Cornell University ILR School
DigitalCommons@ILR
Articles and Chapters
ILR Collection
6-1990
[Review of the book The System of Professions: An
Essay on the Division of Expert Labor]
Pamela S. Tolbert
Cornell University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles
Part of the Labor Relations Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR.
Support this valuable resource today!
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles
and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact [email protected].
[Review of the book The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of
Expert Labor]
Abstract
[Excerpt] In The System of Professions, Abbott directly confronts these important and long-neglected issues in
an original and highly thought-provoking approach to the analysis of professions. Focusing on the dynamics
through which occupations define their jurisdiction, or the right to control the provision of particular services
and activities, this approach draws attention to one of the most critical determinants of jurisdiction,
interprofessional competition. Based on an astoundingly wide, cross-cultural knowledge of the histories of a
variety of occupations, Abbott provides a rich and complex analysis of the nature of relationships among
professional occupations and the forces that shape these relationships over time.
Keywords
professions, jurisdiction, competition, relationships
Disciplines
Labor Relations | Organizational Behavior and Theory
Comments
Suggested Citation
Tolbert, P. S. (1990). [Review of the book The system of professions: An essay on the division of labor]
[Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 410-413.
Required Publisher Statement
Copyright held by Cornell University.
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/432
book is an important reading for researchers interested in the
science of administration.
Zur Shapira
Visiting Scholar
Russell Sage Foundation
1 12 E. 64th Street
New York, NY 10021
and
Department of Management
Stern School of Business
New York University
New York, NY 10003
REFERENCES
Bazerman, Max H.
1986 Judgmentin ManagerialDecision Making.New York:Wiley.
Bernoulli, Daniel
1738 "Specimentheoriaenovae de
mensurasortis."Commentarri
academiaescientiarumimperialespetropolitanae,5:
175-192.
Cyert, RichardM., and James G.
March
1963 A BehavioralTheoryof the
Firm.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Edwards,Ward
1954 "Thetheoryof decision
making."PsychologicalBulletin, 51: 380-417.
Elster,Jon (ed.)
1986 The MultipleSelf. New York:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kahneman, Daniel
1982 "Bureaucracies,mindsand the
humanengineeringof decisions." InGerardoUngsonand
DanielBraunstein(eds.), Decision Making:An InterdisciplinaryInquiry:121-125.
Boston: Kent.
Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic,
and Amos Tversky (eds.)
1982 Judgment under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases. New
York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos
Tversky
1979 "Prospect theory: An analysis
of decision under risk." Econometrica, 47: 263-291.
Keeney, Ralph L., and Howard
Raiffa
1976 Decisions with Multiple Objectives. New York: Wiley.
MacCrimmon, Kenneth R., and
Donald A. Wehrung
1986 Taking Risk: The Management
of Uncertainty. New York: Free
Press.
March, James G.
1988 Decisions and Organizations.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
March, James G., and Zur Shapira
1982 "Behavioral decision theory
and organizational decision
theory." In Gerardo Ungson
and Daniel Braunstein (eds.),
Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry:92-115.
Boston: Kent.
1987 "Managerial perspectives on
risk and risk taking." Management Science, 33: 1404-1418.
March,James G., and HerbertA.
Simon
1958 Organizations.New York:
Wiley.
Meehl, Paul E.
1954 Clinicalversus StatisticalPrediction:A TheoreticalAnalysis
and a Review of the Evidence.
Minneapolis,MN: University
of MinnesotaPress.
Simon, HerbertA.
1947 AdministrativeBehavior.New
York:Free Press.
Tversky,Amos, and Daniel
Kahneman
1981 "Theframingof decisions and
the psychologyof choice."
Science, 211: 453-458.
Ungson, GerardoR., and Daniel N.
Braunstein (eds.)
1982 DecisionMaking:An InterdisciplinaryInquiry.Boston: Kent.
Von Neumann, John, and Oscar
Morgenstern
1944 Theoryof Games and Economic Behavior.Princeton,NJ:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Von Winterfeldt,Detlof, and Ward
Edwards
1986 DecisionAnalysisand BehavioralResearch.New York:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of
Expert Labor.
Andrew Abbott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
435 pp. $49.94, cloth; $19.95, paper.
