![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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
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.
Seems to me profession should mean teaching but is usually a euphemism for licentiate trade, a licentiate being one who is licensed to profit from trade of some form of service
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Might also be worth mentioning that in many jurisdictions professional do not enjoy limitation of liability which further distinguishes those listed from other occupations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.96.75 ( talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully this helps.
Marcus 209.22.11.219 ( talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. There are several reasons for this. But hour for hour, men are not PAID more. Editor0982 ( talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. But men are not PAID more. In fact, in high-earning occupations, Farrell's research shows that between similarly qualified, similarly positioned men and women, the women are actually paid MORE than the men.
If gender inequality is to be discussed at all, perhaps the special privileges/preferences that girls/women receive at EVERY of education should be pointed out. An example would be the numerous scholarships available exclusively to women, which blatantly discriminate against men. Perhaps the actual CAUSES of the so-called "gender-quake" should be examined... Namely femo-cratic legislation designed to reward girls/women and hold back boys/men.
It should also be pointed out women's percentages in the universities and the professional schools have increased only because the male numbers have dropped. Medical school is a prime example. The percentage of female med students has increased only because male enrollment has dropped, dramatically and steadily since the mid-1990s.
Overall, this section is garbage. Lies, followed by delusions of eventual female "domination". Wikipedia should be ashamed. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's feminist propaganda.
Editor0982 ( talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article to be checked for neutrality based entirely on the Gender Inequality section, which presents only one side of the issue and in a fashion that is rather essayist in nature. There are compelling arguments to the contrary regarding gender inequality. These counter-arguments should be presented and/or the current tone of the section pushed significantly to the neutral. Gender inequality is not a -fact-, it is a -stance-. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The information on this topic in the article is sourced, so if you can provide sourced info for your POV on this, then go ahead. It would be a very useful addition to have some well-sourced data on gender equality/inequality in specific professions and/or specific places if you can deliver that. Peter morrell 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the adjective "disinterested" not only because it is taken directly from the succinct decription given by the Webbs in 1917 but also because it clearly means "not influenced by considerations of personal advantage" rather than "having no feeling or interest in something". Salisian ( talk) 08:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two credible, published academic papers on project management as a profession, that of Bill Zwerman, Janice Thomas et al from the University of Calgary and my own PhD research, entitled "Is Project Management a Profession? And if not, what is it", which can be downloaded here http://www.build-project-management-competency.com/download-page/
Probably the most salient criteria to determine a profession comes from Andrew Abbott in his "Systems of Professions". Basically, he says that to create a profession, an occupation has to be able to own or control the body of knowledge, and without being able to do that, you cannot have a profession.
Other great references on this topic is the work of Eliot Friedson 1) Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, philosophy and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2) Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3) Friedson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge (reprinted.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
But you may want to think about this analogy I produced as part of my dissertation-
Tiger Woods is unquestionably a talented golfer. One would be very hard-put to dispute the obvious, which that he is very competent at what he does, perhaps one of the best ever. Therefore he meets the first test of being a professional (n) – skill and competence. In fact, he is sufficiently competent that he makes a very handsome living performing for pay what most of us consider a hobby; hence, applying the second criterion, he meets the ‘earnings test’ to be considered a professional (n). He is not an amateur. Having met both tests (highly competent and earning a living at what most do for a hobby) entitles him to be termed a professional (adj.) golfer. However, just because Tiger Woods meets the criteria to be called both a professional (n) and a professional (adj) golfer, golf does not qualify as a profession, although Woods might call it his profession (his paid job).
It is no wonder that many in the community of practice of project management confuse what is means to belong to a profession. There is the tendency to make the connection that if they are in fact professional (extremely competent) in the way they work, then what they do must, by association, be considered a profession. This is false logic and a semantic trap easily fallen into.
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG ( talk) 08:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
(Moved someone elses responce placed here, to the end).
My article:
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.
Professions are concerned with the practical performance of services to a client. Decisions about implementation are made objectively.
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.
(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 disregard all self-interest (no bribes etc), 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.)
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.
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.
Donald A Schon (with two dots over the O), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books 1991.
End of my skeleton article.
