社论:市场驱动社会中的专业与专业

Teresa Carvalho, T. Correia
{"title":"社论:市场驱动社会中的专业与专业","authors":"Teresa Carvalho, T. Correia","doi":"10.7577/PP.3052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social, political and economic transformations in contemporary society create instabilities, ambiguities, and uncertainties that bring significant challenges to professionals, professional groups, professionalization processes, and professionalism. Social notions, institutionalized during industrial capitalism, are now put in question. That is the case for the concept of a welfare state; the regulatory role of the nation-states, the dominant processes of work rationalization and control that along with the intrusion of market and management narratives in the structuring of societies, challenge the traditional role, power, and autonomy that professional groups had in the society. Eliot Freidson (2001) is among the authors who claim that professional values are—and should be—autonomous from the market and bureaucratic-administrative structures, as a condition to assure the quality of knowledge and similar conditions of access to services. However, it is no longer possible to think about work and professions without taking into account the current global context of market expansion into different dimensions of individual and collective everyday life. The states’ roles, particularly welfare governance, are changing accordingly (Kuhlmann, 2006), as are work models that are increasingly shaped by entrepreneurial and network-based values aiming at emancipating individuals from organizational control. Not surprisingly, such competing logics are likely transposed to individuals, therefore affecting how they perceive and act as users and professionals (Ward, 2012). The way these macro-structural changes affect professional groups, professionals and professionalism, has been a core concern for the sociology of professions in more recent years (Brock, Leblebici, & Muzio, 2014; Carvalho, 2014; Correia, 2013; Evans, 2016; Noordegraaf, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016; Skelcher & Smith, 2015; Kuhlmann et al., 2013). This special issue intends to further contribute to the discussion of market-driven societies through the lens of the sociology of professions.","PeriodicalId":53464,"journal":{"name":"Professions and Professionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7577/PP.3052","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editorial: Professions and Professionalism in Market-Driven Societies\",\"authors\":\"Teresa Carvalho, T. Correia\",\"doi\":\"10.7577/PP.3052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social, political and economic transformations in contemporary society create instabilities, ambiguities, and uncertainties that bring significant challenges to professionals, professional groups, professionalization processes, and professionalism. Social notions, institutionalized during industrial capitalism, are now put in question. That is the case for the concept of a welfare state; the regulatory role of the nation-states, the dominant processes of work rationalization and control that along with the intrusion of market and management narratives in the structuring of societies, challenge the traditional role, power, and autonomy that professional groups had in the society. Eliot Freidson (2001) is among the authors who claim that professional values are—and should be—autonomous from the market and bureaucratic-administrative structures, as a condition to assure the quality of knowledge and similar conditions of access to services. However, it is no longer possible to think about work and professions without taking into account the current global context of market expansion into different dimensions of individual and collective everyday life. The states’ roles, particularly welfare governance, are changing accordingly (Kuhlmann, 2006), as are work models that are increasingly shaped by entrepreneurial and network-based values aiming at emancipating individuals from organizational control. Not surprisingly, such competing logics are likely transposed to individuals, therefore affecting how they perceive and act as users and professionals (Ward, 2012). The way these macro-structural changes affect professional groups, professionals and professionalism, has been a core concern for the sociology of professions in more recent years (Brock, Leblebici, & Muzio, 2014; Carvalho, 2014; Correia, 2013; Evans, 2016; Noordegraaf, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016; Skelcher & Smith, 2015; Kuhlmann et al., 2013). This special issue intends to further contribute to the discussion of market-driven societies through the lens of the sociology of professions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7577/PP.3052\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Professions and Professionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7577/PP.3052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professions and Professionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7577/PP.3052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

当代社会的社会、政治和经济转型带来了不稳定性、模糊性和不确定性,给专业人士、专业团体、专业化进程和专业精神带来了重大挑战。在工业资本主义时期制度化的社会观念现在受到质疑。福利国家的概念就是这样;民族国家的调节作用,工作合理化和控制的主导过程,以及市场和管理叙事在社会结构中的入侵,挑战了专业团体在社会中的传统角色、权力和自主权。艾略特·弗雷德森(2001)是声称专业价值是并且应该是独立于市场和官僚行政结构的作者之一,作为确保知识质量和获得服务的类似条件的条件。然而,如果不考虑当前市场扩展到个人和集体日常生活的不同维度的全球背景,就不可能再考虑工作和职业。国家的角色,特别是福利治理的角色,正在发生相应的变化(Kuhlmann, 2006),工作模式也越来越多地受到旨在将个人从组织控制中解放出来的企业家和基于网络的价值观的影响。毫不奇怪,这种竞争逻辑可能会转移到个人身上,从而影响他们作为用户和专业人士的感知和行为方式(Ward, 2012)。这些宏观结构变化对专业群体、专业人员和专业精神的影响方式,近年来一直是职业社会学关注的核心问题(Brock, Leblebici, & Muzio, 2014;卡瓦略,2014;科雷亚是2013;埃文斯,2016;Noordegraaf, 2007年,2011年,2015年,2016年;Skelcher & Smith, 2015;Kuhlmann等人,2013)。本期特刊旨在通过职业社会学的视角进一步促进对市场驱动社会的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Editorial: Professions and Professionalism in Market-Driven Societies
Social, political and economic transformations in contemporary society create instabilities, ambiguities, and uncertainties that bring significant challenges to professionals, professional groups, professionalization processes, and professionalism. Social notions, institutionalized during industrial capitalism, are now put in question. That is the case for the concept of a welfare state; the regulatory role of the nation-states, the dominant processes of work rationalization and control that along with the intrusion of market and management narratives in the structuring of societies, challenge the traditional role, power, and autonomy that professional groups had in the society. Eliot Freidson (2001) is among the authors who claim that professional values are—and should be—autonomous from the market and bureaucratic-administrative structures, as a condition to assure the quality of knowledge and similar conditions of access to services. However, it is no longer possible to think about work and professions without taking into account the current global context of market expansion into different dimensions of individual and collective everyday life. The states’ roles, particularly welfare governance, are changing accordingly (Kuhlmann, 2006), as are work models that are increasingly shaped by entrepreneurial and network-based values aiming at emancipating individuals from organizational control. Not surprisingly, such competing logics are likely transposed to individuals, therefore affecting how they perceive and act as users and professionals (Ward, 2012). The way these macro-structural changes affect professional groups, professionals and professionalism, has been a core concern for the sociology of professions in more recent years (Brock, Leblebici, & Muzio, 2014; Carvalho, 2014; Correia, 2013; Evans, 2016; Noordegraaf, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016; Skelcher & Smith, 2015; Kuhlmann et al., 2013). This special issue intends to further contribute to the discussion of market-driven societies through the lens of the sociology of professions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
School Counsellors’ Professional Practice in Health Promotion, Prevention and Remedial Work in Swedish Schools Professional Regulation and Change in Times of Crisis: Differing Opportunities Within and Across Ecologies The Enactment of Professional Boundary Work: A Case Study of Crime Investigation Editorial: The Research Literacy of Teachers Educational Research Literacy: Philosophical Foundations and Empirical Applications
×
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