Bresnen, M (2013) Advancing a new professionalism: Professionalization, practice and institutionalization. Building Research & Information, 41(6), pp. 735-741. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
By way of review and response to the Building Research & Information special issue entitled New Professionalism (2013, volume 40, number 1), compiled by Bordass and Leaman, this paper assesses the potential and prospects for changes to the system of professions in construction associated with a shift towards sustainability. The paper builds on and develops the analysis of professionals and professionalization in the special issue, forming a bridge with other contemporary work in organization studies and the sociology of the professions. The creation of a new professionalism that transcends existing divisions amongst building professions will present a number of challenges. Amongst these are, on the one hand, the interweaving of processes of professionalization and institutionalization and, on the other hand, the influence of practice. Suggestions are provided on how the themes and issues raised in the special issue can be taken forward in both research and practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agents of change; built environment; communities of practice; construction industry; institutional theory; professionalism; professionalization; professions |
| Index terms: | professionalism, agent, construction industry, profession, built environment, sociology, institutionalization, building research, institutional theory, professionalization, communities of practice |
| Subjects: | practitioner, institututions, knowledge management, social theory, professional development, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, research management |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here