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:
From Collin's, Ghey and Mills (1989)
As Skittleys says above, the poor quality of the Profession, Professional, and (lack of any) Professionalism articles may be due to people confusing them with the vernacular use of the words. Eg. in vernacular American-english, being a hamburger cook is apparantly a "profession"; but being a lawyer or doctor is a profession. 92.29.116.249 ( talk) 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The following defintion has been taken from Accounting and Society by R.W. Perks:
Having re-read it, I think it is quite long winded, but it contains certain key points that are expanded on later in the article. To demonstrate that it is not original research, I will quote verbatim some of the points made by Perks in his book fro which this definition is derived:
I think the lead should be rewritten, as this an other sources about Profession provide more insight into this subject matter. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 08:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is a very good definition but I would say for greater clarity that a profession is an occupation that has achieved high status with the public due to qualifications and expertise, control over its own knowledge base and means of entry, and has become an acknlowedged field of expertise in its own right...etc etc. But the above paragraph is a very good start. Not all professions are service oriented (example?) but there is deemed to be a service element in most, as there is in many other occupations. Peter morrell 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can go on trading quotes for some time: "A profession is a high-status, knowledge-based occupation characterised by abstract, specialised knowledge, autonomy, authority over clients and subordinate occupational groups, and a certain degree of altruism." (R Hodson & T A Sullivan, The Social Organisation of Work, Wadsworths Publishing, 2005, p.258) But the work of Eliot Freidson is also excellent in this regard. The definition has to be complete and well-rounded because a profession has necessarily several key features. If it lacks some of them, then it is merely an occupation. Peter morrell 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Today, the major German newspaper published an article, http://www.faz.net/s/RubC3FFBF288EDC421F93E22EFA74003C4D/Doc~E274496C7F4254A67A3519782422DDEDC~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html, summarizing a scholarly paper, http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3410338v2020827/, that explains how bad this article is. -- 129.187.179.90 ( talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What self-respecting encyclopedia would be without both titles? Is anyone suggesting they are the same? Some brave soul should remove the trite examples list. That is perhaps what some readers are finding irksome and may wish to remove. Salisian ( talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ian Salisbury, that it is a daft idea and that two separate articles are better than one, thanks Peter morrell 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course these two articles should be merged. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles where one deals simply with the adjective derived from the noun. Roundquarter ( talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
When I added a Perks' list of characteristics of profession to this article [5], I thought the article would benefit from the addition of coverage from a reliable source. However, I was not aware that this list of 22 characteristics was controversial, as this article testifies. The points that Perks made are valid, and where intended to provoke questions to be asked about nature of professions, and what makes them different from other occupations. Is the article evidence that the list should split off into its own list article? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Teachers should be removed they follow federal and state guidelines for what they teach in most cases. Thus there is little sense of autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.202.160 ( talk) 05:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Interpreters should be removed. To be an interpreter does not require any formal training (only understanding of 2 languages, spoken or otherwise), nor is there any professional body charged with the development of interpreting as a profession and enforcement of professional standards.
Stockbroking should be added, along with fincial advising; they do meet the above criteria and other usual criteria. WikiDMc ( talk) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Several of the alleged "professions" should be removed, as they do not have any sort of licensing regulation. Professors and scientists, for example, are not licensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.212.197 ( talk) 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The whole List of Professions section needs to either be removed, or completely overhauled for a number of reasons.
