Advertisement

Professions and Modern Organisational Forms

  • Edgar A BurnsEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Professions collectively constitute one type of organisational form developed within western modernity. This understanding shifts the previous discussion from proposed definitions justified by reference to individual professions, to see professions as an aggregate organisational design. Professions are compared in the discussion with five other organisational forms that have developed in the modern era—bureaucracies, unions, business, science and democracy. These different institutionalised forms are often said to be the opposite of professions, but more detailed study shows each of these forms overlaps with professions. This chapter bridges previous definitional analyses to subsequent discussion of professionalisation discourses and how these have been historically bundled. Viewing professions as one general type of organisational form challenges claims about professions as little more than occupational self-justification.

References

  1. Abbott, A. D. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. D. (2001). Time matters: On theory and method. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anleu, S. (1992). The legal profession in the United States and Australia: Deprofessionalization or re-organization. Work & Occupations, 19(2), 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Beilharz, P. (1997). Imagining the antipodes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlant, J. L. (1975). Profession and monopoly: A study of medicine in the United States and Great Britain. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blomgren, M., & Waks, C. (2015). Coping with contradictions: Hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. Journal of Professions & Organization, 2(1), 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolton, S., & Muzio, D. (2008). The paradoxical processes of feminization in the professions: The case of established, aspiring and semi-professions. Work, Employment & Society, 22(2), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottery, M., & Wright, N. (1996). Cooperating in their own deprofessionalization? On the need to recognise the ‘public’ and ‘ecological’ roles of the teaching profession. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Breen, R. (2005). Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Approaches to class analysis (pp. 31–39). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brock, D. M., Hinings, C. R., & Powell, M. (2012). Restructuring the professional organization: Accounting, health care and law. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks, R. (2011). Cheaper by the hour: Temporary lawyers and the deprofessionalization of the law. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burns, E. A. (1979). Occupational control in the development of the veterinary profession: A study in the sociology of professions (Unpublished master’s thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  16. Burns, E. A. (1982). ‘Veterinary Practitioners’ in New Zealand. Historia Medicinae Veterinariae, 7(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
  17. Burns, E. A. (2007). ‘Difficult times… between veterinarians and farmers’: Occupational control in the New Zealand Veterinary Club System, 1930s–1960s. Journal of Historical Sociology, 20(4), 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burns, E. A. (2009). ‘Urged for more than fifty years’: Veterinary education in New Zealand, c1900–1964. History of Education Review, 38(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burns, E. A. (2010a). Antecedents to the Veterinary Club System in New Zealand, c1900 to 1930s. Australian Veterinary History Record, 57, 3–22.Google Scholar
  20. Burns, E. A. (2010b). Veterinary numbers in late nineteenth century New Zealand. Veterinary History, 15(2), 136–146.Google Scholar
  21. Burns, E. A. (2011, November 29–December 1). Cultural traffic across the Tasman in the case of New Zealand veterinary professionalization. 48th Annual Conference, Australian Sociological Association, University of Newcastle, NSW.Google Scholar
  22. Burns, E. A. (2015a). Reading theory or reading historical evidence: The case of Anglo-settler veterinary professionalization. InterDisciplines: Journal of History & Sociology, 6(1), 121–149.Google Scholar
  23. Burns, E. A. (2015b). Re-imagining career transition: Any help from typologies? Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 933–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corfield, P. J. (1995). Power and the professions in early industrial Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Crompton, R., & Jones, G. (1984). White collar proletariat: Deskilling and gender in clerical work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniels, A. K. (1969). The captive professional: Bureaucratic limitations in the practice of military psychiatry. Journal of Health & Social Behaviour, 10, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniels, G. H. (1967). The process of professionalization in American science: The emergent period, 18201860. Isis, 58, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Darrah, C. (1994). Skill requirements at work: Rhetoric versus reality. Work & Occupations, 21(1), 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of professions and the profession of gender. Sociology, 30(4), 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davies, C. (2007). Rewriting nursing history–Again? Nursing History Review, 15, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. De Landa, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2007 [1987]). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  33. Derrida, J. (1977). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Dickson, D. (1984). The new politics of science. