Juxtapositioning Populism and Professionalism

A. Friedman
{"title":"Juxtapositioning Populism and Professionalism","authors":"A. Friedman","doi":"10.7577/PP.3201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By denigrating expertise and challenging the value of evidence-based statements, advice and policies, populism challenges professions and professionalism. Arguably it is imperative for the professions to meet the challenge: but how? Here we provide an approach by juxtaposing populism and professionalism; two complex, ambiguous and contested phenomena with different and rarely connected literatures. Ontic and ontological definitions of each are compared and a method is developed for juxtaposing elements of their ontic definitions. Elements compared are: Manichean distinctions; disintermediation; morality v. ethics; emotionalism v. rationalism; and transparency. These are used to further understanding of both populism and professionalism and to provide insights into different ways the challenge of populism can be met: fighting it head on, adjusting to reduce the import of criticisms and perhaps controversially, adopting or at least adapting certain populist elements.","PeriodicalId":53464,"journal":{"name":"Professions and Professionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7577/PP.3201","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professions and Professionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/PP.3201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

By denigrating expertise and challenging the value of evidence-based statements, advice and policies, populism challenges professions and professionalism. Arguably it is imperative for the professions to meet the challenge: but how? Here we provide an approach by juxtaposing populism and professionalism; two complex, ambiguous and contested phenomena with different and rarely connected literatures. Ontic and ontological definitions of each are compared and a method is developed for juxtaposing elements of their ontic definitions. Elements compared are: Manichean distinctions; disintermediation; morality v. ethics; emotionalism v. rationalism; and transparency. These are used to further understanding of both populism and professionalism and to provide insights into different ways the challenge of populism can be met: fighting it head on, adjusting to reduce the import of criticisms and perhaps controversially, adopting or at least adapting certain populist elements.
民粹主义与职业主义的并置
民粹主义诋毁专业知识,挑战循证声明、建议和政策的价值,从而挑战职业和专业精神。可以说,专业人士必须应对挑战:但如何应对呢?在这里,我们提供了一种方法,将民粹主义和职业主义并置;两个复杂的、模棱两可的、有争议的现象,有着不同的、很少联系的文献。比较了本体论和本体论各自的定义,并提出了一种并置其本体论定义元素的方法。比较的要素有:摩尼教的区别;脱媒;道德与伦理;情感主义与理性主义;以及透明度。这些被用来进一步理解民粹主义和职业主义,并为应对民粹主义挑战的不同方式提供见解:正面对抗,调整以减少批评的影响,也许还有争议,采用或至少调整某些民粹主义元素。
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
Professions and Professionalism
Professions and Professionalism Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Professions and Professionalism (P&P) is an open-access, net-based, peer-reviewed and English-language journal. The Journal invites research-based empirical, theoretical or synoptic articles focusing on traditional professions as well as other knowledge-based occupational groups approached from any perspective or discipline. By prioritizing no single theoretical horizon or methodological approach, the journal creates a space for the development of the research field. Aims: To develop the study of professions and professionalism theoretically and empirically, To contribute to the development of the study of professions and professionalism as an international interdisciplinary field of research, To become an important publication channel for the international research community.
×
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