Studies of professions have traditionallybeen motivated by an
interest in explaining the dominant position of a few occupational groups (notably law and medicine) in the social stratification system. Although this concern is not always made
explicit, it is reflected in the focal questions that have guided
the vast majority of theoretical analyses of professions: What
characteristics distinguish professions from other occupa410/ASQ, June 1990
Book Reviews
tions, and how are these characteristicsrelatedto the economic and social power that is accorded professional
occupations?Althoughwork on these questions has generated a fairnumberof academic debates and yielded some interesting insights into the structuresand relationshipsthat
characterizecontemporaryprofessions, it rests on a fundamentallystatic view of the occupationalsystem, one that has
deflected attentionaway from issues of how occupations
achieve dominance in a system and how that dominance is
maintainedor altered over time.
In The System of Professions, Abbottdirectlyconfrontsthese
importantand long-neglectedissues in an originaland highly
approachto the analysisof professions.
thought-provoking
Focusingon the dynamicsthroughwhich occupationsdefine
theirjurisdiction,or the rightto controlthe provisionof particularservices and activities,this approachdraws attentionto
one of the most criticaldeterminantsof jurisdiction,interprofessional competition. Based on an astoundinglywide, crossculturalknowledge of the historiesof a varietyof occupations,
Abbottprovidesa richand complex analysis of the natureof
relationshipsamong professionaloccupations and the forces
that shape these relationshipsover time.
The core ideas that underpinAbbott'sapproachare provided
in the introductorychapter,containinga cogent review and
critiqueof previouslydeveloped theoreticalapproachesto the
analysis of professionaloccupations. He notes a numberof
key (thoughtypicallyimplicit)assumptions that characterize
earlierapproachesand the way in which the perspective and
analyses presented in this book reflect preciselythe opposite
set of assumptions. While most studies treat professionalization (ordeprofessionalization)of occupationsas a unidirectionalprocess, here it is assumed to be multidirectional;
some partsof an occupationmay become routinizedand cast
off, while others may become elaboratedand defined as the
core of the profession. In line with this, Abbott'sapproach
assumes that analysis of the tasks or work activitiesof occupations is the key to understandingchanges in professionalization.This contrasts with traditionalapproachesthat have
largelyignoredwork content, assuming social structuresand
culturalclaims to be the centralaspects of professions. A
thirdassumption is that an occupation'sabilityto assume exclusive controlof work activitiesdepends largelyon interprofessional competition;thus, the assumptionthat
professionalizingoccupations can be studied in isolationfrom
other occupations is rejected. His approachdirectlyfocuses
on differentiationwithin professions as a source of occupationalchange over time, suggesting that the common simplifying assumption of internalhomogeneity is problematic.And
finally,by drawingattentionto majorshifts that may occur
over time in a system of occupations, his analysis demands
examinationof the particularhistoricalcontext of interprofessional jurisdictionaldisputes in understandingthe process of
professionalization;thus, the conventionalassumptionthat
the process is not historicallytimeboundis also called into
question.
Also in sharpcontrastto traditionalstudies of professions that
typicallydevote considerabletime and energy to the task of
developinga precise definitionof "profession,"Abbottde41 1/ASQ,June 1990
fines the concept loosely, as "exclusiveoccupationalgroups
applyingsomewhat abstractknowledge to particularcases"
(p. 8). The critical,distinguishingcharacteristicof professional
occupations,from this perspective, is the possession of a
body of abstract knowledge on which the occupationbases
its claims for the exclusive rightto controlspecific work activities.
Giventhese general orientingassumptions and definition,the
book focuses on specifyingthe general conditionsand
sources of jurisdictionalchanges within a system of professions. It is organizedinto three majorsections. The first deals
with the processes and requirementsof the effective establishment and maintenanceof jurisdictionalclaims by occupations. Separate chapters consider the general natureof the
tasks that professions claim responsibilityfor carryingout and
how these tasks affect the viabilityof claims, the structures
throughwhich jurisdictionalclaims are advanced,judged, and
settled, the factors that set interprofessionalcompetitionfor
jurisdictionin motion, as well as historicallyand culturally
varyingcharacteristicsof occupationalsystems that affect the
extent of such competition.
