|
This led to three types of conflict between competitors within the
profession. The first case known as excess jurisdiction occurs when an incumbent
profession cannot grow to meet demand, or increase output, and thus faces
invasion by outsiders. The second kind of conflict arises when a professional
group's potential output exceeds its current jurisdiction. The third type of
conflict occurs when groups who provide equivalent services at lower prices seek
to invade into a settled jurisdiction. Due to the structure of the American
legal profession these conflict problems were less severe than in the British
system (Abbott 1988: 252). The American system because of its use of large firms
and the replacement of clerkship with law school, helped it to produce higher
output, thus it avoided problems related to demand and supply (Abbott 1988:
252). Taken together, this shows that the differences in the development of the
English and American legal system was caused by the actions of the two
professions themselves, the general social environment, and by competitors
trying to secure control of areas of importance to the legal profession (Abbott
1988: 275). Abbott posits that the birth of professions coincided with the rise
of personal problems (Abbott 1988: 285). Thus, the history of professions is a
biography of the relationship between problems and the tasks that seek to
resolve them. The first groups that attempted to assert professional
jurisdiction over these personal problems were the clergy and neurologists. This
was the beginning of a gradual recognition of personal problems as legitimate
categories of professional work (Abbott 1988: 286). Other groups that
subsequently joined the race for professional jurisdiction were gynecologists,
psychiatrists, as well as weaker groups such as psychotherapists. In his book,
Abbott outlines the history of professional development by showing that
professions have evolved simultaneously through similar patterns of development.
In chapters six and seven he argued that professions are organizational
structures made-up of many internal components and divisions of labour. Related
to this issue was his belief that professions were interdependent structures.
Abbott believed that the power of professions lay in their jurisdictional power,
which set the boundaries of what an occupation's work embraced.
Work and claims to jurisdiction over tasks for Abbott was what defined a
professions power. He illustrated this by showing that professions struggle and
compete against each other to gain control over undefined and unclear areas of
tasks, to expand their jurisdictional and overall strength. Chapters two to four
devote most of their attention to addressing these issues of work, competition,
and claims to legitimacy, which are related to jurisdictional power. The primary
goal of Abbott's book was to attempt to show that professions exist within a
system, he did this by demonstrating that changes in one affects the other, and
that one profession preempts another's work. This was shown by his outlined
principles in chapter four of his book, which posit that external and internal
changes in one profession causes disturbances through the systems of
professions. For professions as he advocated constitute an interdependent
system. Therefore, relations between professions and their work determine the
interwoven history of professional development. In other words, one has helped
to transform the other, similar to the system whereby the factors of genetics
and environment symbiotically influence the direction of evolutionary processes.
Abbott wanted to address the issue that to study the evolution of professions
completely and accurately, it is not enough to study them individually, that
researchers have to examine the relationship and development of all professions
to understand any of one them. For professions are as he states interdependent
systems, which influence each other prospectively. Part B: Discussion The social
construction of skill and its relationship to workers' autonomy and discretion
relate to Abbott's discussion for it was mentioned that workers derive their
skill by means of educational attainment and achievements of credentials. These
merits are defined and constructed by the professions, it is up to their
discretion to design the skill requirements for entry into the professional
body.
That being so, professions have a structured path for its prospective
employees. This would make the career pattern for many workers quite rigid,
providing them with very little autonomy and discretion in the career choices
(Abbott 1988: 129). We alluded to in class that sometimes the social
construction of skill may help to restrain the worker's ability for autonomy and
discretion. For instance, in the French system of the 1970's, the government
pushed education to be highly specific in its professional focus (Abbott 1988:
133). Thus, the educational system produced skilled, but specifically skilled
workers for society. Workers knowledge and skill was highly specific and not
broad or generalizable. The French society socially constructed its own
definition of skills needed for society and education. However, the inevitable
consequence of such actions caused the problem of low interprofessional
mobility. Workers there had very little autonomy or discretion with regard to
their work (Abbott 1988: 133). Here, we see a situation where the social
construction of defining skill has led to the restriction of workers'
occupational freedom. Even with the social construction of skills that defined
the potential autonomy for workers, factors related to the organizational
structure of professions can limit such freedom. It was discussed in class that
workers choices and freedom to choose what they want to do is often restricted
by structural factors, such as division of labour and company size. Abbott
alludes to this in his discussion of career patterns, he posits that the career
paths in professions are often quite rigid, with very little chance for
interchangeability between professions (Abbott 1988: 129). For example, a doctor
cannot move into the profession of law with his present skills, and vice versa
for a lawyer. The demands of those professions constrict the autonomy
professionals within those professions have, with regards to interprofessional
flexibility. Although the case may be that within their own prospective
professions, professionals have their own forms of discretion and occupational
autonomy dependent on their skill and expertise. This inflexibility in
interprofessional and career pattern autonomy is controlled by the factor of
demographic rigidity. Some professions, due to their size and reproduction
mechanisms, prevent them from expanding or contracting, this constrains their
professionals from practicing outside of the profession (Abbott 1988: 129).
