Review Essay – Technology and the Professions: Utopian and Dystopian Futures

G. Greenleaf
{"title":"Review Essay – Technology and the Professions: Utopian and Dystopian Futures","authors":"G. Greenleaf","doi":"10.53637/jixn2754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay is inspired by and consists of a critique of ‘The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts’ (OUP, 2015) by Richard Susskind and Daniel Susskind. They start from the question ‘how do we share practical expertise in society?’ and argue that ‘in a post-professional society, we predict that practical expertise will be available online,’ leading to their key moral question ‘who should own and control [this] practical expertise’? Their conclusion is optimistic, at least for the sharing of expertise, if not for traditional professions. While I ought to be enthusiastic, and I agree with much of the analysis that leads to it, I reach more pessimistic conclusions, including much more dystopian options for the future for most professionals. This article explains why I have a more dystopian view. In order to consider the Susskinds’ arguments, this review distinguishes the three different types of automation that are relevant to professionalism, and in each case the likelihood that it will be ‘liberated’ or made part of a commons: representing expert domain information; representing expertise; and applying expertise to individual situations. We also need to distinguish at least three types of the programmatic application of expertise: where ‘knowledge engineers’ embody expertise in programs; embedded knowledge; and machine-generated expertise; plus a related ‘communities of experience’. These distinctions allow somewhat different conclusions to be reached than those reached by the Susskinds on future modes of professionalism, and their relationships to expertise. My conclusions is that most of the encapsulated expertise is going to be locked up in (new) private hands unless there are enormous efforts by civil society, universities, and governments. On this semi-optimistic scenario, public bodies, members of the public, and parts of the professions might maintain sufficient commons to support the continuation of professional expertise. By making these issues central to their book, the Susskinds have taken a courageous step, for which future discussions of technology and professions will be indebted.","PeriodicalId":121149,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Legal Information Practices (Sub-Topic)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Legal Information Practices (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53637/jixn2754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This essay is inspired by and consists of a critique of ‘The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts’ (OUP, 2015) by Richard Susskind and Daniel Susskind. They start from the question ‘how do we share practical expertise in society?’ and argue that ‘in a post-professional society, we predict that practical expertise will be available online,’ leading to their key moral question ‘who should own and control [this] practical expertise’? Their conclusion is optimistic, at least for the sharing of expertise, if not for traditional professions. While I ought to be enthusiastic, and I agree with much of the analysis that leads to it, I reach more pessimistic conclusions, including much more dystopian options for the future for most professionals. This article explains why I have a more dystopian view. In order to consider the Susskinds’ arguments, this review distinguishes the three different types of automation that are relevant to professionalism, and in each case the likelihood that it will be ‘liberated’ or made part of a commons: representing expert domain information; representing expertise; and applying expertise to individual situations. We also need to distinguish at least three types of the programmatic application of expertise: where ‘knowledge engineers’ embody expertise in programs; embedded knowledge; and machine-generated expertise; plus a related ‘communities of experience’. These distinctions allow somewhat different conclusions to be reached than those reached by the Susskinds on future modes of professionalism, and their relationships to expertise. My conclusions is that most of the encapsulated expertise is going to be locked up in (new) private hands unless there are enormous efforts by civil society, universities, and governments. On this semi-optimistic scenario, public bodies, members of the public, and parts of the professions might maintain sufficient commons to support the continuation of professional expertise. By making these issues central to their book, the Susskinds have taken a courageous step, for which future discussions of technology and professions will be indebted.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技术与职业:乌托邦与反乌托邦的未来
这篇文章的灵感来自于理查德·萨斯金德和丹尼尔·萨斯金德对《职业的未来:技术将如何改变人类专家的工作》(OUP, 2015)的批评。他们从“我们如何在社会中分享实用的专业知识”这个问题开始?,并认为“在一个后职业社会,我们预测实用的专业知识将在网上获得”,这导致了他们的关键道德问题“谁应该拥有和控制(这些)实用的专业知识”?他们的结论是乐观的,至少对于专业知识的分享来说是如此,如果不是对于传统的职业来说的话。虽然我应该充满热情,并且我同意导致它的大部分分析,但我得出了更悲观的结论,包括对大多数专业人士的未来更反乌托邦的选择。这篇文章解释了为什么我有一个更反乌托邦的观点。为了考虑susskind的论点,本文区分了与专业相关的三种不同类型的自动化,以及在每种情况下它将被“解放”或成为公共资源一部分的可能性:代表专家领域信息;代表的专业知识;并将专业知识应用到个人情况中。我们还需要区分至少三种专业知识的程序化应用:“知识工程师”在项目中体现专业知识;嵌入式知识;以及机器生成的专业知识;加上一个相关的“经验社区”。这些区别使得我们得出的结论与萨斯坎德关于未来专业主义模式及其与专业知识的关系的结论有所不同。我的结论是,除非民间社会、大学和政府做出巨大努力,否则大多数被封装的专业知识将被锁在(新的)私人手中。在这种半乐观的情况下,公共机构、公众成员和部分专业人士可能会维持足够的公地,以支持专业知识的延续。通过将这些问题作为本书的核心,萨斯坎德夫妇迈出了勇敢的一步,未来关于技术和职业的讨论将为此受益。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RBI and the Indian Crypto Industry Credit Default Swaps and Analyst Optimism Review Essay – Technology and the Professions: Utopian and Dystopian Futures Does Information Traffic Matter to Accounting Information Usefulness? Evidence from Internet Search Data Accountability and Transparency as Learning Processes in Private, Public and Global Governance
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1