Perhaps this list would be best moved to its own article, so that "Profession" can keep a tighter focus. In short, the current status of this list does not serve this article well. Andrewaskew ( talk) 00:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This list would be best moved to its own article, so that "Profession" can keep a tighter focus. There is enough information here for a list article. That article can then outline formal criteria for inclusion and notability. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 05:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The present article is strongly influenced by current business usage. It could be improved by placing "profession" in its historical context and recognizing the diversity of its related meanings: 1) The Latin word professio means a public declaration or acknowledgement (D. P. Simpson, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, NY 1960; there are probably more updated sources for this). It is related to the verb profiteor, "to profess," which could at that time include announcing one's candidacy for public office. 2) This original meaning survives today in the "profession of faith" or creed in the Catholic Church and probably other religions. (See Roman Missal) 3) It is also used for "religious profession," in which a person becomes a member of a religious institute by "professing" poverty chastity and obedience through vows or promises. See Code of Canon Law, Canon 654: "By religious profession members assume by public vow the observance of the three evangelical counsels, are consecrated to God through the ministry of the Church, and are incorporated into the institute with rights and duties determined by law." 4) Already in classical Latin, a person could "profess" a science or art, such as law or philosophy, indicating his competence to be of service in that area. The idea of "profession" as an occupation occurs in Suetonius (cited in Cassell). 5) In the early Middle Ages, religious life was considered a "profession" in the occupational sense. John Cassian, writing ca. 425 about his life as a monk, says, "Our profession also has a scopos [goal] proper to itself." (John Cassian, The Conferences, transl. by Boniface Ramsey, O.P., Ancient Christian Writers #57, Paulist Press, NY, 1997, I.3) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives all these nuances and more. I am using the 6th edition (Oxford, England, 2007). SrMElizabeth ( talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
My response is that NOT being an article about history, religion or medieval society, it's hard to see how much of what you say can be fitted in, interesting though it is. Maybe you can insert into the article a short paragraph of just a few lines to summarise your points with citations? And see how others see it. That might be a great starting point. It is up to others to keep or throw out whatever you come up with. thanks Peter morrell 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I find the historical background very interesting; it's precisely the kind of information I like seeing in a Wikipedia article. Under its own subheading, I think information like this provides an excellent background context. It's likely, in the coming century, that our concept of professions will continue to evolve. I feel that the historical context contributes by demonstrating how malleable the concept of professions is, by showing how much it has already changed. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of national associations out there... many commonwealth nations have a Royal Society (not to mention THE Royal Society). America has the AAAS. All of these societies have codes of ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.168.16 ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Scientist is quite a broad term. In the UK, the terms Chartered Environmentalist, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Biologist are legally protected and only granted to professionals. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Philosophy does not meet criteria 6-7, but it does meet 5. For example, in America, we have the American Philosophical Association. So I have changed the entry to reflect this fact.
Concerning criteria 6-7: Philosophy does (and probably always will) fail to meet criteria 7, but criteria 6 is a strange standard to apply to philosophy. Given that philosophy takes ethics as one of its topics of research, philosophy is uniquely unable to adopt a profession-wide standard of ethics. If the profession is inquiring into, disagreeing over, debating, and questioning ethics, the profession cannot have a profession-wide ethical standard. Which is to say, you can't have a profession-wide ethics for philosophy for the same reason you can't have a profession-wide theory of physics for science. Inquiry into, disagreement over, debate concerning wildly different theories of physics is one of the subjects of science and so science cannot have a theory of physics imposed upon it as a professional standard.
I am not saying criteria 6 is an incorrect criteria for professions, but this would seem to be a special case given the nature of this particular profession that it only makes sense to judge philosophy by criteria 1-5 and 7. Which is to say, that given the unique circumstances regarding philosophy, criteria 6 doesn't make sense as a criteria for judging whether or not philosophy is a profession. Criteria 6 must be "bracketed"/"ignored" here since philosophy uniquely cannot force a philosophical ethical theory on the field as a whole. Good general criteria often need to make exceptions for unique cases, and philosophy is one of them concerning criteria 6 given that ethics is a part of the subject matter of philosophy.
