Abstract

Current debates and definitions of professionalism are primarily grounded in organisations, either as employing bureaucracies or service firms, that control and structure expert labour. This is problematic as it neglects the many neo-professionals that are self-employed. We draw on interviews with 50 independent consultants and find that, outside of organisational boundaries, they pursue a strategy of professional fluidity. This is a relational and market-driven approach that requires a multiplicity of roles and chameleon-like tactics. As opposed to notions of collegial, organisational and corporate professionalisation, professional fluidity is a co-constructed and agentic approach where validity and legitimacy are achieved primarily through relations with clients and collaborators rather than institutions or employing organisations. Through professional fluidity we contribute to a more holistic understanding of professionalism that is sensitive to the employment mode rather than knowledge domain and develops existing notions of who is a professional. This is important for wider debates on the current and future state of professions.

Highlights

  • Professions occupy an elevated status in society as trusted conveyers of expertise (Anteby, Chan, & DiBenigno, 2016; Freidson, 1984; Huising, 2015)

  • In our findings we identify the themes which are key to understanding professional fluidity

  • We show an ambivalence towards institutionalisation, including professional bodies and organisations; this is an important precondition to professional fluidity and contrasts with the approaches outlined above

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Professions occupy an elevated status in society as trusted conveyers of expertise (Anteby, Chan, & DiBenigno, 2016; Freidson, 1984; Huising, 2015). They help to establish credibility and legitimacy, are a bolster to reputational capital, and help to identify trustworthy individuals (Groß & Kieser, 2006; Noordegraaf, 2007; Reed, 2018). There are many different routes to professional status (Ackroyd, 2016; Collins & Butler, 2019; Hodgson, Paton, & Muzio, 2015) with new occupations and corporate approaches challenging established collegial and organisational understandings (Abbott, 1988; Ackroyd, 2016) alongside professional and managerial hybridity (Noordegraaf, 2015). Recent changes in labour markets, including a growth in self-employment (Ashford, Caza, & Reid, 2018; Spreitzer, Cameron, & Garrett, 2017) pose fundamental questions for our understanding of neo-professions (Leicht & Fennell, 1997; Smets, Morris, von Nordenflycht, & Brock, 2017)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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