The second section takes an existing system of occupational
relationsas its frame of reference and examines sources of
change in the system. These sources includeprocesses of
differentiationwithinoccupationsthat can affect interoccupationalpower relations,societal-levelchanges in technology
and organizationsthat create and destroy new activitiesover
which professions may vie for control,and culturalchanges
that affect the way in which jurisdictionalclaims are advanced
and legitimated.Separate chapters are devoted to a thorough
examinationof each of these sources.
The thirdand finalsection applies and illustratesideas developed in the precedingchapters in three case studies of what
could be called "professionalfields"-general areas of work
over which competing occupationsclaim domain.The first
study deals with the emergence and evolutionof "information professions," those involvingthe cataloguing,retrieval,
and decisions about the use of codified knowledge or information.The second study focuses more narrowlyon the legal
profession, comparingthe development of the profession in
Britainand the U.S., while the thirdstudy examines competition among occupations involvedin the provisionof psychologicaland emotionalcounseling services to individuals.
This is a brilliantand intellectuallystimulatingexpositionof a
majornew approachto studies of professions. By focusing on
the problemof jurisdictionalnegotiationsamong occupations,
it providesa much broader,more dynamicframeworkfor answering the traditionalquestions of how and why some occupationsachieve economic and social dominance in society.
More importantly,it points up a numberof importanttheoretical questions that have been neglected in previouswork:
Underwhat conditionswill members of an occupationmobilize to claim occupationalcontrolover some specified set of
work activities?What factors affect the strategies that are
used in pursuingsuch claims?And what factors affect the
success or failureof this pursuit?
Perhapsironically,one of the majormetatheoreticalissues
412/ASQ, June 1990
Book Reviews
that the book implicitlyraises concerns the ultimateutilityof
differentiatingprofessions from other occupations.As noted,
Abbottattempts to draw a boundaryaroundprofessionaloccupations in terms of the use of abstractknowledge to legitimate claims to controlof work activities. But with very few
exceptions, the work of most occupationsdoes potentiallyor
in fact rest on some type of abstractknowledge, and, as Abbott recognizes, the abstractknowledge on which an occupation bases its claims to professionalstatus may be only
tenuously relatedto the actualwork activitiesof its members.
A focus on professions, implyingqualitativedistinctions
among occupationalgroups, obviates importantinitialquestions about the conditions underwhich occupationalgroups
are likelyto develop and claiman abstractbody of knowledge
as the basis of theirwork. Think,for example, of the comparison of accountants and clericalworkers. While the tasks of
both groups involveorganizationalrecord-keepingresponsibilities, the formergroup has managed to constructa general,
more or less abstract knowledge base on which professional
status is claimed; the latterhas not.
The question of the utilityof focusing on professions does
not, however, detractat all from Abbott'sanalysis. Indeed,
the analysis largelyanticipatesthis issue: It is easy to insert
"occupation"for "profession"in the writingand little is lost.
As Abbott observes (p. 317), "The system approachoffers a
way of thinkingabout divisionsof laborin general."Thus, the
book should be, and is likelyto become, requiredreadingfor
anyone interested in understandingthe relationshipbetween
occupations and organizationsand, more generally,the dynamics of occupationalchange and influence in society.
Pamela S. Tolbert
Assistant Professor
School of Industrialand LaborRelations
CornellUniversity
Ithaca,NY 14853
Women, Work and Divorce.
RichardR. Peterson. Albany,NY:State Universityof New
YorkPress, 1989. 200 pp. $39.50, cloth; $12.95, paper.
Women, Work,and Divorce,an intriguingbook on an important topic, addresses two issues, the first of general interest
to both scholars and the general public,the second of special
concern to those who study laborsupplyand demand. First,
the book explores the economic consequences of divorcefor
women and, more generally,how women balancework and
familyissues. Second, the research presented informsus
about the relativemerits of structuraland individualistexplanations of labormarkets.
The value of the book stems from several sources. First,the
authorused data and analyticalproceduresthat advance the
field. Second, he extended previousschemes used to categorize the maritalstatus of women. Third,he comparedpredictions from two differenttheoreticalbases.
The method used to study these issues is extremely pow413/ASQ, June 1990