Page 171 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-10 1/10/09 8:45 AM Page 142

142 THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY

relations were characterized as collegial, disadvantages of each for clients and practi-
cooperative and mutually supportive. tioners. In this analysis he demonstrates the
Similarly, relations of trust characterized continuing importance of maintaining pro-
practitioner/client and practitioner/manage- fessionalism (with some changes) as the
ment interactions since competencies were main organizing principle for service work.
assumed to be guaranteed by education,
training and sometimes by licensing.
The early American sociological theorists Professions as institutions: the
of professions also developed similar inter- ‘trait’ approach
pretations and again the key concept was the
occupational value of professionalism based In the 1950s and 1960s, Anglo-American
on trust, competence, a strong occupational researchers shifted the focus of analysis on to
identity and cooperation. The best known, the concept of profession as a particular kind
though perhaps most frequently mis-quoted, of occupation, or an institution with special
attempt to clarify the special characteristics characteristics. The difficulties of defining
of professionalism, its central values and its these special characteristics, and clarifying
contribution to social order and stability, was the differences between professions and
that of Parsons (1951). Parsons recognized occupations, have long troubled analysts
and was one of the first theorists to show how and researchers. For a period the ‘trait’
the capitalist economy, the rational-legal approach occupied sociologists who strug-
social order (of Weber) and the modern pro- gled to define the special characteristics of
fessions were all interrelated and mutually professional (compared with other occupa-
balancing in the maintenance and stability of tional) work. For example, Greenwood
a fragile normative social order. He demon- (1957) and Wilensky (1964) argued that pro-
strated how the authority of the professions fessional work required long and expensive
and of bureaucratic hierarchical organiza- education and training in order for practition-
tions both rested on the same principles ers to acquire the necessary knowledge and
(for example of functional specificity, restric- expertise; professionals were autonomous
tion of the power domain, application of and performed a public service; they were
universalistic, impersonal standards). The guided in their decision-making by a profes-
professions, however, by means of their col- sional ethic or code of conduct; they were in
legial organization and shared identity special relations of trust with clients as well as
demonstrated an alternative approach (com- with employers/managers; and they were altru-
pared with the managerial hierarchy of istic and motivated by universalistic values. In
bureaucratic organizations) towards the the absence of such characteristics, the label
shared normative end. ‘occupation’was deemed more appropriate and
The work of Parsons has subsequently for occupations having some but not all of the
been subject to heavy criticism mainly characteristics, the term ‘semi-profession’ was
because of its links with functionalism suggested (Etzioni, 1969).
(Dingwall and Lewis, 1983). The differences The ‘trait’ approach also emphasized
between professionalism and rational-legal, cooperation as well as the special importance
bureaucratic ways of organizing work have of professional work. It is now largely assessed
been returned to, however, in Freidson’s as being a time-wasting diversion in that it
(2001) recent analysis. Freidson examines did nothing to assist understanding of the
the logics of three different ways of organiz- power of particular occupations (such as law
ing work in contemporary societies (the and medicine) historically, or of the appeal of
market, organization and profession) and ‘being a professional’ in all occupational
illustrates the respective advantages and groups.