- Atfyfe ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The link of Doctor should be corrected and pointed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29 which is more appropriate than physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.32.71 ( talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What the hell is this? I google and only get paint and wood stain colors. As a section it seems trivial and unnecessary. Maaaaaybe it would be worth keeping as a sentence in the History section. 98.116.253.94 ( talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have restored this adjective to the principal definition, as originally defined by the Webbs. In this sense being "disinterested" means being uninfluenced by considerations of personal advantage; it does not mean behaving without feeling or interest. Salisian ( talk) 13:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Profession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not included on the list of professions, the profession of arms is arguably one of the first and fundamental professions. Far before science and technology lent it's hand to doctors or lawyers it was applied to the profession of arms first I believe the definition has "lost touch" in recent times and would like to engage on any alternate opinions. I believe the profession of arms includes all required criteria. I recognized the following criteria apply to all professions. A defined set of practices. Education and/or training requirements for entry. Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination). A process for advancing its practices. A set of ethics/rules/etc. A controlling or defining body Why the Military is a profession? -- A defined set of practices--Successful Military forces throughout history refer to these practices as "Doctrine", a method by-which they do business. -- Education and/or training requirements for entry.-- All professional military forces throughout history have some variation of a "basic training". -- Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination).-- Standards for mental capacity and physical fitness are more often than not the most common example of this. -- A process for advancing its practices.-- Continuous demand/review to upgrade military capacity, capability, or combat power are a constant effort. The US military reviews/edits/trains doctrine to match changes in science, technology or capability. -- A set of ethics/rules/etc. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Code of Conduct are two examples by-which the US have established ethics and rules. -- A controlling or defining body.-- Militaries throughout history have a Chain-of-Command (CoC). In the US the CoC begins with the President and Secretary of Defense all the way down to Joe in a fox hole. We have executive and judicial oversight by civilians outside the CoC.
With this discussion, I would like the Profession of Arms to be added to the overall list of professions, and should be recognized as one of the fundamental professions alongside Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers.
Totally agree; also theft out is the Profession of Public Service. Jakolaw ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article feels like an opinion piece based on someone's understanding of where professions are today. Reference to the history of the professionalisation of medicine in different countries shows that the basis of professionalism is the formation of self regulation to ensure quality and to combat devaluation and charlatans. The sequence provided, especially of establishing a training school is largely wrong. Apprenticing was the general route historically.
Professions self regulate until a power group seizes control. Then government regulation and oversight ensure internal processes of control are not abused by the power group for the benefit of the profession and society. Ethical rules are established. Training and education in formal schools and curriculum come later not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider22 ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The muslim scientists had played a great role in the development of biological, physical and other more than thousands of education fields. And they continued their efforts for many years and even centuries, so they deserve a lot of success. They proved that there is a great presence of Muslims. 182.182.119.22 ( talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by profession 120.89.104.45 ( talk) 13:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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
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.
Seems to me profession should mean teaching but is usually a euphemism for licentiate trade, a licentiate being one who is licensed to profit from trade of some form of service
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Might also be worth mentioning that in many jurisdictions professional do not enjoy limitation of liability which further distinguishes those listed from other occupations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.96.75 ( talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully this helps.
Marcus 209.22.11.219 ( talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. There are several reasons for this. But hour for hour, men are not PAID more. Editor0982 ( talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. But men are not PAID more. In fact, in high-earning occupations, Farrell's research shows that between similarly qualified, similarly positioned men and women, the women are actually paid MORE than the men.
If gender inequality is to be discussed at all, perhaps the special privileges/preferences that girls/women receive at EVERY of education should be pointed out. An example would be the numerous scholarships available exclusively to women, which blatantly discriminate against men. Perhaps the actual CAUSES of the so-called "gender-quake" should be examined... Namely femo-cratic legislation designed to reward girls/women and hold back boys/men.
It should also be pointed out women's percentages in the universities and the professional schools have increased only because the male numbers have dropped. Medical school is a prime example. The percentage of female med students has increased only because male enrollment has dropped, dramatically and steadily since the mid-1990s.
Overall, this section is garbage. Lies, followed by delusions of eventual female "domination". Wikipedia should be ashamed. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's feminist propaganda.
Editor0982 ( talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article to be checked for neutrality based entirely on the Gender Inequality section, which presents only one side of the issue and in a fashion that is rather essayist in nature. There are compelling arguments to the contrary regarding gender inequality. These counter-arguments should be presented and/or the current tone of the section pushed significantly to the neutral. Gender inequality is not a -fact-, it is a -stance-. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The information on this topic in the article is sourced, so if you can provide sourced info for your POV on this, then go ahead. It would be a very useful addition to have some well-sourced data on gender equality/inequality in specific professions and/or specific places if you can deliver that. Peter morrell 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the adjective "disinterested" not only because it is taken directly from the succinct decription given by the Webbs in 1917 but also because it clearly means "not influenced by considerations of personal advantage" rather than "having no feeling or interest in something". Salisian ( talk) 08:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two credible, published academic papers on project management as a profession, that of Bill Zwerman, Janice Thomas et al from the University of Calgary and my own PhD research, entitled "Is Project Management a Profession? And if not, what is it", which can be downloaded here http://www.build-project-management-competency.com/download-page/
Probably the most salient criteria to determine a profession comes from Andrew Abbott in his "Systems of Professions". Basically, he says that to create a profession, an occupation has to be able to own or control the body of knowledge, and without being able to do that, you cannot have a profession.
