The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Professionalization of Everyone?
Abstract
A popular generalization is that occupations are becoming "professionalized". The label is loosely applied to increasing specialization and transferability of skill, the proliferation of objective standards of work, the spread of tenure arrangements, licensing, or certification, and the growth of service occupations. This paper argues that these loose criteria are less essential for understanding professional organization than the traditional model of professionalism which emphasizes autonomous expertise and the service ideal. Examination of the history of eighteen occupations uncovers a typical process by which the established professions have arrived. Among newer and marginal "professions," deviations from the process can be explained by power struggles and status strivings common to all occupations. Barriers to professionalization are pinpointed. Analisis of the optimal "technical" base for professionalism suggests that knowledge or doctrine which is too general and vague or too narrow and specific provides a weak base for an exclusive jurisdiction. Data on the clash between professional, organizational, and client orientations among 490 professors, lawyers, and engineers suggest that (1) bureaucracy may enfeeble the service ideal more than it threatens autonomy; (2) a client orientation undermines colleague control and professional norms. The main theme: (1) very few occupations will achieve the authority of the established professions; (2) if we call everything professionalization, we obscure the newer structural forms now emerging.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Understanding Professional Culture in Organizational Context
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069401500205 · Cited by 363
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Expertise and Flexibility: a Cognitive Entrenchment Perspective
Dane, E. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok579 · Cited by 603
Factors Influencing Organized Political Participation in Nursing
Cramer, M. E. (2002) · Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice · doi:10.1177/152715440200300203 · Cited by 55
“To be or not to be a profession: The military case”
Downes, C. J. (1985) · Defense Analysis · doi:10.1080/07430178508405201 · Cited by 41
Adams, T. L. (2020) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-020-00501-y · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilensky, H. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1964-09
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 137-158
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2058107732
- Cited by
- 2,381
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Professionalization of Everyone? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/223790
- The paper
- Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The Professionalization of Everyone? American Journal of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1086/223790
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.