The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor.

Administrative Science Quarterly (Impact Factor: 4.21). 06/1990; DOI: 10.2307/2393403

ABSTRACT In "The System of Professions" Andrew Abbott explores central questions about the role of professions in modern life: Why should there be occupational groups controlling expert knowledge? Where and why did groups such as law and medicine achieve their power? Will professionalism spread throughout the occupational world? While most inquires in this field study one profession at a time, Abbott here considers the system of professions as a whole. Through comparative and historical study of the professions in nineteenth- and twentieth-century England, France, and America, Abbott builds a general theory of how and why professions evolve.

Abbott begins by evaluating the link—which he calls jurisdiction—between an occupation and its work. The concept of jurisdiction leads directly to an analysis of professions as existing in a system; since one profession can preempt another's work, the histories of professions are inevitably interdependent. Abbott goes on to discuss both internal and external cultural and social forces bearing on this system and closes by illustrating his approach with three detailed histories of contested jurisdictions, in the areas of information, law, and psychotherapy.

Underlying Abbott's theoretical synthesis is an explanation of how a division of labor—in this case a division of expert labor—constructs itself in modern society. In addressing this question, he also offers a powerful analysis of contingency that bridges the gap between analytic sociology and narrative history. Written with grace and clarity, this highly original treatise will be required reading for those interested in the history and sociology of the professions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Autonomy repeatedly triggers reregulation. Reregulation has two dimensions: the layering of different control mechanisms and the growth of the rules within those layers. Using a case study of social housing in Belgium, we explain the tendency to reregulate once autonomy is provided. We attribute the layering of rules to a conflict regarding oversight between the established legal profession and an ascending management profession. Crozier's vicious circle of bureaucratization helps to explain the growth of regulation within layers. The legal culture of the Rechtsstaat is a catalyst for both professional competition and bureaucratization.
    Public Administration 10/2015; · 1.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interprofessional conflict has largely been understood in terms of jurisdictional disputes centred on contested task domains and role boundaries, with less attention paid to the symbolic value associated with specific professional titles. Bourdieu’s concepts of symbolic power and capital help to shed light on the opposition of the medical profession in the UK to the adoption of the title “podiatric surgeon” by non-medically qualified podiatrists undertaking foot surgery. Focusing on the medical discourse evident in press and media coverage of the dispute over a 12-year period gives insights into the use of strategies of symbolic violence aimed at retaining control over the exclusive use of prestigious forms of professional title. Titles, as symbolic capital, are understood as central to professions’ struggle for legitimacy and recognition.
    Health Sociology Review 06/2015; DOI:10.1080/14461242.2015.1051081 · 0.49 Impact Factor
  • Source