Other great references on this topic is the work of Eliot Friedson 1) Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, philosophy and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2) Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3) Friedson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge (reprinted.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
But you may want to think about this analogy I produced as part of my dissertation-
Tiger Woods is unquestionably a talented golfer. One would be very hard-put to dispute the obvious, which that he is very competent at what he does, perhaps one of the best ever. Therefore he meets the first test of being a professional (n) – skill and competence. In fact, he is sufficiently competent that he makes a very handsome living performing for pay what most of us consider a hobby; hence, applying the second criterion, he meets the ‘earnings test’ to be considered a professional (n). He is not an amateur. Having met both tests (highly competent and earning a living at what most do for a hobby) entitles him to be termed a professional (adj.) golfer. However, just because Tiger Woods meets the criteria to be called both a professional (n) and a professional (adj) golfer, golf does not qualify as a profession, although Woods might call it his profession (his paid job).
It is no wonder that many in the community of practice of project management confuse what is means to belong to a profession. There is the tendency to make the connection that if they are in fact professional (extremely competent) in the way they work, then what they do must, by association, be considered a profession. This is false logic and a semantic trap easily fallen into.
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG ( talk) 08:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
(Moved someone elses responce placed here, to the end).
My article:
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.
Professions are concerned with the practical performance of services to a client. Decisions about implementation are made objectively.
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.
(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 disregard all self-interest (no bribes etc), 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.)
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.
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.
Donald A Schon (with two dots over the O), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books 1991.
End of my skeleton article.
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:
From Collin's, Ghey and Mills (1989)
As Skittleys says above, the poor quality of the Profession, Professional, and (lack of any) Professionalism articles may be due to people confusing them with the vernacular use of the words. Eg. in vernacular American-english, being a hamburger cook is apparantly a "profession"; but being a lawyer or doctor is a profession. 92.29.116.249 ( talk) 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The following defintion has been taken from Accounting and Society by R.W. Perks:
Having re-read it, I think it is quite long winded, but it contains certain key points that are expanded on later in the article. To demonstrate that it is not original research, I will quote verbatim some of the points made by Perks in his book fro which this definition is derived:
I think the lead should be rewritten, as this an other sources about Profession provide more insight into this subject matter. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 08:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is a very good definition but I would say for greater clarity that a profession is an occupation that has achieved high status with the public due to qualifications and expertise, control over its own knowledge base and means of entry, and has become an acknlowedged field of expertise in its own right...etc etc. But the above paragraph is a very good start. Not all professions are service oriented (example?) but there is deemed to be a service element in most, as there is in many other occupations. Peter morrell 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can go on trading quotes for some time: "A profession is a high-status, knowledge-based occupation characterised by abstract, specialised knowledge, autonomy, authority over clients and subordinate occupational groups, and a certain degree of altruism." (R Hodson & T A Sullivan, The Social Organisation of Work, Wadsworths Publishing, 2005, p.258) But the work of Eliot Freidson is also excellent in this regard. The definition has to be complete and well-rounded because a profession has necessarily several key features. If it lacks some of them, then it is merely an occupation. Peter morrell 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Today, the major German newspaper published an article, http://www.faz.net/s/RubC3FFBF288EDC421F93E22EFA74003C4D/Doc~E274496C7F4254A67A3519782422DDEDC~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html, summarizing a scholarly paper, http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3410338v2020827/, that explains how bad this article is. -- 129.187.179.90 ( talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What self-respecting encyclopedia would be without both titles? Is anyone suggesting they are the same? Some brave soul should remove the trite examples list. That is perhaps what some readers are finding irksome and may wish to remove. Salisian ( talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ian Salisbury, that it is a daft idea and that two separate articles are better than one, thanks Peter morrell 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course these two articles should be merged. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles where one deals simply with the adjective derived from the noun. Roundquarter ( talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
When I added a Perks' list of characteristics of profession to this article [5], I thought the article would benefit from the addition of coverage from a reliable source. However, I was not aware that this list of 22 characteristics was controversial, as this article testifies. The points that Perks made are valid, and where intended to provoke questions to be asked about nature of professions, and what makes them different from other occupations. Is the article evidence that the list should split off into its own list article? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Teachers should be removed they follow federal and state guidelines for what they teach in most cases. Thus there is little sense of autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.202.160 ( talk) 05:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Interpreters should be removed. To be an interpreter does not require any formal training (only understanding of 2 languages, spoken or otherwise), nor is there any professional body charged with the development of interpreting as a profession and enforcement of professional standards.
