Bibliographic record
Abstract
In sociology, ‘the professional project’ is understood as a collective endeavour of occupational groups that only succeeds if those groups possess, and control access to, a unique stock of knowledge. Urban sociologists have been critical of public housing managers’ collective endeavours to present themselves as a profession because they use generic knowledge and common sense in their work. They also argue that ‘the professional project’ of housing management is being further under-mined by the ‘performance ethos’, since this now allows service managers to exert even more control over what public housing managers do and thus de-skills them even more. Our argument is that this analysis of the impact of the performance ethos is based on a conceptually limiting view of power as a repressive force that enforces ‘blanket restrictions’ on group activity, i.e. what professional groups are free to do. Conversely, we adopt a Foucauldian view of power because it better explains our research findings. Foucault suggests that power does not simply repress group activity. Power is also appropriated by individuals who use it to redefine themselves, e.g. who and what they are. We draw on our empirical data to show how individual housing managers were appropriating the performance culture in productive ways to achieve their own individual ends (i.e. to ‘work on’ their professional selves so as to re-define themselves and thus their individual claim to professional status). We use this analysis to argue that an individualized (as opposed to collective) ‘professional project of the self’ is emerging in housing management that has not yet been adequately captured in the sociological literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".