Critique Of Andrew Abbott
Part A: Summary Introduction: Andrew Abbott’s book, The System of
Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour contains a mix of
comparative historical analysis and current evaluation, which is assembled
within an analytical model that looks at professions from the viewpoint of their
jurisdictions, the tasks they do, the expert knowledge needed for those tasks,
and how competitive forces internally and externally work to change both the
jurisdictions and the tasks. Abbott attempts to show that professions are
interdependent systems, containing internal structures. He accomplishes this
task by means of analyzing the emergence of modern professions and their
relationships with each other cooperatively and competitively. Section I: Work,
Jurisdiction, and Competition Abbott’s book takes on an individualistic
direction in its inception then moves to a more systematic view of professions.
Modern studies of formal professions began with the rise of the discipline of
social sciences in the 19th century. In the beginning, scholars debated about
the theoretical interpretations of professionalism. There was a split between
proponents of functionalist and monopolistic approaches. However, academics on
both sides agreed, “that a profession was an occupational group with some
special skill” (Abbott 1988: 7). Abbott mentions that there have been four
different perspectives that have sought to interpret professionalization, a
functional, structural, monopolistic, and a cultural view. Abbott states that
the tasks of professions are to provide expert service to amend human problems
(Abbott 1988: 33). These problems can be objective, in that they originate
naturally or through technological imperatives. Problems can also be subjective,
whereby they are imposed by society or a culture either from the present or
past. Abbott argues that the “real difference between the objective and
subjective qualities of problems is a difference in amenability to cultural
work” (Abbott 1988: 36).
Abbott outlines that there are several types of
objective foundations for professional tasks. Some being technological, some
organizational, other sources of objective qualities lay in natural objects and
facts, while others came from slow-changing cultural structures. Abbott also
argues that a “profession is always vulnerable to changes in the objective
character of its central tasks” (Abbott 1988: 39). Besides the objective
qualities, professional tasks also have subjective qualities, which make them
susceptible to change. Unlike objective tasks, change does not come from the
vagaries of external forces, but from the “activities of other professions impinge[ing] on the subjective qualities (Abbott 1988: 39). According to Abbott,
three acts helped to embody the cultural logic of professional practice. The
three subjective modalities being diagnosis, inference, and treatment. Diagnosis
is the process wherein information is taken into the professional knowledge
system, and treatment is wherein instruction is brought back out from it (Abbott
1988: 40). During the process of diagnosis, relevant information about the
client is assembled into a picture of the client’s needs. This picture is then
categorized into a proper diagnostic category. This process consists of two
sub-processes known as colligation and classification. “Colligation is the first
step in which the professional knowledge system begins to structure the observed
problems (Abbott 1988: 41). Colligation is the forming of a picture of the
client, and consists primarily of “rules declaring what kinds of evidence are
relevant and irrelevant, valid and invalid, as well as rules specifying the
admissible level of ambiguity (Abbott 1988: 41). Classification is the referral
of “the colligated picture to the dictionary of professional legitimate
problems” (Abbott 1988: 41). Colligation and classification help to define which
type of problems fall under which body of profession, and specifically what kind
of problem it is in that particular profession. Abbott mentions that sometimes
problems of classification arise. For some problems are constantly shifting
classifications, and fall under more than one classification, due to their
defining traits. This may lead to intervention or competition by other
professions who want to assimilate the unclear problem into their own
professional repertoire (Abbott 1988: 44). The procedure of “treatment is
organized around a classification system and a brokering process,” whereby
results are given to the client and prescription is offered (Abbott 1988: 44).
One major problem associated with treatment is the client’s willingness to
accept treatment. A profession that adamantly forces clients to take treatment
risks losing clients to their competition who may be more flexible to their
client’s wishes (Abbott 1988: 47). Inference is the process that takes place
“when the connection between diagnosis and treatment is obscure” (Abbott 1988:
49). Inference can work in one of two ways, either by exclusion or construction.
With regards to the ideals of inference, is the fact that professions that have
several chances to infer solutions to a problem will consequently have more
failures, than a profession that gets only one chance. In addition, professions
with multiple chances are generally more vulnerable to intervention and
competition, or what is known as ceteris paribus, for treatment failure is the
main attacking point for invading professions (Abbott 1988: 49). Another factor
that leaves professions prone to external attack is the existence of a problem
where no treatment can be inferred. To counteract this potential downfall,
Abbott suggested that professions often direct these unsolvable problems to
elite consultants or are academicized as ‘crucial anomalies’ (Abbott 1988: 50).
These procedures help to make the difficult problem connected with a vague
public label, “which serves as a stopgap against dangerous questioning” (Abbott
1988: 51). This in turn removes direct and stigmatizing responsibility of
treatment failure away from a profession, which “protects a profession’s
jurisdiction” (Abbott 1988: 51). “Diagnosis, treatment, inference, and academic
work provide the cultural machinery of jurisdiction” (Abbott 1988: 59). However,
Abbott argues that this is not enough for an organized structure to claim
jurisdiction. In order to claim jurisdiction, a profession must ask “society to
recognize its cognitive structure through exclusive rights” (Abbott 1988: 59).
Jurisdictional claim by a profession can be achieved in several possible arenas,
within the legal system, the realm of public opinion, and within the arena of
the workplace. Claiming jurisdiction is only one means of overcoming
jurisdictional disputes by professions, Abbott mentions that there are five
other known types of settlement options.
|
