Psychological manifestations of professional marginality of future social welfare professionals

• Olena Blynova ^[1] ; Zoryana Kisil ^[2] ; Tamara Tkach ^[3] ; Nataliia Semenova ^[4] ; Oleksandr Semenov ^[4] ; Svitlana Kaminska ^[5] ; Ihor Popovych ^[1]
  1. [1] Kherson State University, Ukraine
  2. [2] Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Ukraine
  3. [3] Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi Hryhorii Skovoroda State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
  4. [4] Eastern European National University, Ukraine
  5. [5] Kherson Regional Psychiatric Hospital, Ukraine

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Revista Inclusiones: Revista de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, ISSN-e 0719-4706, Vol. 7, Nº. Extra 14 (octubre-diciembre), 2020 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Investigando en Tiempos de Cambios), págs. 218-233
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • The purpose is to examine psychological manifestations of professional marginality and determine if future social welfare professionals have its structural components. Professional marginality is considered as a connection disruption in the system “person – profession – society”. The study establishes that the main factors of the formation of professional marginality are socially determined, professionally determined and personality factors. Factor analysis determines four models of the profession: 1) Awareness of one’s professional efficiency (competence, knowledge and skills) (“Personal model of the profession” (23.51%); the sub-system “person and profession”); 2) Awareness of social significance of the profession (“Social model of the profession” (18.31%); the sub-system “profession and society”); 3) Awareness of oneself as an in demand professional (“Individual model of the profession” (9.39%); the sub-system “professional and society”); 4) Lack of significant correlations with the indexes of professional identity / professional marginality and demand for the profession, the domination of extraversion and neuroticism (“Communicative model of the profession” (7.46%); it partly reflects the sub-system “profession and society”).