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  35. DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: US art museums, 1920–1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Dzur, A. W. (2008). Democratic professionalism: Citizen participation and the reconstruction of professional ethics, identity, and practice. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  37. Esland, G. (1980). Professions and professionalism. In G. Esland & G. Salaman (Eds.), The politics of work and occupations (pp. 213–250). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1969). The semi–professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses and social workers. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Evetts, J. (1999). Professionalisation and professionalism: Issues for interprofessional care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13(2), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Evetts, J. (2006a). Directions. Current Sociology, 54(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Evetts, J. (2006b). Introduction: Trust and professionalism, challenges and occupational changes. Current Sociology, 54(4), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fielding, A. G. & Portwood, D. (1980). Professions and the state: Toward a typology of bureaucratic professions. Sociological Review, 28(1), 23–53.Google Scholar
  43. Fitzpatrick, P. (1992). The mythology of modern law. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Flew, T. (2014). Six theories of neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven, 122(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  46. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  47. Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to ‘professionalism’ as a disciplinary mechanism. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 280–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy, and policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Golden, W. T. (Ed.). (1991). Worldwide science: Advice to the highest levels of government. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  50. Goode, W. J. (1957). Community within a community: The professions. American Sociological Review, 22(2), 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goode, W. J. (1969). The theoretical limits of professionalization. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses, and social workers (pp. 266–313). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Halford, S., & Leonard, P. (1999). New identities? Professionalism, managerialism and the construction of self. In M. Exworthy & S. Halford (Eds.), Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector (pp. 102–121). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hall, R. H. (1965). Some organizational considerations in the professional–organizational relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(3), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hall, S., & Gieben, B. (Eds.). (1992). Formations of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Halliday, T. C. (1983). Professions, class and capitalism. Archives European Sociology, 24(2), 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Harding, S. (1998a). Introduction. Border crossings: Multicultural and postcolonial feminist challenges to philosophy (part 1). Hypatia, 13(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Harding, S. (1998b). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Haskell, T. L. (1977). The emergence of professional science and the nineteenth century crisis of authority. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  61. Haskell, T. L. (1984). Professionalism versus capitalism: R. H Tawney, Emile Durkheim, and C. S Peirce on the disinterestedness of professional communities. In R. Haskell (Ed.), The authority of experts: Studies in history and theory (pp. 180–225). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Haug, M. R. (1973). Deprofessionalization: An alternative hypothesis for the future. In P. Halmos (Ed.), Professionalisation and Social Change (pp. 195–212). Keele, UK: Keele University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Haug, M. R., & Sussman, M. B. (1971). Professionalization and unionism: A jurisdictional dispute? American Behavioral Scientist, 14(4), 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hobson-West, P. (2017). The construction of lay resistance to vaccination. In I. Shaw & K. Kauppinen (Eds.), Constructions of health and illness (pp. 99–116). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Hughes, E. (Ed.). (1963). The professions. Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 92, 655–668.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, T. J. (1972). Professions and power. London: Macmillan. Republished Routledge, 2016.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, T. J. (1995). Governmentality and the institutionalization of expertise. In T. J. Johnson, G. Larkin, & M. Saks (Eds.), Health professions and the state in Europe (pp. 7–24). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Kearney, R. C., & Sinha, C. (1988). Professionalism and bureaucratic responsiveness: Conflict or compatibility? Public Administration Review, 48(1), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Kohn, R. D. (1922). The significance of the professional ideal: Professional ethics and the public interest. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 101(1), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000271622210100102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advancement of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  73. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Macdonald, K. M. (1995). The sociology of the professions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Martin, B. (1998a). Knowledge, identity and the middle–class: From collective to individualised class formation? The Sociological Review, 46(4), 653–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Martin, B. (1998b). Transforming the contemporary ‘new middle class’: From professionals and managers to ‘bricoleurs’? (pp. 1–28). http://hi.rutgers.edu/szelenyi60/martin.html.
