Shifting Heuristics in the Sociological Approach to Professional Trustworthiness

Abstract

The aim of this article is to raise social-scientific awareness about the growing disenchantment with basic assumptions about the progressive outcomes of western-styled ‘modernity’ and ‘modernization’ and how western society is standing up to such a disquieting historical trajectory and facing the challenge of other emerging models. As there is no doubt that only a substantial cultural change could counteract the trend, the article deals with that part of the western epistemic community that embodies the highest cultural capital, namely learned professions, by asking what theoretical and practical limits are they reaching? Are they accountable for the ongoing general situation? Are their knowledge, commitment and performance socially adequate? If not, do professional work, action and trustworthiness require new analytical, social and moral foundations? A plausible answer to these questions seems to be offered by the abandonment of traditionally dominant formal-rational methodology, a return to the concept of substantive rationality and the appraisal of the multidisciplinary advancements provided by sociology of science. In this respect, the analysis stresses the limits of dominant sociological approaches to professions, by centring on the notion of status-role and by enlightening the pivotal importance of the indeterminacy of knowledge as primary professional traits of professionalism. Consequently, it suggests the need for a radical theoretical revision of common views about sources, forms and degrees of socioprofessional reliability, trustworthiness and confidence, given the fact that such a revision is anyhow required in practice by the new trajectories of the profession power–knowledge nexus in the age of the risk–knowledge society.

Health social work: Professional identity and knowledge

“…In this study, a process approach is employed in the discussion of how professions develop, for many definitional issues still preoccupy sociologists of occupations. There is a general agreement that power, mandate, trust, expertise and some form of public exchange of value (professional capital) are crucial elements in the discourse of professions (Evetts, 2006; Olgiati, 2006) as it develops over time, although each of these alone provides an insufficient explanation of professional status. Roach Anleu explores the nature of mandate in her qualitative case study of three groups of social workers: child welfare workers, probation officers and hospital social workers in Australia.…”

The social work professionalisation project before the 1990s in Aotearoa New Zealand: The dream

“…coupled with control over entrance to the training (Daniel, 2013;Orme et al, 2009), commitment to service (Brill, 2001), autonomy of action (Olgiati, 2006), prestige and remuneration and fiduciary relations with clients. There is however, no consensus as to the essential traits that may be used to clarify the difference between professions and occupations (Wilensky, 1964).…”

“…Professionalisation is a term which can describe both an individual's socialisation process into the context of an occupation and also the process by which an occupational group aspires to professional status that is shared internally and recognised externally. Further the occupational group becomes a moral community that is potentially important to civil society (Beddoe, 2013a;Evetts, 2006a;Olgiati, 2006). The International Federation of Social Work provides a global definition of social work which states… Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people.…”

L’accommodation des valeurs professionnelles aux valeurs culturelles chez les bibliothécaires universitaires sénégalais

“…La définition du concept constitue même un sujet de controverse théorique (Nolin 2008;Olgiati 2006;Dubar & Tripier 2005;Brante 2001;Freidson 1994). Plusieurs courants de recherche (fonctionnalisme, interactionnisme, courant critique, etc.)…”