References
- A M Carr-Saunders and P A Wilson, The Professions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), p 284.
- M L Cogan, ∜Towards a Definition of a Profession: A Review of the Literature,∝ Harvard Educational Review, 23 (1953), pp 33–50.
- H L Wilensky, ∜The Professionalization of Everyone?∝ American Journal of Sociology, 70 (1964), pp 137–58.
- P Elliott, The Sociology of the Professions (New York: Herderand Herder, 1972); WE Moore, The Professions: Rules and Roles (New York: Russell Sage, 1970).
- K R Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957), pp 26–34; K R Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton N J: Princeton University Press), pp 31–34.
- Popper, The Open Society, p. 32.
- P M Blau, ∜The Comparative Study of Organizations,∝ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 18 (1965), pp 323–38.
- D J Hickson and M W Thomas, ∜Professionalization in Britain: A Prelifninary Measurement,∝ Sociology, 3 (1969), pp 37–53.
- Compare the approach of Carr-Saunders and Wilson, The Professions, p 284, with more recent works such as R L Akers and R Quinney, ∜Differential Organization of Health Professions: A Comparative Analysis,∝ American Sociological Review, 33 (1968), pp 104–20; G Millerson, The Qualifying Associations New York: Humanities Press, 1964); Wilensky. ∜Professionalization of Everyone?∝ pp 137–58.
- H Blumer, ∜What Is Wrong with Social Theory?∝ American Sociological Review, 19 (1954), p 3–10.
- G Ritzer, ∜The Emerging Power Approach to the Study of the Professions,∝ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, 1975.
- J B Cullen, ∜The Structure of Professionalism.∝ Dissertation, Columbia University 1977, Ch IV.
- E Freidson, Professional Dominance (New York: Atherton, 1970), p 72.
- These authors represent only a selection of those who have cited dimensions of professionalism. Moreover, it should also be noted here that some might not agree with this author's classifications of their dimensions. R L Akers, ∜Professional Organization, Political Power, and Occupational Laws,∝ Dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1966; R L Akers, ∜Framework for the Comparative Study of Group Cohesion: The Professions,∝ Pacific Sociological Review, 13 (1970), pp 73–85. B Barber, ∜Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions,∝ Daedalus, 92 (1963), pp 669–88. T Caplow, The Sociology of Work (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), Carr-Saunders and Wilson, The Professions. Cogan, Towards a Definition of a Profession. A Flexner. ∜Is Social Work a Profesion?∝ School and Society, 26 (1915), p 904. N N Foote, ∜The Professionalization of Labor in Detroit,∝ American Journal of Sociology, 53 (1953), pp 371–80. W J Goode, ∜Encroachment, Charlantanism, and the Emerging Professions: Psychology, Medicine, and Sociology,∝ American Sociological Review, 25 (1960) ∜The theoretical limits to professionalization,∝ in A Etzioni, ed, The Semi-Professions and their Organization (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp 266–313. E Greenwood, ∜Attributes of a Profession,∝ Social Work, 2, 1957, pp 44–55: E Gross, Work and Society (New York: Crowell, 1958). R Lewis and A Maude, Professional People in England (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press); R M Pavalko, The Sociology of Occupations and Professions (Itasca: F E Peacock, 1911), Chap 1. H M Vollmer and D Mills, ∜Nuclear Technology and the Professionalization of Labor,∝ American Journal of Sociology, 67 (1962), pp 690–96. Wilensky, ∜The Professionalization of Everyone?∝.
- Cullen, ∜The Structure of Professionalism∝ and Hickson and Thomas, ∜Professionalism in Britain.∝.
- US Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd ed), Vols I, II. (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1965); US Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Supplement, Selected Characteristics of Occupations (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1966).
- S A Fine, ∜The Use of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as a Source of Educational and Training Requirements,∝ Journal of Human Resources, 3 (1968), pp 365–75.
- US Department of Labor, Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972).
- US Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, pp 649–50.
- Although the correlations are, of course, among the empirical indicators of the professional dimensions, for brevity of presentation, the text below often refers to correlations among dimensions. See Gullen, ∜The Structure of Professionalism,∝ Appendices C, D, for a complete description of the data and its sources.
- US Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-7A, Occupational Characteristics (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1913), pp XIII–XIX.
- For each of the dimensions of professionalism, the percentage of professional occupations falling one and two standard : 19.1/25.8 for complexity w/people; 37.3/30.5 for membership completeness; 28.6/28.6 for licensure; 21.0/55.1 for median education; and, 48.8/46.4 for prestige.
- Cullen, ∜Structure of Professionalism,∝ and ∜Professionalism, Occupational Organization, and Advanced Education,∝ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1977; ∜Professionalism and Occupational Control: A Comparative and Quantitative Analysis,∝ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, 1977.
- Data for the 17 occupations were originally gathered for the Comparative Organization Research Program at Columbia University. The support of the National Science Foundation's grant SOC71-03617 is gratefully acknowledged.
- Of course, the smaller sample size suggests that the correlations are less reliable since even one or tivo abnormal cases might affect the total relationship.
- R W Hodge, P M Siegel, and P H Rossi. ∜Occupational Prestige in the United States: 1925–1963,∝ in R Bendix and S M Lipset, eds, Class, Status and Power (New York: Free Press, 1966), pp 322–34; R W Hodge, DJ Treiman, and P H Rossi, ∜A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige,∝ Class, Status and Power, pp 309–21.
- L R Vesey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); R Johnson, ∜Education and Professional Life Styles: Law and Medicine in the Nineteenth Century,∝ History of Education Quarterly, 14 (1974), pp 185–207.
- National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, ∜Regarding NCARB Organization, Services and Procedures, Records, Certifications, and Examinations,∝ Circular of Information #1. Washington, DC: NCARB, 1973.
- US Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1973. It should also be noted that, although architects are ∜registered∝ in most states, this paper includes such occupational regulation under the general concept of licensure. The terms are used interchangeably below.
- L Tabachnik, ∜Licensing in the Legal and Medical Professions, 1820–1860: A Historical Case Study,∝ in J Gerstl and G Jacobs, eds, Professions for the People: The Politics of Skill (New York: Schenkman, 1976), pp 1–24.
- K L Grimm, ∜The Relationship of Accreditation to Voluntary Certification and State Licensure,∝ Part II: Staff Working Papers, Accreditation of Health Educational Programs (Washington, DC: National Commission of Accrediting, 1972), pp 1–42.
- M W Finkin, ∜Federal Reliance on Voluntary Accreditation: The Power to Recognize as the Power to Regulate,∝ Journal of Law and Education, 2 (1973), pp 339–75.
- Procedures of Accrediting in the Professions (Washington, DC: National Commission on Accrediting, nd),.
- Gullen, ∜The Structure of Professionalism.∝.
- Gutman, ∜Architecture: The Entrepreneurial Profession,∝ Progressive Architecture, 5 (1977), pp 54–58.
- W J Goode, ∜The Professionalizing Occupations,∝ Columbia University Program of General and Continuing Education in the Humanities, Seminar Reports, 3, 1975, pp 97–113.
- US Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Table 19.