CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Management and Organizational StudiesInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationRobotic Process Automation Applications

How Professionals Adapt to Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Intertwined Boundary Work

Open access
Faulconbridge, James, Sarwar, Atif, Spring, Martin·2025·Journal of Management Studies
DOI 10.1111/joms.12936
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has generated extensive debates about the future of work in the professions. However, few studies take account of the potential for AI's disruptive effects to trigger robust defence by professionals of their interests and resources. By examining the adoption of AI in accounting and law professional service firms (PSFs), we show how professionals respond through intertwined boundary work , this being the process by which professionals respond to disruptions and protect interests and resources by engaging in multiple interdependent modes of boundary work. We also examine the way professionals collaborate with other groups as part of intertwined boundary work , and the implications for some key features of PSF organization. Our study reveals that the responses of professionals to AI are leading to new types of professional work and services. This means that rather than spelling the ‘end of the professions’, AI is leading to reconfigured forms of professional activity, jurisdiction, and PSFs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joms.12936

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Much of the current debate on AI in healthcare is centred on radiology because it is a specialism in which AI is seen as offering the greatest promise of widespread use and patient benefits.

    “Much of the current debate on AI in healthcare is centred on the field of radiology since this is a specialism in which AI is seen as offering the greatest promise of widespread use and patient benefits (Faulconbridge et al., 2023;Loder and Nicholas, 2018).”

    From The AI of the Beholder: Intra‐Professional Sensemaking of an Epistemic Technology (2025) · cites this paper as Faulconbridge et al., 2023