Stockbroking should be added, along with fincial advising; they do meet the above criteria and other usual criteria. WikiDMc ( talk) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Several of the alleged "professions" should be removed, as they do not have any sort of licensing regulation. Professors and scientists, for example, are not licensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.212.197 ( talk) 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The whole List of Professions section needs to either be removed, or completely overhauled for a number of reasons.
Perhaps this list would be best moved to its own article, so that "Profession" can keep a tighter focus. In short, the current status of this list does not serve this article well. Andrewaskew ( talk) 00:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This list would be best moved to its own article, so that "Profession" can keep a tighter focus. There is enough information here for a list article. That article can then outline formal criteria for inclusion and notability. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 05:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The present article is strongly influenced by current business usage. It could be improved by placing "profession" in its historical context and recognizing the diversity of its related meanings: 1) The Latin word professio means a public declaration or acknowledgement (D. P. Simpson, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, NY 1960; there are probably more updated sources for this). It is related to the verb profiteor, "to profess," which could at that time include announcing one's candidacy for public office. 2) This original meaning survives today in the "profession of faith" or creed in the Catholic Church and probably other religions. (See Roman Missal) 3) It is also used for "religious profession," in which a person becomes a member of a religious institute by "professing" poverty chastity and obedience through vows or promises. See Code of Canon Law, Canon 654: "By religious profession members assume by public vow the observance of the three evangelical counsels, are consecrated to God through the ministry of the Church, and are incorporated into the institute with rights and duties determined by law." 4) Already in classical Latin, a person could "profess" a science or art, such as law or philosophy, indicating his competence to be of service in that area. The idea of "profession" as an occupation occurs in Suetonius (cited in Cassell). 5) In the early Middle Ages, religious life was considered a "profession" in the occupational sense. John Cassian, writing ca. 425 about his life as a monk, says, "Our profession also has a scopos [goal] proper to itself." (John Cassian, The Conferences, transl. by Boniface Ramsey, O.P., Ancient Christian Writers #57, Paulist Press, NY, 1997, I.3) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives all these nuances and more. I am using the 6th edition (Oxford, England, 2007). SrMElizabeth ( talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
My response is that NOT being an article about history, religion or medieval society, it's hard to see how much of what you say can be fitted in, interesting though it is. Maybe you can insert into the article a short paragraph of just a few lines to summarise your points with citations? And see how others see it. That might be a great starting point. It is up to others to keep or throw out whatever you come up with. thanks Peter morrell 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I find the historical background very interesting; it's precisely the kind of information I like seeing in a Wikipedia article. Under its own subheading, I think information like this provides an excellent background context. It's likely, in the coming century, that our concept of professions will continue to evolve. I feel that the historical context contributes by demonstrating how malleable the concept of professions is, by showing how much it has already changed. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of national associations out there... many commonwealth nations have a Royal Society (not to mention THE Royal Society). America has the AAAS. All of these societies have codes of ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.168.16 ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Scientist is quite a broad term. In the UK, the terms Chartered Environmentalist, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Biologist are legally protected and only granted to professionals. -- EcoChap ( talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Philosophy does not meet criteria 6-7, but it does meet 5. For example, in America, we have the American Philosophical Association. So I have changed the entry to reflect this fact.
