Linda Fan, C N; Christabel Ho, M H and Ng, V (2001) Effect of professional socialization on quantity surveyors' ethical perceptions in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(4), pp. 304-312. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper proposes conducting extensive cross-profession comparison regarding perceptions of various professionals towards professional ethics as the first step in professional ethics inquiry. The authors argue that concepts and perceptions of professional ethics result from the prolonged professional socialization process during both college/university and industry training. Differences in professional ethics conceptions both within and between professions can be ascribed to differences in training. For college/university training these differences may lie in varying professional course contents and arrangements, diverse educational professional development (CPD) courses offered by various professional institutions, codes of conduct drafted by professional institutions and corporations, personal work experience may account for these differences. However, this pluralist explanation of these differences is not the end of the inquiry, but rather explicitly points to the difficulty of resolving the conceptual array in professional ethics inquiry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cross-profession; ethical behaviour; ethical perceptions; professional ethics; professional socialization; quantity surveying |
| Index terms: | professional ethics, Hong Kong, surveying, profession, professional development, ethical behaviour, quantity surveying |
| Subjects: | institututions, Geography, ethical practice, profession, ethical issues, professional development, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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