Suchergebnisse

AbstractA variety of theories have been proposed to explain why states pass legislation to regulate professional groups, and why, more recently, they have acted to curtail professional privileges. While these theories have drawn attention to the importance of power dynamics and public protection, among other factors, the role of political interests has been downplayed. This article builds on ecological theory to argue that, with some modifications, the theory illuminates the centrality of state‐profession relations and politics to regulatory change. The theory is applied to a case study of regulatory change in British Columbia, Canada impacting resources‐sector professions, with particular attention to the controversies and political considerations that shaped reform. The case study suggests that when the political and professions ecologies are overlapping and symbiotic, as they were in BC, a challenge in the political ecology can implicate professions, prompting a solution that brings change within both ecologies.

AbstractResearch has documented how the decline in professional self-regulation in the UK and Australia was led by policy-makers in response to regulatory failures. In Canada, professional self-regulation is currently in decline as well, and while policy-makers have driven some change it is also the case that self-regulating professions have begun to transform themselves from within: altering their structure, make-up, and processes to enhance fairness, public input, and accountability, while reducing professional control. Why would they do so? This paper draws on the concept of institutional isomorphism to understand why professional regulators would invoke changes that, on the surface, might seem to counteract their own interests. Analysing data from 46 interviews with leaders in healthcare profession regulation, this paper examines how coercive, mimetic, and normative processes drive regulatory reform in a changing regulatory field.

Professions are regulated in the public interest, but precisely what the term "public interest" means can vary across time and place. Research exploring changes to professional regulation in the West has begun to identify such shifts: for instance, highlighting the emphasis on consumer satisfaction and public protection over other potential meanings of the public interest. To understand these societal shifts and their implications for professional regulation, this article first reviews neo-Weberian theories of rationalization, and empirical literature. Subsequently, it presents findings from interviews with regulatory leaders across six Canadian provinces to determine if the trends in rationalization identified are reflected in leaders' accounts of professional regulation in the public interest. Interviews reveal that many leaders define the public interest in ways consistent with technical rationality, including a safety lens and consumer orientation; however, there is also evidence of broader meanings and values. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Given their positions of public trust, regulated professions are legally required to uphold ethical standards, and ensure that professional practice protects the public. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that professionals do not always behave ethically. One proposed solution is greater organizational surveillance; however, research from a neo-Weberian perspective encourages scepticism about such arguments. Organizations may not only fail to stop professionals from violating ethical codes, but rationalizing organizations might actively encourage such violations in the name of efficiency. This article explores the impact of organizations and rationalization on professional misconduct through a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada. Findings suggest engineers are impacted by rationalization, and that those with less decision-making authority experience pressures discouraging practice in the public interest.

AbstractA plethora of studies have documented the changing nature of professional work and the organizations in which it takes place. Among the most documented trends are the emergence of managerial–professional hybrid workers and professional (re)stratification. Although the links between these two trends have been noted, their interconnections have not been fully explored. This article analyzes data from a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada, to explore the extent to which they experience conflicting logics, hybridity, resistance, and restratification. Findings indicate that many engineers could be classified as hybrid, as they see managerial roles as an extension of engineering. At the same time, many others see managers as oppositional to engineers, with different priorities. On the whole, there is evidence of restratification as the work experiences, professional attitudes, and responses to conflicting logics (hybridity or resistance) vary between managers and employees. This restratification has the potential to undermine professional unity.