Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Abstract

According to Charles Perrow (1972) it was a footnote in Talcott Parsons’ introduction to his translation of Weber’s Economy and Society that made the hard-lived dilemma of expertise and discipline famous. Parsons (1947) declared that Weber confused two types of authority; one based on technical competence and one based on legally defined office. Perrow notes that although Weber never himself made such a distinction, Parsons’ footnote is ‘possibly the most important in the history of organizational theory’ as it has led to an understanding of professionals as being in a conflict between their ‘professional values’ and more bureaucratic values and obligations linked to their professional office. Following Parsons’ seminal writings, this imagined discrepancy has led to a myriad of images of professionalism as a kind of resistance or power struggle against bureaucratic or hierarchical control within the sociology of professions. Most prominently perhaps Eliot Freidson Professionalism, The Third Logic (2001) in which he argues for professionalism and bureaucracy as to contrasting institutional logics and thereby for an inherent conflict between the authority of expertise and the authority of office.
In this paper, I take the medical profession as a case to rethink the relation, interdependence and possible overlap between these two types of authority. Based on readings of classic medical sociology and on fieldwork conducted in a Danish university hospital, the paper investigate the question of authority in the clinic and it is shown how it is impossible to understand medical professionals as merely extra-organizational selves in supposedly collegial organizations. Rather, it is shown how medical expertise is often transmitted exactly through hierarchy and a clear distribution of responsibility, duty and role-obligation.
According to Charles Perrow (1972) it was a footnote in Talcott Parsons’ introduction to his translation of Weber’s Economy and Society that made the hard-lived dilemma of expertise and discipline famous. Parsons (1947) declared that Weber confused two types of authority; one based on technical competence and one based on legally defined office. Perrow notes that although Weber never himself made such a distinction, Parsons’ footnote is ‘possibly the most important in the history of organizational theory’ as it has led to an understanding of professionals as being in a conflict between their ‘professional values’ and more bureaucratic values and obligations linked to their professional office. Following Parsons’ seminal writings, this imagined discrepancy has led to a myriad of images of professionalism as a kind of resistance or power struggle against bureaucratic or hierarchical control within the sociology of professions. Most prominently perhaps Eliot Freidson Professionalism, The Third Logic (2001) in which he argues for professionalism and bureaucracy as to contrasting institutional logics and thereby for an inherent conflict between the authority of expertise and the authority of office.
In this paper, I take the medical profession as a case to rethink the relation, interdependence and possible overlap between these two types of authority. Based on readings of classic medical sociology and on fieldwork conducted in a Danish university hospital, the paper investigate the question of authority in the clinic and it is shown how it is impossible to understand medical professionals as merely extra-organizational selves in supposedly collegial organizations. Rather, it is shown how medical expertise is often transmitted exactly through hierarchy and a clear distribution of responsibility, duty and role-obligation.

Conference

ConferenceXIX ISA World Congress of Sociology 2018
Number19
CountryCanada
CityToronto
Period15/07/201821/07/2018
Internet address

Bibliographical note

CBS Library does not have access to the material

Cite this

Pedersen, K. (2018). Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office. Paper presented at XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology 2018, Toronto , Canada.
Pedersen, Kirstine. / Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office. Paper presented at XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology 2018, Toronto , Canada.
@conference{36a677fa37704928a89cdc59ff590ed7,
title = "Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office",
abstract = "According to Charles Perrow (1972) it was a footnote in Talcott Parsons’ introduction to his translation of Weber’s Economy and Society that made the hard-lived dilemma of expertise and discipline famous. Parsons (1947) declared that Weber confused two types of authority; one based on technical competence and one based on legally defined office. Perrow notes that although Weber never himself made such a distinction, Parsons’ footnote is ‘possibly the most important in the history of organizational theory’ as it has led to an understanding of professionals as being in a conflict between their ‘professional values’ and more bureaucratic values and obligations linked to their professional office. Following Parsons’ seminal writings, this imagined discrepancy has led to a myriad of images of professionalism as a kind of resistance or power struggle against bureaucratic or hierarchical control within the sociology of professions. Most prominently perhaps Eliot Freidson Professionalism, The Third Logic (2001) in which he argues for professionalism and bureaucracy as to contrasting institutional logics and thereby for an inherent conflict between the authority of expertise and the authority of office.In this paper, I take the medical profession as a case to rethink the relation, interdependence and possible overlap between these two types of authority. Based on readings of classic medical sociology and on fieldwork conducted in a Danish university hospital, the paper investigate the question of authority in the clinic and it is shown how it is impossible to understand medical professionals as merely extra-organizational selves in supposedly collegial organizations. Rather, it is shown how medical expertise is often transmitted exactly through hierarchy and a clear distribution of responsibility, duty and role-obligation.",
author = "Kirstine Pedersen",
note = "CBS Library does not have access to the material; null ; Conference date: 15-07-2018 Through 21-07-2018",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
url = "https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/wc2018/cfp.cgi",

