Abstract
By denigrating expertise and challenging the value of evidence-based statements, advice and policies, populism challenges professions and professionalism. Arguably it is imperative for the professions to meet the challenge: but how? Here we provide an approach by juxtaposing populism and professionalism; two complex, ambiguous and contested phenomena with different and rarely connected literatures. Ontic and ontological definitions of each are compared and a method is developed for juxtaposing elements of their ontic definitions. Elements compared are: Manichean distinctions; disintermediation; morality v. ethics; emotionalism v. rationalism; and transparency. These are used to further understanding of both populism and professionalism and to provide insights into different ways the challenge of populism can be met: fighting it head on, adjusting to reduce the import of criticisms and perhaps controversially, adopting or at least adapting certain populist elements.
Highlights
By denigrating expertise and challenging the value of evidence-based statements, advice and policies, populism challenges professions and professionalism
This aspect of juxtapositioning can contribute to understanding by highlighting different trajectories towards ideal political states for populism compared with professionalism
The touchpoints developed here for juxtapositioning populism and professionalism provide insights into different ways professionals and their institutions can meet the challenge of populism; in terms of fighting it head on, adjusting to reduce the import of the criticisms and perhaps most controversially, adopting some populist elements
Summary
One way of juxtapositioning populism and professionalism would be to take the core element of populism definitions, the Manichean distinction: People v. There is a plethora of organisations training people to become coaches and traditional professions are introducing coaching skills to their qualifications and continuing professional development subjects (for example new Chartered Institute of Personnel Development coaching qualifications) This is one way to meet the populist challenge that professions disempower people by imposing their definitions of what clients need (Illich, 1977). Populism favours disintermediation between leader and the people: free from political party, government bureaucracies and other agencies (Canovan, 2002; Weyland, 2001)—unless they are directly connected to the leader—rather than providing checks and balances (Barr, 2009). There is a danger of losing legitimacy as dispassionate purveyors of reliable evidence if profession become embroiled in party political matters This aspect of juxtapositioning can contribute to understanding by highlighting different trajectories towards ideal political states for populism compared with professionalism. New ones would have to apply for legitimacy perhaps in a two stage process, such as achieving first a Charter and statutory protection
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