    The BOUNDARIES AND BOUNDARY WORK section (p. 5) describes radiologists as among the healthcare professionals affected earliest and most significantly by AI, supporting radiology's relevance to the discussion. It does not say that much of the healthcare AI debate centres on radiology or that radiology offers the greatest promise of widespread use and patient benefits. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Adler, P . S. and Kwon, S. W. (2013). 'The mutation of professionalism as a contested diffusion process: clinical guidelines as carriers of institutional change in medicine'. Journal of Management Studies , 50 , 930-­ 62.
  2. Anthony, C. (2021). 'When knowledge work and analytical technologies collide: The practices and consequences of black boxing algorithmic technologies'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 6 , 00018392211016755.
  3. Armour, J. and Sako, M. (2020). ' AI-­ enabled business models in legal services: From traditional law firms to next-­ generation law companies?' Journal of Professions and Organization , 7 , 27-­ 46.
  4. Bos-­ de Vos, M., Lieftink, B. M. and Lauche, K. (2019). 'How to claim what is mine: Negotiating professional roles in inter-­ organizational projects'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 6 , 128-­ 55.
  5. Boussebaa, M. and Faulconbridge, J. R. (2019). 'Professional service firms as agents of economic globalization: A political perspective'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 6 , 72-­ 90.
  6. Chia, R. C. and Holt, R. (2009). Strategy without Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cornelissen, J. P . (2017). 'Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed'. Journal of Management Studies , 54 , 368-­ 83.
  8. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L. and Neysen, N. (2020). 'Working for an algorithm: power asymmetries and agency in online work settings'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 65 , 644-­ 76.
  9. Empson, L. (2017). Leading Professionals: Power, Politics, and Prima Donnas . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Feyereisen, S. and Goodrick, E. (2019). 'Who is in charge? Jurisdictional contests and organizational outcomes'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 6 , 233-­ 45.
  11. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The Third Logic . Cambridge: Polity.
  12. Gieryn, T . F . (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006). 'Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms'. Academy of Management Journal , 49 , 27-­ 48.
  14. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. and Brown, J. S. (1990). ''P2-­ Form' strategic management: Corporate practices in professional partnerships'. Academy of Management Journal , 33 , 725-­ 55.
  15. Guihot, M. (2018). 'New technology, the death of the biglaw monopoly and the evolution of the computer professional'. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology , 20 , 405-­ 69.
  16. Hardy, M. and Harvey, H. (2020). ' Artificial intelligence in diagnostic imaging: impact on the radiography profession'. The British Journal of Radiology , 93 , 20190840.
  17. Hazgui, M. and Gendron, Y . (2015). 'Blurred roles and elusive boundaries: On contemporary forms of oversight surrounding professional work'. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , 28 , 1234-­ 62.
  18. Huising, R. (2015). 'To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 60 , 263-­ 99.
  19. Kellogg, K. C. (2019). 'Subordinate activation tactics: semi-­ professionals and micro-­ level institutional change in professional organizations'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 64 , 928-­ 75.
  20. Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the Guilds . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  21. Lamont, M. and Molnár, V . (2002). 'The study of boundaries in the social sciences'. Annual Review of Sociology , 28 , 167-­ 95.
  22. Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E. and Walter, L. (2019). 'Boundary work among groups, occupations, and organizations: From cartography to process'. Academy of Management Annals , 13 , 704-­ 36.
  23. Liu, S. (2018). 'Boundaries and professions: Toward a processual theory of action'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 5 , 45-­ 57.
  24. Markovic, M. (2019). 'Rise of the Robot Lawyers'. Arizona Law Review , 61 , 325-­ 50.
  25. Muzio, D., Brock, D. M. and Suddaby, R. (2013). 'Professions and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions'. Journal of Management Studies , 50 , 699-­ 721.
  26. Nelson, A. J. and Irwin, J. (2014). ''Defining what we do -­ all over again': occupational identity , technological change, and the librarian/internet-­ search relationship'. Academy of Management Journal , 57 , 892-­ 928.
  27. Noordegraaf, M. (2020). 'Protective or connective professionalism? How connected professionals can (still) act as autonomous and authoritative experts'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 7 , 205-­ 23.
  28. Powell, M. J., Brock, D. M. and Hinings, C. R. (Eds.) (1999). 'The changing professional organization'. In Restructuring the Professional Organization . London and New York: Corporates, cobwebs and cowboys.
  29. Quick, K. S. and Feldman, M. S. (2014). 'Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience'. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 24 , 673-­ 95.
  30. Scott, W . R. (2008). 'Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents'. Organization Studies , 29 , 219-­ 38. Seabrooke, L. and Tsingou, E. (2015). 'Professional emergence on transnational issues: Linked ecologies on demographic change'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 2 , 1-­ 18.
  31. Smets, M., Morris, T . and Greenwood, R. (2012). 'From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-­ driven institutional change'. Academy of Management Journal , 55 , 877-­ 904.
  32. Smets, M., Morris, T ., von Nordenflycht, A. and Brock, D. M. (2017). '25 years since 'P2': Taking stock and charting the future of professional firms'. Journal of Professions and Organization , 4 , 91-­ 111.
  33. Spring, M., Faulconbridge, J. R. and Sarwar, A. (2022). 'How information technology automates and augments processes: Insights from artificial-­ intelligence-­ based systems in professional service operations'. Journal of Operations Management , 68 , 592-­ 618.
  34. Truelove, E. and Kellogg, K. C. (2016). 'The radical flank effect and cross-­ occupational collaboration for technology development during a power shift'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 61 , 662-­ 701.
  35. Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). 'What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-­ intensive firms'. Academy of Management Review , 35 , 155-­ 74.
  36. Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T . B. (2010). 'Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work'. Administrative Science Quarterly , 55 , 189-­ 221.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faulconbridge, J., Sarwar, A., & Spring, M.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Liverpool Hope University (GB)
Corresponding author
Faulconbridge, James
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-05-31
Volume
62
Issue
5
Pages
1991-2024
ISSN
  • 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6486
DOI
10.1111/joms.12936
OpenAlex
W4378900904
Cited by
118
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6
FWCI
34.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Management Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Hope's Institutional Research Archive (Liverpool Hope University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
UK Research and Innovation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
Keywords
artificial intelligence, professional service firms, accounting profession, legal profession, professional adaptation, disruption, professional activity, future of work, professional jurisdiction

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