Talk:Profession Information & Talk:Profession Links at HealthHaven.com

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.
Please create a task list for this page.

WikiProject Business

(Rated Stub-Class, Low-priority)

Business and economics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

WikiProject Sociology

(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)

Sociology portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Need for a definition

Much of this talk page seems to be taken up with people arguing that their employment counts as a profession. Wouldn't it be better to have a strict definition that proposals could be judged against so it is possible to say that trade X is a profession while trade Y is not?

Alternatively replace the whole article with a brief note stating that profession is synonymous with skilled employment which seems to be the current direction.

I am *not* attacking the skills and importance of the proposed professions, I'm not even saying they wouldn't fit under a definition just that there needs to be some way to state what is or isn't a profession, which seems to be absent at present.

[edit] Cooking as a profession

Cooking is a profession, i.e. chefs, restaurant management, dietetics, nutritionists, etc.

Many people make their living cooking for others. The Occupational Outlook (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos024.htm) for chefs, restaurant mangers, dieteticians, and nutritionists is fairly good, with "as fast as the average" growth. Some college is often required for success in this field. There are trade schools, universities, and professional organizations that support this profession.

Some organizations that support professionals who cook for others include:

The American Dietetic Association http://www.eatright.org/

Chef2Chef Culinary Portal http://chef2chef.net/rank/inter.shtml

The Cooking Club of America http://visitors.cookingclub.com/

New York Association of Cooking Teachers http://www.nyact-online.org/index.html

Finding schools and programs:

My Career Education: Culinary Arts !! (http://www.mycareeredu.com/cschls.html) is a guide to many of the culinary schools in the U.S.

Some good books on this topic are:

Beal, Eileen. Choosing a career in the restaurant industry. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 1997.

Institute for Research. Careers and jobs in the restaurant business: jobs, management, ownership. Chicago: The Institute, 1977.

Original entry by: Teri Ross Embrey, Automation Coordinator, Chicago Library System

Speaking as a former chef and waitor I can say that it is one of the most stressful and under-paid jobs around. Certinally good for those who have a strong passion. However I would say that a minority of chefs have this passion.

This could be a page of its own instead of a /Talk page. --RjLesch

I agree chefs are highly skilled and work very hard. However, the art of cooking in it's self would fall into a skilled trade. One who runs a restaurant would be considered an entrepreneur or a merchant.

[edit] Prostitution

Perhaps that sentence on prositution should be moved elsewhere in the article referencing the modern merging of the concepts of profession and occupation/work. ~ Dpr 27 Feb 2005

[edit] What do you think?

I talked to my psychologist Monday and told him that perhaps I would do better getting in the Engineering field. He told me I might do better with a degree in Veterinary Technology. He knows I am better at science (Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine) then I am at maths, and getting a Bachelor's degree in engineering is more relient on higher math then veterinary technology. What do you think? And what are the advantages/disadvantages in being in these fields and getting an education in them (through comparing the two for the advantages/disadvantages)?

Thank you.

Edit: The engineering I want to take in school is Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical engineering.

--Admiral Roo 12:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I talked to a counselor at Kent State University - Ashtabula Campus, on 7/5/2005, and due to that discussion, I have made my discision (sp?) to be a Vet Tech. Now I am in the process of enrolling at Cedar Valley College to get my Associate's degree, then go to St. Petersburg College to get my Bachelor's degree. After at leat 10 years of being a vet tech, I want to go to school to become a VMD (Veterinary Medical Doctor). --Admiral Roo 13:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Sysop has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article to support it.--Fenice 06:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home economics as a profession

I deleted this section from the article; it was originally added in May 2005. Here's the diff from the article history. My concern is that it was added to the article by a contributor with an IP (no user account, or not logged in) as a full block of text, and reads as if it is probably a verbatim quote of the handout referenced at the bottom on the section. I suspect a copyright violation, though I have not obtained the reference to confirm this possibility. I am also concerned that the tone of this section is not neutral, since it seems to be advocating steps to be taken so that home economics could be recognized as a profession. Mamawrites 11:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I deleted:

