What is a Profession?

May 21, 2009

london-thames.jpg

One of the key questions posed at the outset of Spada’s White Paper, British Professions Today: the State of the Sector, is one of definition. What exactly do we mean when we refer to “the professions”? What kind of person do we have in mind when we talk about “a professional”? Are “professionals” susceptible to definition, or, in the modern world, is the class now so large that it is fruitless trying to confine it within what, to some, might be an antiquated linguistic model?

Spada’s researchers adopted Sir Alan Langlands’ working definition from his Gateways to the Professions report. The professions comprise those occupations “where a first degree followed by a period of further study or professional training is the normal entry route and where there is a professional body overseeing standards of entry into the profession”.

But there is, of course, much more to an individual’s acquisition of the tag “professional”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a professional occupation as “an occupation in which a professed knowledge of some subject, field, or science is applied; a vocation or career; especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification.” Already, then, we have strayed from the traditional professions – doctor, lawyer, accountant – into the realm of, for example, the military, or public relations, or even, if we wish to think laterally, sport. No wonder, indeed, that we live in a world of the “professional footballer”.

But the professional footballer isn’t what Spada’s White Paper is about. Nor, really, is he what the majority will have in mind if they are tasked with identifying a professional occupation. Perhaps the key to the assumptions we make in this area is provided by Lord Benson, who, in the House of Lords in 1992, said that to be professional is, to a large degree, to act in the public interest. A key factor, said Lord Benson, was the degree to which individuals in a profession and their governing body acted ethically.

This must surely be crucial. The professional who never misses a deadline is also acting honourably, in accordance with the principle that if you say you’re going to do something, you should.  There is more to this than duty and obligation, and much more than kicking a ball. As Spada’s report acknowledges, there may not be hard and fast lines of definition, but there are ethical principles at work here. The professional who doesn’t acknowledge this might not be as professional as he thinks.

Beautiful, and, indeed, professional image of London courtesy of Joep R.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.

Not so right said Fred

February 2, 2012
fred hat

So Farewell, then, Sir Fred Goodwin.

Now you are just Fred.

Not Right Said Fred, but plain Fred.

The Forfeiture Committee did for you.

No one had heard of it before,

But Dave said it had to act, and it did.

Trouble is that no one knows what to think.

Is it ‘Alas, poor Fred‘,

Or ‘Hurray! Sir Fred is dead!’?

We don’t know.

Do you?

By A. Mob, aged 1,378 and a half.