  77. Mendelsohn, E. (1964). The emergence of science as a profession in nineteenth–century Europe. In K. B. Hill (Ed.), The management of scientists (pp. 3–48). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  78. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Murphy, R. (1988). Social closure: The theory of monopolisation and exclusion. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  80. Murphy, T. (1990). Proletarianisation or bureaucratisation: The fall of the professional? In R. Torstendahl & M. C. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of the professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 71–96). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Noordegraaf, M. (2004, October 7–8). Professional management of professionals: Towards professional organisations in public service delivery. Professionals between People and Policy Conference , Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  82. Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. Journal of Professions & Organization, 2(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  84. Oudshoorn, N. (1994). Beyond the natural body. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Overeem, P. (2008). Beyond heterodoxy: Dwight Waldo and the politics–administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Payer, L. (2002). Disease-Mongers: How doctors, drug companies, and insurers are making you feel sick. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  87. Perkin, H. (1969). The origins of modern English society, 1771–1880. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  88. Perkin, H. (1981). Professionalism and property: English society since 1880. Reading, UK: University of Reading.Google Scholar
  89. Perkin, H. (1989). The rise of professional society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Perkin, H. (1996). The third revolution: Professional elites in the modern world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  92. Polanyi, M. (1969). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In M. Grene (Ed.), Knowing and being (pp. 49–72). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  93. Popper, K. (2002 [1945]). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Rabban, D. (1991). Is unionization compatible with professionalism? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Radkau, J. (2009). Max Weber: A biography. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  96. Ritzer, G. (1975). Professionalization, bureaucratization and rationalization: The views of Max Weber. Social Forces, 53(4), 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (2010). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(s1), 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rosenberg, M. M. (2016). The conceptual articulation of the reality of life: Max Weber’s theoretical constitution of sociological ideal types. Journal of Classical Sociology, 16(1), 84–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x15574414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rubin, H. (2004). The compromised commons: Encroaching market forces and the effects of good work. In J. Solomon (Ed.), GoodWork ®project report series (pp. 1–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  100. Rueschemeyer, D. (1994). State, capitalism and the organization of legal counsel: Examining an extreme case—The Prussian bar 1700–1914. In T. C. Halliday & L. Karpik (Eds.), Lawyers and the rise of western political liberalism: Europe and North America from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries (pp. 207–227). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  101. Scott, W. R. (1965). Reaction to supervision in a heteronymous organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Scott, P., & Walker, J. (2015). Demonstrating distinction at the lowest edge of the black-coated class: The family expenditures of Edwardian railway clerks. Business History, 57(4), 564–588.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2014.965384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sorensen, J. E., & Sorensen, T. L. (1974). The conflict of professionals in bureaucratic organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Steinmetz, G. (2013). Major contributions to sociological theory and research on empire 1830s–present. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), Sociology and empire: The imperial entanglements of a discipline (pp. 1–50). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1959). Bureaucratic and craft administration of production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sullivan, W. M. (1995). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  107. Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Svensson, L. G. (1998, September). Changing work conditions and attitudes among professional occupations: The case of Sweden. Paper presented to Work, Employment and Society Conference, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  109. Tafuri, S., Gallone, M., Cappelli, M., Martinelli, D., Prato, R., & Germinario, C. (2014). Addressing the anti-vaccination movement and the role of HCWs. Vaccine, 32(38), 4860–4865.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Takahashi, T., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Bureaucratization of environmental management and corporate greening: An empirical analysis of large manufacturing firms in Japan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(4), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thomson, C. (1990). Towards a model of professional union organisation: A case study of the New Zealand Nurses’ Association at Auckland Public Hospital (Unpublished master’s thesis). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  112. Toren, N. (1972). Social work: The case of a semi–profession. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  113. Toren, N. (1975). Deprofessionalization and its sources: A preliminary analysis. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 2(4), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Turner, S., & Factor, R. (1994). Max Weber: The lawyer as a social thinker. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wagner, P. (2012). Modernity: Understanding the present. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  116. Waldman, B. (1986, May 23). More doctors and lawyers joining unions to fight large institutions (p. 21), Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  117. Walsh, D. (1986). Divided loyalties in medicine: The ambivalence of occupational medical practice. Social Science and Medicine, 23(8), 789–796.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(86)90277-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Weaver, J. (2006). The great land rush and the making of the modern world. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Weber, M. (1958 [1919]). Bureaucracy. In H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber (pp. 196–244). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Witz, A. (1992). Professions and patriarchy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wolin, S. (2010). Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Wolinsky, F. (1993). The professional dominance, deprofessionalization, professionalization and corporatization perspectives: An overview and synthesis. In F. Hafferty & J. McKinlay (Eds.), The changing medical professions: An international perspective (pp. 11–24). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waikato UniversityNapierNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations