Connective professionalism: Towards (yet another) ideal type

Adams, TL; Clegg, SR; Eyal, G; Reed, M; Saks, M

Connective professionalism: Towards (yet another) ideal type

Adams, TL Clegg, SR Eyal, G Reed, M Saks, M

Permalink

Publisher:: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Professions and Organization, 2020, 7, (2), pp. 224-233
Issue Date:: 2020-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	joaa013.pdf	Published version	345.68 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Adams, TL
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, SR
dc.contributor.author	Eyal, G
dc.contributor.author	Reed, M
dc.contributor.author	Saks, M
dc.date.accessioned	2020-10-02T20:17:31Z
dc.date.available	2020-10-02T20:17:31Z
dc.date.issued	2020-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Professions and Organization, 2020, 7, (2), pp. 224-233
dc.identifier.issn	2051-8803
dc.identifier.issn	2051-8811
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/143033
dc.description.abstract	In this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary in article entitled ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’ (M. Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2). Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf’s use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time. While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf’s use of them. The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Oxford University Press (OUP)
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Professions and Organization
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/jpo/joaa013
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Connective professionalism: Towards (yet another) ideal type
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	7
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2020-10-02T20:17:07Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	7
utslib.start-page	224
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

In this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary in article entitled ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’ (M. Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2). Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf’s use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time. While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf’s use of them. The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/143033