The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risky Business: How Professionals and Professional Fields (Must) Deal with Organizational Issues
Abstract
As professionals belong to occupational systems but also increasingly work inside organizations, new linkages between occupational and organizational domains are required, but they are difficult to develop. Occupational principles and professional standards are usually considered to be at odds with managerial and organizational control principles. This generates academic and practical dualisms. Either a return to professionalism is advocated in order to protect occupational spaces and ‘rescue’ professional work, or there is a move beyond professionalism in order to restrict autonomies and discipline professional work. This article argues that both stances are unsatisfactory and that new forms of organized professionalism are called for. Changing circumstances force professional services to respond to external changes that call for organizational capacities, also inside professional domains: (a) professionals develop new work preferences and seek organized work conditions; (b) professionals face new cases , which are difficult to categorize and call for well-organized multi-professional acts; (c) due to critical attention for case treatment and incidents, professionals face new risks that have to be managed. The article shows how these realities are incorporated in professional practices – albeit slowly – and it draws normative conclusions. Professionals must take organizing and managing more seriously and will have to develop organizational capacities. In addition, connective organizational standards must be established in order to strengthen the viability and legitimacy of professional services in demanding times.
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
A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS
HOOD, C. (1991) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x · Cited by 10,159
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
Bucher, R., & Strauss, A. (1961) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/222898 · Cited by 821
The Appeal to ‘Professionalism’ as a Disciplinary Mechanism
Fournier, V. (1999) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/1467-954x.00173 · Cited by 779
Cited by
Coping During Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature
Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu056 · Cited by 756
Chen, Y., Stavropoulou, C., Narasinkan, R., Baker, A., & Scarbrough, H. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06861-y · Cited by 87
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Noordegraaf, M.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1349-1371
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2130689033
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 35.29
- 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
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.