Here are the main characteristics of any profession, with reference to home economics (human ecology, family and consumer sciences) as an example of a profession:

A profession provides a set of services that are beneficial to society as a whole, a social end. Home economics holds the challenging reality that layman think they can provide services for individuals and families since everyone lives day-to-day in some form of home environment. A profession recognizes this and builds its practice on human ethics and concerns, not just technical how-to practice
The set of services provided for the benefit of society involves intellectual activity, especially moral judgements, which require that the professional continually engage in scholarly activity focused on the critique of existing knowledge and how it matches the evolving needs of individuals and families in today's environment
Education for the profession (study) is vigorously supervised to ensure that those practising in the field are prepared to engage in morally defensible work. Entrance into the practice of the profession is thoroughly screened through a process of licensing or certification to ensure morally defensible work
Because of the level of competence and independent, intellectual thought required to practice in a profession, the scope and purpose of the profession is necessarily limited but not the complexity of knowledge and practice in the profession. Most significantly, even though the field may have to generate specializations in order to deal with the scope of the profession, all off shoots will adhere to the same, agreed to, social end (see first bullet) — that is what makes the profession holistic and sustainable.
The knowledge in most professions is unique. The knowledge appropriate to home economics is not unique. What is unique is that the field pays attention to the problems that families encounter from one generation to another (perennial problems) and then draws information and insights from a number of disciplines and, after critically examining them, organizes these into knowledge that has practical use for the social end of the profession, currently the well-being and quality of daily life for individuals and families.
To be a profession, home economics must engage in self reflection and self critique so that it can present itself to the public in such a way that society is clear about what we offer. Otherwise the field runs the risk of not asking the appropriate questions, posing the wrong problems, missing the underlying causes of symptoms that families are trying to cope with and, thereby, engaging in unprofessional practice and unethical conduct. To prevent this disastrous circumstance, pre-service and in-service initiatives must respect the "spirit of inquiry" and facilitate constant attempts to improve and refine theory and practice. As a true profession and professional, we must critique the human condition, which means investigating and denouncing social and individual damages caused by power imbalances in society. We will strive for praxis; that is, remain concerned with real inequality in society and then seek to link the insights gained from our ongoing critique to engage in social and political action.

Brown, M., & Paoulucci, B. (1978). Home Economics: A Definition [Mimeographed]. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. http://www.aafcs.org

If anyone wants to work with this as a source material and extract ideas from it to add back into the section on common qualities of professions, I can see that it might be worthwhile to do so. Mamawrites 11:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need a seperate article on Professionalism

I was dissapointed to be redirected to this Professions article when I typed Professionalism in the search box.

Professionalism is a sort of philosophy and practice. From what I dimly remember at university, it consists in a set of ethics or code of conduct common to all professions: eg. treating all clients equally, acting selflessly, putting aside your own personal interests, being always polite etc. It also has a body of knowledge which people outside the profession do not have.

I think professionalism is very important - if everyone behaved with professionalism, then the world would be a far better and happier place.

There was at least one book published about professionalism along these lines in the UK, perhaps in the 1960s or 1970s.

Did you read the article? It has a lot of what you're talking about in it. It seems to me that "professionalism" in your sense is pretty much implicit in the definition of "profession."

I teach engineers about what it means to be a member of a profession, and the ethical and technical responsibilities that entails--I think that meshes somewhat with what you're describing--and I find this article reasonably useful. It could always be improved, though. I think that would be a good way to go--either by adding depth to what's there or adding a section on professionalism per se. If the material grows to an unwieldy size, the article can always be split into two. · rodii · 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read the article. It is, if I may say so, a mixed-up jumble of information about Professions and Professionalism. These would be far more effective if they were teased out and split into two seperate articles. Even non-professionals can and ideally should adhere to professionalism in their lives. People do need to be taught (either explicitly or by role-model) how to behave professionaly. Without professionalism, the world would be a very corrupt and evil place. An element I should have added to my previous comment was that it includes altruism and conscientiousness; and now I recall that one of the most important things in professionalism is thinking-about-what-you-are-doing, or 'reflection'.

