No abstract

Purpose and context: The purpose of the study was to explore the construction of professionalism in a multiple professional bodies (MPB) landscape in South Africa (SA) and demonstrate how this construction can be used to enhance a professional accreditation regime. Professional accreditation has become a pre-requisite for business rescue practitioners (BRPs). The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) licensing is linked to multiple professional bodies’ knowledge and practices but are not generic. This study was guided by one key question: How do PBs providing BRPs construct professionalism, and to what extent can the existing construction of professionalism facilitate the development of a professional accreditation regime? Research design and methods: A qualitative research design used required researchers to use four consecutive steps, namely (a) interviewing member services’ managers at four professional bodies (PBs); (b) systematic content analysis of codes of professional conduct and policy statements to identify constituent professionalism notions; (c) a systematic search of the literature to identify notions of professionalism mentioned in definitions and explanations of the construct; and (d) analysis of notions of professionalism using the constant comparison procedure to reveal critical themes. Results: A total of 90 separate notions of professionalism were identified in the 192 scholarly papers included in our study. The identified themes within business rescue practitioner (BRP) professionalism (emphasising relational aspects) point to practitioner dealings with (i) clients (business rescue candidates); (ii) government and others; (iii) the PB; and (iv) oneself to gain the essence of occupation. There is fragmentation between the constructed conceptualisations of professionalism among PBs, leading to an incoherent and inconsistent expert accreditation regime. Practical implications and value: The results from the indicated exploration steps were used to advance a programmatic framework to construct professionalism in an MPB landscape and set a future research agenda. The results also show that business rescue practitioners’ professionalism cannot be attained in a multi-professional body setting with an integrated professional accreditation framework.

No abstract

Business rescue practitioners (BRPs) are subject to many allegations of abuse and, therefore, professional accreditation has become a pre-requisite. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) licensing is linked to multiple professional bodies’ knowledge and practices but is not generic. This study was guided by one key question: What is BRPs’ accreditation’s current state in a multiple professional body occupation? We used data mapped to scholarly and documented policy sources, categorized results from extensive reading, and integrated critical constructs (after the deconstruction of concepts) to yield a conceptual framework to develop a comprehensive understanding of professional accreditation. The results confirm the existence of a legal framework and institutional arrangements that are not coherently applied because of the absence of a professional accreditation framework (PAF). The proposed conceptual framework captures the concepts of the business rescue domain, professionalism, competency, accreditation, and definition of key terms to provide an interpretive approach to the BRPs’ accreditation reality resulting in a PAF based on the integration of BRP tasks and services and accreditation, competency, and professionalism.

This essay paper provides methodological considerations for research on turnaround management (business rescue) practitioner (BRP) accreditation. The article responds to recent BRP licensing debates and the need to enhance BRP capabilities through continuing professional development (CPD). We assess existing data collection procedures using the practice theory and demonstrate sequenced integrated data collection procedures (IDCPs) to study BRPs’ professional accreditation frameworks. We illustrate IDCPs using a research design for “how BRPs should be accredited by their professional bodies (PBs) before obtaining a practice license”. The proposed IDCPs call for the purposeful interpretation of legislative instruments governing BRP work and other multiple-party data collection techniques. The paper lays out the problems associated with using questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews to document BRP practices and the required professional capabilities. We propose a research design to illustrate the application of the IDCPs in a multiple PB occupation.