Abstract
AbstractBelow we provide responses to the ongoing debate sparked by Mirko Noordegraaf’s intervention in suggesting that we are moving toward forms of ‘connective professionalism’. Critics in this debate have objected to Noordegraaf in a number of ways. Some object to a conflation of ideal types and empirical description. Others assert that Noordegraaf suggests a staged process of moving from protective to connective types of professionalism does not ring true; that we can finds forms of connection and protection in contemporary professionalism and in professional action. Our companions in this issue (Alvehus, Avnoon, and Oliver) suggest that greater connectiveness also permits new forms of protection as part of professionalism. Our short essays contribute to the Noordegraaf debate by focusing less on professionalism and more on how forms of professional action lead to mechanisms of connection and protection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