[edit] A skeleton article on Professionalism

Please could someone create it as a seperate article using the content below. The sections obviously will need expanding, but I am short of time. Their ought to be seperate articles on Professions, Professionalism, and Professional. Lumping them together is like writing an article on Communes and trying to lump it together with a bit about Communism.

I think Professionalism is very important. This article will help teach people what it is. Places without professionalism, such as many corrupt places in the third world, are horrible miserable places to live.

I don't see why "professionalism" is the word for this concept. The threads I see here are better described by other words that do not invoke the idea of particular, specialized, high-skilled occupations: integrity, ethical behavior, care, excellence, conscientiousness (as in reflecting on what you are doing to ensure than you do it properly and admitting your limits.)

Typically when the word professionalism is used as a call for standards in non-professional occupations, the true foci are demeanor (adopting the dress or manner associated with people in the professional class) or status. I think this confuses the issue. "Dress code" and "ethics" are just not equally important.

My article:

[edit] Professionalism

Professionalism is essential to modern society. It consists of the characteristics below. Jobs which do not have all of these characteristics are not generally regarded as being true professions.

[edit] Field Of Knowledge

Specialised
Firmly bounded
Often scientific in origin
Standardised among practicioners

[edit] Techniques Of Application Of This Knowledge

Professions are concerned with the practical performance of services to a client. Decisions about implementation are made objectively.

[edit] Reflection

Studies have shown that the most competant professionals think about what they are doing. This results in improved future performance, an increase in understanding, greater ability to cope with uncertainty, the construction of an internalised model which enables the forseeing of consequences of actions, and so forth.

[edit] Ethics And Attitudes To The Client

Deliver services to the client to the limits of competence
Respect confidences granted them
Not to misuse for their own benefit the special powers given them
Polite and courteous at all times
Usually a formal dress code

(This could be added to although I havnt yet decided on the best form of words. For example a professional must treat all clients equally and without any kind of favouratism or predjudice, must be sober, must not let any emotions from their own private life or personal feelings intrude apon the relationship, must concentrate on the job in hand, should not behave as if their meeting with the client was a social event, etc.)

[edit] Regulation By And Accountability To Peers

Professionals belong to a professional body as a condition of being in practice. This body can discipline or expell members who are incompetant or unethical.

[edit] Citizen Professionals

How does this view relate to the idea of "a body of knowledge that people outside of the profession don't have?" The view that everyone should try to live by a professional ethic.

[edit] References

Donald A Schon (with two dots over the O), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books 1991.

End of my skeleton article.

[edit] From category intro

This was the intro to Category:Professions...

A profession is a specialized work function, or economic activity, within society, generally performed by a professional. In a more restrictive sense, profession often refers specifically to fields that require extensive study and mastery of specialized knowledge, such as law, medicine, finance, the military, nursing, the clergy or engineering. In the latter strict sense, a profession is a regulated occupation usually requiring entry by examination. Many professions are regulated by statute. A profession is usually a job requiring mental adroitness, as compared to a trade, which requires manual dexterity.

It has been suggested that there are four main criteria that identify a profession:

Custody of a clearly definable and valuable body of knowledge and understanding associated with a long period of training.
A strong unitary organisation which ensures that the profession generally speaks with one voice.
Clearly defined and rigorous entry standards, backed up with a requirement to register with the professional association.
An overriding responsibility to maintain the standards of the profession for the public's benefit.

