The Order of Professionalization: An Empirical Analysis

Critical Analysis

In this article, the author examines the development of the profession of medicine. The goal is to understand the sequence of events and the locality of these events that impact and lead to professionalization. He concludes that the idea of professionalization is complex; it does not occur as a simple set of organized actions by a group.

Professionalization implies a simple path towards the formalization of a profession, but the author argues that the process is more complicated, and questions why the term sustains. The word has lasting power because it is used loosely as a “general idea that certain kinds of white-collar occupations tend to move toward strong occupational control,” that “the structural form of professions is more interesting than the work they do,” and because it appears that there is continuity to how occupational control emerges.

Functionalists view a profession as a “special relation between client and professional, and the core of professionalization was the evolution of guarantees for this relationship.” This is established by education, credentialing, and development of codes of ethics. Some view the importance of this institutionalization as one of building and retaining exclusivity.

Others see professionalization as a container for constructing and using knowledge, and argue that knowledge comes early in the development of a profession.

Various events are considered to make up the creation of a profession, although there is disagreement on the order of these events. These include “foundings of a training school, a university school, a local association and a national association, the passing of state-level licensing laws, and the establishment of ethics codes.” The accepted narrative of professionalization is a sequence of forces leading from event to event. The author argues that a view of these elements as a single specific path is overly simplistic; he then describes each force individually.

The rise of associations is “required for the profession to accomplish anything,” as the new profession will need to exchange information and control the way the profession is practiced.

Attempts for control occur, evidenced through the creation of licensing regulations and standardized and published pricing structures of work for hire.

Another event in professionalization is a consideration and concern for education. This is through formal universities and schools, but “there are in addition the development of internships and residencies, the reform of existing but worthless schools, and the development of formal teaching.” Training theoretically indicates if someone is a competent practitioner. In medicine, it also serves to “(a) encourage the spread of one’s own medical sect—regular medicine, homeopathy, osteopathy, eclectic medicine, botanical medicine, and so on; and (b) to make money.”

Another force and event is the desire for and growth of professional knowledge, as “knowledge can be cultural capital from which a profession derives income and power… professional knowledge enables the defense of a profession’s jurisdiction and the potential seizure of others.” This emerges from journals, clubs, and libraries.

The last force is the creation of organized structures which make it more effective in delivering services. Fixed fee systems are an example of these structures, as are unique buildings with unique purposes.

The author analyzes factual, historic data related to these forces and concludes that the professionalization process has some form of regularity, but is not simple. At a local level, control leads to practical knowledge, leading to work sites and then to the scientific transformation of knowledge. At a state level, control leads to development of associations, then to the creation of practical knowledge, to work sites, and then to “tangential knowledge.”

What is most important is that professionalization is a “complex dynamic process with several layers of action… the professionalization process, if it is to be seen at all in changing professions, [must be] recognized as the multilevel, contagious, complex social process that it actually is. Professionalization is not a simple collective action by a cohesive group, and we cannot discuss it as if it were.”

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Positions design education as a part of a larger professionalization process (either established, through structures like Bauhaus, or in constant development and revision)
• Questions the existence of related professionalization factors in establishing the profession of design (both what they were, and if they ever existed)
• Questions what the profession of design actually is, if it is still the same as it was, and if a new professionalization process is occurring (that may be happening under the surface)
• Positions the profession of design as an entity intended for control of designerly services, and as a structure of exclusion