This illustrates that factors of a professions structure mediates the affect
of socially constructed skill with worker's autonomy and discretion, that the
organization of a profession can confine a professionals occupational freedom.
However, the situation of restricted freedom for occupational alternative is not
always the case, as has been mentioned in class, sometimes through conditions of
an individual's skill and by organizational forces, workers find themselves
confronted with opportunities for advancement or differentiations. Abbott
illustrates that through the phenomenons of specialization and labour division
workers can increase their status and thus allow themselves chances for
expansions into other tasks areas (Abbott 1988: 128). Abbott advocates that for
some workers their professions allow them great autonomy and discretion, this is
based upon the set of socially constructed skills they obtained. For example,
the skills that society has required librarians to acquire for their
occupations, has given them more opportunity for personal autonomy and
discretion regarding their work (Abbott 1988: 123). Librarians are
differentiated and restricted only by their own diverse choice of clientele
(Abbott 1988: 123). They can choose to work in schools, industry, government,
public, and even in academic areas. Their socially demanded skills in research
and knowledge allow them to move from one professional arena to another with
ease, for their skills are highly generalizable (Abbott 1988: 123). Sometimes,
an individuals credentials so happens allow him or her access into other
professions, giving him or her discretion to choose where he or she wants to
work, or what tasks he or she wants to do. Abbott argues that some credentials
allow individuals to claim jurisdiction under more than one profession, allowing
them autonomy to choose where they want to reside, and allowing them the
opportunity to switch over to another jurisdiction as they wish (Abbott 1988:
103). For example, Abbott proposes that a degree such as a M.B.A, because of its
broad coverage of diverse forms of knowledge and training, allows its owners
numerous areas for claimants (Abbott 1988: 103).
Thus, students of diverse specialties as psychology, sociology, law,
economic, etc. can claim jurisdiction in business management even though their
primary study has no relations, as long as they possess the certification of a
M.B.A degree. Simply by possessing credentials under a certain expertise and
skill that society has defined as expert, individuals can increase their
autonomy of career choice by great folds. This points to the fact that the
attainment of what society constructs as expert skill, can help in ones'
achievement of autonomy and discretion. Another process that leads to the
autonomy of the individual is through the process of degradation. Degradation
leads to the explicit division of labour, which inevitably allows workers
different career directions and alternatives (Abbott 1988: 126). In his
discussion of the profession of computer programmers, Abbott illustrates that
the sudden explosion in the computerization of industry in the 1970's created a
large demand for computer programmers. This led to a division in the work
between normal and specialist programmers, and while causing the subordination
of some, this created many new opportunities for specialty (Abbott 1988: 127).
Specialists in that field were presented with total autonomy and discretion with
regards to their work. They could set their own standards and jurisdiction, for
there existed no forbearers in their expertise to restrict the creation of their
own jurisdiction (Abbott 1988: 123). As it has just been illustrated, the social
construction of skill and its relationship to workers' autonomy and discretion
has not always been a positive one. In some circumstances, workers are provided
with great freedom with regards to their work, but in others, the defined skills
constructed by society help to restrict the autonomy and discretion of workers.
Factors such as government intervention, the organizational structure of
professions, individual merit and choice, and processes of labour division and
destruction all play a role in determining the occupational free choice of
workers. Abbott's book outlined many of these factors, his findings helped to
substantiate ideals related to this topic discussed in class.
|