From Collin's, Ghey and Mills (1989)

[edit] references

Authors to consider in this area incldue Parkin, Perkin, Witz, Savage, Freidson, Larkin and Evetts 142.167.246.253 10:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional bodies

Hi there, I don't think it is true that all professions require regulation and membership of professional organisations. I'm a scientist and there are no professional bodies or statutory regulations in my profession. Indeed, in theory you are not required to gain a PhD to become a scientist, although this qualification is in practice pretty much universal. The closest we come to professional bodies are organisations such as the Royal Society and United States National Academy of Sciences, but these are more honorary than usual. Tim Vickers 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically you may be correct, as regulation and membership are only two characteristics of a profession listed in the article. However, they are two key elements of professional work when it comes to earnings because they give rise to:

the existence of a “labor market shelter” by which the profession is shielded from competition; and
the retention of professional control (as opposed to client state control) over judging and evaluating professional work.^[1]

These two elments enable professionals who are regulated and hold membership of professional organisations, such as doctors and lawyers, to earn substantially more from their work than with those who do not, such as scientists and university professors who are paid relatively less. Whether this is should be the case is an issue this article address.

^ Reiter, Sara: Professions and Finance, Binghamton University (2002)

All professions do require regulation and membership. Unfortunately, you are using "profession" in the vernacular, meaning you have advanced knowledge of the field in which you work. Science is almost always an occupation, not a profession (the exceptions being medicine, pharmacy, etc., and engineering and certain other disciplines depending on where you live). The word "profession" is technically a state/province-regulated term that can only be applied to specific groups of people. These days, people call these "regulated professions" to allow for the vernacular definition of profession, but this is VERY recent. I'm pulling this straight out of exam notes, but I'll be hunting down the reference so I can post this information in the article. P.S. I realise this is an old conversation, but I am updating it here as this is a common misunderstanding. — Skittleys (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Employment project/subproject

There is now a proposed WikiProject or subproject to deal with wikipedia's content relating to employment, including the articles on the various professions and jobs, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Employment. Any interested parties should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspire gainst Society

I heard a quote that all professions ultimately conspire against the society within which they operate. If confirmation/citation was known inclusion may be worthy. 79.72.248.113 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago I noted the following quote, which I believe may well be the one to which you refer. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices" It is from Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations". Lancastrianexile (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: the reference is Adam Smith "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" [1775] Book 1, Chapter X, Part II (page 105 in the version I accessed). Lancastrianexile (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you mean this:

"SIR PATRICK. And a very good profession, too, my lad. When you know as much as I know of the ignorance and superstition of the patients, youll wonder that we're half as good as we are.

RIDGEON. We're not a profession: we're a conspiracy.

SIR PATRICK. All professions are conspiracies against the laity. And we cant all be geniuses like you. Every fool can get ill; but every fool cant be a good doctor: there are not enough good ones to go round." G B Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma, Act 1 Peter morrell 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we are both 'right' and it is debateable which of us is referring to the same thing that the original contributor had in mind. I will just say that Adam Smith came first and I suspect but can't prove that GBS had the character in the play (mis)quote him. Lancastrianexile (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New references required

While this article certainly is thorough, it is in need of more recent references. What first caught my attention was the "male-dominated" characteristic. While it is arguable that, in today's society, the top positions within the profession are male-dominated, the profession itself is not. Of course, being confused, I clicked the reference link...and discovered this book was from 1992. In today's evolving world, characteristics like this can't be defined by references that are 16 years old. I don't have time to go on my own reference hunt at the moment, so if someone else would like to do this research, that would be wonderful! In the meantime, I have put an {{outdated}} tag up—I felt this was more appropriate than the {{update}} tag as I am not 100% certain the information IS out of date—and have placed some {{old fact}} and {{Updateneeded}} inline tags around as appropriate. Skittleys (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify vernacular vs. historical definition

This article is jumping back and forth between the common use of the term "profession" and the one that was accepted until the past few decades. Historically, the term "profession" is restricted to certain groups of people, as listed in the article. Yet, the intro defines it as "an occupation, vocation or career where specialized knowledge of a subject, field, or science is applied." That is the vernacular definition. This needs to be clarified somehow...but it does bring the factual accuracy of the article into question. — Skittleys (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical definition

Two points re main article:

1. There is no mention anywhere of the origin of the word (and concept) of profession: L., "to swear (an oath)". This is an unfortunate omission. It helps toward clarification of what properly is and what is not a profession - a distinction that has become murky, if not altogether lost, in current common usage.

