The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions
Open accessAbstract
Beginning with this article, our special issue advances the understanding of the role of professions in processes of institutional change and through this it proposes a retheorization of contemporary professionalism. Using institutionalist lenses in professional settings, we highlight the relationship between professionalization and broader institutionalization projects. We start by critically reviewing existing approaches in the sociology of the professions, identifying a functionalist and a conflict‐based approach. Then, we build on and further elaborate an institutionalist perspective on professional work. Such a perspective affirms the importance of studying professions as institutions and connecting professionalization to broader patterns of institutionalization; it highlights the role of professions and professionals as agents in the creation, maintenance, and disruption of institutions, and recognizes the importance of accommodating contemporary patterns of professionalization within the organizational context. We also illustrate how, empirically, the eight papers in this issue advance our understanding of professional agency in contemporary change and, theoretically, contribute to the reconceptualization of the study of professionalism. Finally, we briefly summarize our contribution and identify a series of directions for further research.
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
Cites
The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor
Abbott, A. (1988) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001 · Cited by 7,733
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786060 · Cited by 1,973
The Appeal to ‘Professionalism’ as a Disciplinary Mechanism
Fournier, V. (1999) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/1467-954x.00173 · Cited by 779
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-2093 · Cited by 356
Cited by
How Professionals Adapt to Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Intertwined Boundary Work
Faulconbridge, J., Sarwar, A., & Spring, M. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12936 · Cited by 118
Relational Expertise: What Machines Can't Know
Pakarinen, P., & Huising, R. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12915 · Cited by 105
The AI of the Beholder: Intra‐Professional Sensemaking of an Epistemic Technology
Scarbrough, H., Chen, Y., & Patriotta, G. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13065 · Cited by 53
Rebooting One’s Professional Work: The Case of French Anesthesiologists Using Hypnosis
Bourmault, N., & Anteby, M. (2023) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392231190300 · Cited by 12
Koljonen, T., & Chan, C. K. (2024) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2022.1093 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-06-13
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 699-721
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2140703634
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 64.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.