Content area
Full text
Summary This paper attempts to develop a general framework for the papers in this issue by examining the concepts of profession, professionalisation and professionalism. The historical developments and debates within these areas are illustrated and discussed. The paper continues with suggestions for how the concept of professionalism might need to be re-interpreted to include issues of current concern to all professions and professionals. It is argued that accountability and continuing professional development are both compatible with, as well as essential for, professionalism.
Key words: Profession; professionalisation; professionalism.
The study of professions as occupational groups of workers who are relatively privileged, self-regulating, knowledge-based and service-orientated has been developed in different ways during this century. The primary interpretation in this paper, and in other papers in this issue, is based on the sociology of professions. It is important to remember the contributions of the social sciences more generally to the study of professions as occupational groups, however, not least because a number of the key writers on professions come from other disciplinary backgrounds in this field.
This paper attempts to develop a general framework by examining the concepts of profession, professionalisation and professionalism. The historical developments and debates within these areas are illustrated and examined. The paper continues with suggestions for how the concept of professionalism might need to be re-interpreted to include issues of current concern to all professions and professionals. It is argued that accountability and continuing professional development are both compatible with, as well as essential for, the re-interpretation of professionalism. Aspects of particular relevance to interprofessional care will be indicated.
Profession, professionalisation, professionalism
Profession
In Anglo-American research, professions are usually interpreted as being a distinct category of (privileged) occupations. There has, however, been considerable disagreement about what makes professions different. For a number of years, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, some sociologists tried to list a set of attributes or 'traits' which were said to represent the common core of professional occupations (for example, Cogan, 1953; Greenwood, 1957; Millerson, 1964). This trait approach has been effectively dismissed subsequently by a number of different authors (for example, Johnson, 1972, pp. 25-32) and is now regarded as an unhelpful diversion or even a `red herring' in the development of the research field.
More...