work. In order to
understand more fully the social dimension of activity of veterinarian, it is important to study how
clients’ experience veterinarians and their work.
