Entrepreneurship, managerialism and professionalism in action: The case of the legal profession in England and Wales
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The world of the professions is a world of lasting stereotypes, rhetorical claims and deceptive appearances; it is a world where often things are not as they are claimed to be or even as they initially appear to be. In particular, there seems to be a certain gap between public conceptions and imageries of professionalism (often including the professions' own selfrepresentations) and current realities of professional work and organization (Sugarman & Pue, 2004). The world of professionalism has historically been represented as qualitatively different to the world of commerce, business and industry. Indeed, professionalism has often been defined as a specific occupational principle distinct from alternative work organization methods such as entrepreneurship and managerialism (Freidson, 2001). Notions and vocabularies of public interest, erudition, collegiality, self-regulation and individual autonomy or responsibility are routinely emphasized in both orthodox accounts and public representations of the professions. This is viewed as an alternative if not a palliative or corrective to the cut-throat world of business dominated by large bureaucratic organizations, competitive markets, managerial control, deskilling or dehumanizing tendencies and a markedly for-profit logic. It is of course debatable whether such understandings of the professions were ever accurate or if they were simply an unquestioned part of the mythology of the professions designed to render privileges and restrictive practices more palatable and publicly acceptable. This is increasingly so given some wide-ranging developments in the realities of professional work and its organization. Contemporary professionalism is certainly no small-scale affair, and the global professional services firms which employ thousands of practitioners in dozens of jurisdictions, providing the infrastructure of transnational capitalism, are far removed from the small, informal and familiar realities of a past era, when professional practice meant self-practice or partnership with a few others (usually relatives) (Abel, 1988). Today the majority of professionals are not self-employed but employees in large autonomous or heteronomous professional organizations (Larson, 1977). Employment status is certainly relevant, as it implies an exposure to managerial principles and bureaucratic practices, thus constraining traditional notions of professional autonomy, discretion and independence (Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2008; Raelin, 1991). Equally important, large professional services firms explicitly embody an entrepreneurial spirit, as they try to compete by continuously developing new markets, competences and products or services for their corporate clientele (Brock, Powell & Hinings, 1999; Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood & Brown, 1996; Empson, 2007). The result is a commercialized version of professionalism (Brint, 1994; Hanlon, 1998) where the premium lies in adding value (and crucially demonstrating value) to clients through the real-time delivery of technical solutions which address real or perceived business needs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».