Concerning criteria 6-7: Philosophy does (and probably always will) fail to meet criteria 7, but criteria 6 is a strange standard to apply to philosophy. Given that philosophy takes ethics as one of its topics of research, philosophy is uniquely unable to adopt a profession-wide standard of ethics. If the profession is inquiring into, disagreeing over, debating, and questioning ethics, the profession cannot have a profession-wide ethical standard. Which is to say, you can't have a profession-wide ethics for philosophy for the same reason you can't have a profession-wide theory of physics for science. Inquiry into, disagreement over, debate concerning wildly different theories of physics is one of the subjects of science and so science cannot have a theory of physics imposed upon it as a professional standard.
I am not saying criteria 6 is an incorrect criteria for professions, but this would seem to be a special case given the nature of this particular profession that it only makes sense to judge philosophy by criteria 1-5 and 7. Which is to say, that given the unique circumstances regarding philosophy, criteria 6 doesn't make sense as a criteria for judging whether or not philosophy is a profession. Criteria 6 must be "bracketed"/"ignored" here since philosophy uniquely cannot force a philosophical ethical theory on the field as a whole. Good general criteria often need to make exceptions for unique cases, and philosophy is one of them concerning criteria 6 given that ethics is a part of the subject matter of philosophy.
- Atfyfe ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The link of Doctor should be corrected and pointed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29 which is more appropriate than physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.32.71 ( talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What the hell is this? I google and only get paint and wood stain colors. As a section it seems trivial and unnecessary. Maaaaaybe it would be worth keeping as a sentence in the History section. 98.116.253.94 ( talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have restored this adjective to the principal definition, as originally defined by the Webbs. In this sense being "disinterested" means being uninfluenced by considerations of personal advantage; it does not mean behaving without feeling or interest. Salisian ( talk) 13:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Profession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not included on the list of professions, the profession of arms is arguably one of the first and fundamental professions. Far before science and technology lent it's hand to doctors or lawyers it was applied to the profession of arms first I believe the definition has "lost touch" in recent times and would like to engage on any alternate opinions. I believe the profession of arms includes all required criteria. I recognized the following criteria apply to all professions. A defined set of practices. Education and/or training requirements for entry. Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination). A process for advancing its practices. A set of ethics/rules/etc. A controlling or defining body Why the Military is a profession? -- A defined set of practices--Successful Military forces throughout history refer to these practices as "Doctrine", a method by-which they do business. -- Education and/or training requirements for entry.-- All professional military forces throughout history have some variation of a "basic training". -- Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination).-- Standards for mental capacity and physical fitness are more often than not the most common example of this. -- A process for advancing its practices.-- Continuous demand/review to upgrade military capacity, capability, or combat power are a constant effort. The US military reviews/edits/trains doctrine to match changes in science, technology or capability. -- A set of ethics/rules/etc. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Code of Conduct are two examples by-which the US have established ethics and rules. -- A controlling or defining body.-- Militaries throughout history have a Chain-of-Command (CoC). In the US the CoC begins with the President and Secretary of Defense all the way down to Joe in a fox hole. We have executive and judicial oversight by civilians outside the CoC.
With this discussion, I would like the Profession of Arms to be added to the overall list of professions, and should be recognized as one of the fundamental professions alongside Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers.
Totally agree; also theft out is the Profession of Public Service. Jakolaw ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article feels like an opinion piece based on someone's understanding of where professions are today. Reference to the history of the professionalisation of medicine in different countries shows that the basis of professionalism is the formation of self regulation to ensure quality and to combat devaluation and charlatans. The sequence provided, especially of establishing a training school is largely wrong. Apprenticing was the general route historically.
Professions self regulate until a power group seizes control. Then government regulation and oversight ensure internal processes of control are not abused by the power group for the benefit of the profession and society. Ethical rules are established. Training and education in formal schools and curriculum come later not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider22 ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The muslim scientists had played a great role in the development of biological, physical and other more than thousands of education fields. And they continued their efforts for many years and even centuries, so they deserve a lot of success. They proved that there is a great presence of Muslims. 182.182.119.22 ( talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by profession 120.89.104.45 ( talk) 13:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)