A model of professionalization based largely on the power view is presented. As a test of a portion of the model, professional power is defined in terms of two dimensions of attitudinal autonomy. Autonomy from client and autonomy from employing organization are studied in a sample of 1,000 students representing eight different occupations (medicine, law, education, nursing, social work, librarianship, engineering, and business administration) in order to discover a systematic empirical referent for the concepts true, semi-, and mimic profession. As hypothesized, distinct attitudinal power profiles did emerge as characteristic of individuals socialized to various occupations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BRAUDE, L.
(1975) Work and Workers: A Sociological Analysis. New York: Praeger.
2.
CHAPPELL, N. L.
and N. L. COLWILL (1981) “Medical schools as agents of professional socialization.”Canadian Rev. of Sociology and Anthropology18: 67-81.
3.
CORWIN, R. G.
(1963) Final Report: The Development of an Instrument for Examining Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Cooperative Research Project no. 1934, U.S. Office of Education. Columbus: Ohio State University.
4.
DANIELS, A.
(1973) “How free should professions be?” in E. Freidson (ed.) The Professions and Their Prospects. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
5.
ENGEL, G. V.
(1969) “The effect of bureaucracy on the professional autonomy of the physician.”J. of Health and Social Behavior10: 30-41.
6.
ETZIONI, A.
(1969) “Preface,” pp. v-xviii in A. Etzioni (ed.) The Semi-Professions and Their Organization. New York: Macmillan.
7.
FREIDSON, E.
(1970a) Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.
8.
FREIDSON, E.
(1970b) Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care. New York: Atherton.
9.
GOODE, W. J.
(1969) “The theoretical limits of professionalization,” pp. 266-313 in A. Etzioni (ed.) The Semi-Professions and Their Organization. New York: Macmillan.
10.
GOULDNER, A. W.
(1954) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Macmillan.
11.
HALL, R. H.
(1969) Occupations and the Social Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
HALL, R. H.
(1968) “Professionalization and bureaucratization.”Amer. Soc. Rev.33: 92-104.
13.
JAMOUS, H.
and B. PELOILLE (1970) “Professions or self-perpetuating systems? Changes in the French university-hospital system,” pp. 111-152 in J. A. Jackson (ed.) Professions and Professionalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
14.
JOHNSON, T. J.
(1972) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
15.
KLEGON, D.
(1978) “The sociology of professions: an emerging perspective.”Sociology of Work and Occupations5: 259-283.
16.
LARSON, M. S.
(1977) The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
17.
LAWLER, E. J.
and J. HAGE (1973) “Professional-bureaucratic conflict and intraorganizational powerlessness among social workers.”J. of Sociology and Social Welfare1: 92-102.
18.
MERTON, R. K.
and A. KITT (1950) “Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior,” pp. 87-91 in R. K. Merton and P. F. Lazarfeld (eds.) Studies in the Scope and Method of “The American Soldier.”New York: Macmillan.
19.
OPPENHEIMER, M.
(1973) “The proletarianization of the professional,” pp. 213-228 in P. Halmos (ed.) The Sociological Review Monograph 20: Professionalization and Social Change. Keele, Staffordshire, England: University of Keele.
20.
PAVALKO, R. M.
(1971) Sociology of Occupations and Professions. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
21.
RITZER, G.
(1977) Working: Conflict and Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
THOMPSON, J. D.
(1967) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
WILENSKY, H. L.
(1964) “The professionalization of everyone?”Amer. J. of Sociology70: 137-158.
