RE: RE: CISSP Question

["Simmons, James" <jsimmons () eds com>]

We continued the conversation on about the definition of professionals.
Here is that conversation for those interested, in a nice easy to read,
chronological format.  I am really interested in seeing what other
people make of the "professional term" debate 


Regards,

Simmons

************************************************************************
*************
*****************************BEGIN**************************************
*************
************************************************************************
*************

Auto mechanics are not a part of a profession. (Nothing to do with a
degree). An automotive engineer who is a member of a professional body
is a practicing professional, though he/she would not likely be working
on your car, but designing the next one.

Auto mechanics are trades people. They have a trade not a profession.
Not the same thing.

People who are members of a profession are professionals.

Those who work in a professional firm but are not themselves
professionals are para-professionals. Eg Accounting, law etc.

In IT there are many people who call themselves Engineers which is a
profession. Many of these people are not in reality engineers. In the
US, Engineers have to be licensed in most states either through the
government or by membership in a professional body (eg Chartered
Engineer, the Institute of Engineering Professionals, IEEE etc).

This is not up to me. I did not decide the taxonomy of the terms. They
are legal terms of art.

This is in no way a comment on the skills or ability of the person, it
is a classification no more.

Craig



Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems

************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*

So are you saying a profession is based on membership or licensing? And
how is that not conducive to becoming a licensed security guard?
Would you consider the US Secret Service a profession?  Their goal is
protection of people and important assets? They are just employed by the
government, to do the same thing.

Simmons

************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*

Simmons,
A customary assessment deployed to appraise if an employment is, in
fact, a "profession" is the "advocacy test".

Basically: If a paid job necessitates that one recurrently performs as
an advocate for a different person, group, or organisation who require
the precise information necessary for such advocacy, then that
employment fulfils the analysis and is reasoned a "profession".

> From this, the significance of explicit "codes of ethics" and 
> (commonly)
licensure ensues.

Traditionally there were only a limited number of professions, Medicine,
the Clergy, and Academe. This has expanded over the years.

Members of the Secret Service are considered Intelligence Professionals.
They in the nature of their work provide advocacy. The role of a
security guard is not one which entails the provisioning of advocacy. A
military officer is considered a professional, an enlisted person or NCO
is not.

As for Government, civil servants may or may not be professionals based
on what they do. Diplomatic staff, accountants, lawyers etc are all
professionals. A clerk is not.

The use is oft misconstrued. The terminology "a professional athlete"
for instance refers to a sports person who preforms for money. This is
often confused to construe that the person is a professional. The terms
are not the same and the taxonomy differs. Just as one works for money,
one is not is necessity a professional. The athlete who acts as a
"professional" coach following their sporting career has become a
professional.

As for Security guards, though they have organisations such as Security
Police and Fireman's Professional Association, this is a Union and not a
professional body. They are not the same. A former security guard who
has moved into a management and consulting role and who designs (for
instance) security solutions and procedures would be entering into the
sphere of being a professional, though they are no longer a security
guard at this point.

As for carpenters, cooks and auto mechanics, they act in a trade.
However a trained and qualified chef (unlike a cook) is classified as a
professional.

None of this says anything as to the skill or ability of the person or
the level of training in the job. Many trades have high levels of
training, but still fail to qualify as a profession. Basically, any job
which is a trade can not by definition be considered a profession - the
terms are mutually exclusive.

Regards,
Craig

Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems

************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*

First I have to say that this has been truly interesting. I have enjoyed
this as a discussion and I am glad that you have picked up the call for
this discussion.

After saying that I have to contend that you are incorrect. As I agree
that the term professional is misconstrued and in your example of a
professional athlete, the better nomenclature is the shortened version
pro. This term is more dictating that the individual does the job for a
living. As anyone can play a game of basketball and playing a basketball
game normally does not bring in cash, a pro basketball player denotes
that the player is being paid for his skill.

But as for security guards, how can you contend that they are not
"recurrently perform(ing) as an advocate for a different person, group,
or organization who require the precise information necessary for such
advocacy." They are advocating for the management that placed them in
their guarding position. They have to adhere to and uphold the best
interests of their clients. And as far as them being a group, they have
to be licensed by the government. Hardly a union, that does not make.

But, of course lets say for arguments sake that we take your stance that
they are not professionals. Then how do you content that the IT industry
are professionals? We are neither bound by government licensing, nor
organizational ties. We do not advocate for any entity except our
selves, unless you want to consider our upholding of the policies of the
management as advocating, in which case it still uphold my point about
security guards.

And as I pointed out in a previous e-mail, I dissected your provided
definition of professional responsibility that you used previously to
determine professionalism.

I believe that the term has evolved to include any sort of educated
service.  But that is just me.

On a side note, I really want to know what the mailing list thinks about
this topic of professionals. So do you want to post the conversation or
should I?

Regards,
Simmons

************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*

Simmons,

You are again mixing the terminology as detailed as a descriptive (i.e.
professional athlete, being an athlete who plays for a fee) with the
noun, professional. The descriptive does not refer to the act of being
associated with a profession.



Advocacy is not a position of representation as you suggest. It is the
role and effect as a mouthpiece and involves the act of arguing on
behalf of a particular issue. A Security consultant does this. A
Security guard does not.



A guard is an operational role. They act as a monitoring and
interceptive control. They do not sit away from the location they are to
protect and design controls.



"We do not advocate for any entity except our selves" is missing what
Advocacy is. You are confusing consumer advocacy with professional
advocacy. Again these are not the same things.



A security guard would not be guarding a location if they where (as an
example) consulting to a banks board about the best place to put
themselves. This is a form of Advocacy.



"Then how do you content that the IT industry are professionals?" I
would state that some members of the IT industry are professionals - but
not the whole. The class of professionals are those who design and
consult. By definition, one who is in an administrative role such as an
operator is not a professional and at best is a para-professional.



It may be blocked from the list, but following is a diagrammatic
representation of "Abbott's Parameters of Professional Work"


[Image]



Again, it is not my opinion, these are defined taxonomies. I have
attached a few citations for you.



As for the specific taxonomy of professionalism, see the following
references:

Abbott (1988)     Abstract knowledge

Barber (1963)     A high degree of generalized and systematic knowledge

Greenwood (1957)  Systematic theory

Hall (1968)       Autonomy

Starr (1982)      Cognitive expertise

Waters (1989)     Theoretical knowledge



I have attached a link to Amazon for Abbot (1988)

http://www.amazon.com/System-Professions-Essay-Division-Expert/dp/022600
0699



Forwarded to the list.



A security guard is involved in an occupation not a profession. An auto
worker is involved with a trade.



Regards,

Craig



Why American Engineers Aren't Unionized: A Comparative Perspective

Peter Meiksins, Chris Smith

Theory and Society, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 57-97



Adler, Kwon and Heckscher (2007) "THE EVOLVING ORGANIZATION OF
PROFESSIONAL WORK"



Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of
Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.



Barber, B. 1963. Some problems in the sociology of the professions.
Daedalus 92 669-689.



Greenwood, E. 1957. Attributes of a profession. Soc. Work 2 45-55.



Hall, R.H. 1968. Professionalization and bureaucratization. Amer.
Sociological Rev. 33 92-104.



Starr, P. 1982. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. Basic
Books, New York.



Waters, M. 1989. Collegiality, bureaucratization, and
professionalization: A Weberian analysis. Amer. J. Sociology 94 945-972.




Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems