From protective to connective professionalism: Quo Vadis professional exclusivity?

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
T. Adams, I. Kirkpatrick, Pamela S. Tolbert, J. Waring
{"title":"From protective to connective professionalism: Quo Vadis professional exclusivity?","authors":"T. Adams, I. Kirkpatrick, Pamela S. Tolbert, J. Waring","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joaa014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay is composed of commentaries from four scholars critically evaluating Noordegraaf’s article ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’. All four scholars, in different ways and from their different perspectives, question the dichotomy at the heart of Noordegraaf’s article, arguing that professionals have always been connective and connected, and moreover, that protective professionalism has not disappeared. They recommend more conceptual development to unpack the changing nature of connectivity and protectionism, as well as more attention to inequalities within and among professions, power, and professional agency.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joaa014","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This essay is composed of commentaries from four scholars critically evaluating Noordegraaf’s article ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’. All four scholars, in different ways and from their different perspectives, question the dichotomy at the heart of Noordegraaf’s article, arguing that professionals have always been connective and connected, and moreover, that protective professionalism has not disappeared. They recommend more conceptual development to unpack the changing nature of connectivity and protectionism, as well as more attention to inequalities within and among professions, power, and professional agency.
从保护到联系专业:维持Vadis的专业排他性?
本文由四位学者的评论组成,他们对诺德格拉夫的文章《保护性职业主义还是连接性职业主义?互联专业人士如何(仍然)发挥自主和权威专家的作用。这四位学者以不同的方式,从不同的角度,对诺德格拉夫文章核心的二分法提出了质疑,认为专业人士一直是相互联系的,而且保护性的专业精神并没有消失。他们建议进行更多的概念发展,以揭示连通性和保护主义不断变化的性质,并更多地关注专业、权力和专业机构内部和之间的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信