The oath referred to dictates adherence to ethical standards, which invariably include practitioner/client confidentiality, truthfulness, and the striving to be expert in one's calling, all three of these being practiced above all for the benefit of the client. There is also a stipulation about upholding the good name of the profession. This has been perversely cited as a rationale for protecting incompetent or unethical members, but it is in fact quite the opposite, to make sure that such practitioners never enter the ranks of the profession, or are punished and/or removed from it as their behaviour is discovered.

2. The article states that there were classically three professions (medicine, the clergy, and the law), but I was always taught that there were four, the fourth being the military. The oath for the military contains the same criteria as the others, keeping in mind that the "client" for the military is a government or leader.

(Unfortunately I have been unable to find anything like a definitive reference to support the second point above, and the results of my search of the internet have been equivocal.) Gbdoc (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with all your points. For me, please feel free to go ahead and add this material to the article. I don't see any objections to that. thanks Peter morrell 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In reference to point #2 above, US Army Field Manual (FM) 1, "The Army" dated June 2005 identifies the military as one of the four professions on page 1-10. The exact verbiage is as follows

To fulfill those societal needs, professions--such as, medicine, law, the clergy, and the military--develop and maintain distinct bodies of specialized knowledge and impart expertise through formal, theoretical, and practical education.

Hopefully this helps.

Marcus 209.22.11.219 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Characteristics of a profession - Male Dominated?

How can you put something like that in an article with only one example citation and consider it NPOV? If not already, male domination of certain professions, per se, is well on its way out. In 2007 women comprised 63% of students enrolled in professional pharmaceutical programs and 51.3% of PhD candidates in that same field.[1] Women comprised 47.3% of entering law students in 2007 and have comprised as much as 49.4% of law students at the turn of the decade.[2] None of those figures speak to domination.

I'm not a Wikipedia memeber so I'll leave it alone, but allowing these beliefs to persits on weak evidence, when hard numbers are available, is ridiculous. This is not 7th grade social studies here, let's get real. --24.128.25.245 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that view of US situation, just because entry numbers are shifting that way, does not mean the professions are no longer male dominated because they are. Look at the numbers of practitioners and you see a different story PLUS salaries for women are STILL only 75% at best those of men...plus the 'big wheels' and top jobs in all professions are STILL held by men. Overwhelmingly that is still so. So a range of factors are needed before the kind of change you suggest can be made, but your info can certainly be added to the article. Peter morrell 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

have tried to add some of this to restore balance Peter morrell 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit on Oct. 1 that you reverted. The reason I removed the stuff that I did is that it relates to economy-wide gender gaps - note that it specifically refers to all full-time workers. You are more interested in stuff on gender gaps within occupations. There is certainly a literature on this, but what you are citing is not particularly relevant. You might, for example, cite Sasser (2004) or Joan Williams's 2000 book Unbending Gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.73.31 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is economics a profession?

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask...

But... is an economist a professional by definition?

220.238.34.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC).

[edit] NPOV Issue

Take a look at this paragraph: "Although in Britain, "the fulltime gender pay gap has shrunk in the past 30 years, it is still 17%, while for part-time work it is stuck at a shameful 40%....all this is happening when, at school and college, women are outshining men. In the medical and legal professions there has been a 'genderquake,'"[19] which means these professions are gradually becoming female-dominated. Yet their pay continues to lag behind that of their male colleagues." Now, I don't know how to fix it, but it is filled with facts. However, the tone is definitely not NPOV. This paragraph needs a lot of cleaning up. Contributions/142.1.145.228 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[0] Reiter, Sara: Professions and Finance, Binghamton University (2002)

[1]

Contents