}

Pedersen, K 2018, 'Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office' Paper presented at, Toronto , Canada, 15/07/2018 - 21/07/2018, .

Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office. / Pedersen, Kirstine.

2018. Paper presented at XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology 2018, Toronto , Canada.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

TY - CONF

T1 - Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office

AU - Pedersen,Kirstine

N1 - CBS Library does not have access to the material

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - According to Charles Perrow (1972) it was a footnote in Talcott Parsons’ introduction to his translation of Weber’s Economy and Society that made the hard-lived dilemma of expertise and discipline famous. Parsons (1947) declared that Weber confused two types of authority; one based on technical competence and one based on legally defined office. Perrow notes that although Weber never himself made such a distinction, Parsons’ footnote is ‘possibly the most important in the history of organizational theory’ as it has led to an understanding of professionals as being in a conflict between their ‘professional values’ and more bureaucratic values and obligations linked to their professional office. Following Parsons’ seminal writings, this imagined discrepancy has led to a myriad of images of professionalism as a kind of resistance or power struggle against bureaucratic or hierarchical control within the sociology of professions. Most prominently perhaps Eliot Freidson Professionalism, The Third Logic (2001) in which he argues for professionalism and bureaucracy as to contrasting institutional logics and thereby for an inherent conflict between the authority of expertise and the authority of office.In this paper, I take the medical profession as a case to rethink the relation, interdependence and possible overlap between these two types of authority. Based on readings of classic medical sociology and on fieldwork conducted in a Danish university hospital, the paper investigate the question of authority in the clinic and it is shown how it is impossible to understand medical professionals as merely extra-organizational selves in supposedly collegial organizations. Rather, it is shown how medical expertise is often transmitted exactly through hierarchy and a clear distribution of responsibility, duty and role-obligation.

AB - According to Charles Perrow (1972) it was a footnote in Talcott Parsons’ introduction to his translation of Weber’s Economy and Society that made the hard-lived dilemma of expertise and discipline famous. Parsons (1947) declared that Weber confused two types of authority; one based on technical competence and one based on legally defined office. Perrow notes that although Weber never himself made such a distinction, Parsons’ footnote is ‘possibly the most important in the history of organizational theory’ as it has led to an understanding of professionals as being in a conflict between their ‘professional values’ and more bureaucratic values and obligations linked to their professional office. Following Parsons’ seminal writings, this imagined discrepancy has led to a myriad of images of professionalism as a kind of resistance or power struggle against bureaucratic or hierarchical control within the sociology of professions. Most prominently perhaps Eliot Freidson Professionalism, The Third Logic (2001) in which he argues for professionalism and bureaucracy as to contrasting institutional logics and thereby for an inherent conflict between the authority of expertise and the authority of office.In this paper, I take the medical profession as a case to rethink the relation, interdependence and possible overlap between these two types of authority. Based on readings of classic medical sociology and on fieldwork conducted in a Danish university hospital, the paper investigate the question of authority in the clinic and it is shown how it is impossible to understand medical professionals as merely extra-organizational selves in supposedly collegial organizations. Rather, it is shown how medical expertise is often transmitted exactly through hierarchy and a clear distribution of responsibility, duty and role-obligation.

UR - https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/wc2018/webprogram/Paper103580.html

M3 - Paper

ER -

Pedersen K. Professionalism between the Authority of Expertise and the Authority of Office. 2018. Paper presented at XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology 2018, Toronto , Canada.