CISSP Question

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

        >>Being that they have stated that employment as an Operators
etc are not considered as valid experience, I would
        >>state that I feel that this would be a role where there is
some management, design, consulting or other similar
        >>activity involved.

So if you already have 4 years of experience in management, or design,
or consulting, what is the value of the CISSP? You are already doing the
job that most people are getting the certification are aiming for. Now
of course this is a majority case, as there are people who get the cert
for other reasons. 
But this is all my point.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/105/466897/30/210/threaded
Experience in doing the projects, actually getting involved in the
industry on your own, is the better way to spend your money then getting
a certification.

And here we arrive back at the beginning.

 
Regards,

Simmons

-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of Craig Wright
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:41 PM
To: Simmons, James
Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: CISSP Question

I would look at this from the perspective of several of the ISC2
comments. Being that they have stated that employment as an Operators
etc are not considered as valid experience, I would state that I feel
that this would be a role where there is some management, design,
consulting or other similar activity involved.

That is - not just going through the motions as set by another, but
actually having input into the process.

As for what the ISC2 would do, this is up to them. They have options,
but they have to have these weighted against the alternatives. This is
the repercussions of dismissing people against the value of the
certificate. So it is a matter of degree I would hazard to guess.

Regards,
Craig



Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems

Direct +61 2 9286 5497
Craig.Wright () bdo com au
+61 417 683 914

BDO Kendalls (NSW)
Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001
Fax +61 2 9993 9497 www.bdo.com.au

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and
Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential.  If
you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy,
distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it
contains.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your
system. 

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls.  You may not rely on this
message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed
by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls.  It is your responsibility to
scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and
other defects.  BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or
damage however caused which may result from this communication or any
files attached.  A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our
Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at
http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au.

BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and
entities.

-----Original Message-----

From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of Simmons, James
Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2007 2:48 AM
To: Craig Wright
Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: CISSP Question

Craig,
I have to say, that was a well written argument. It is so refreshing to
debate with someone who actually understands the importance of including
references.

And many of your arguments I just cannot argue with. And you do make
very good points. I guess the mind set where all this begat from was the
definition of professional experience for which ISC2 is requiring. I
guess a more proper questions would be, "What is ISC2 qualifying as
professional experience?" 
My first assumptions were based on definitions and ideas on the
difference between an amateur and a professional. Amateur is more of a
hobbies, where a professional is making a living based on the quality of
work.

I was also speaking from a platform that they are allowing any sort of
experience within the ten domains. I have come to this conclusion based
on personal contact with individuals that I have or current work with
that have already been audited. Though granted I was not involved in the
process, and cannot say for certain the mood, or perceived mindset of
the auditors, I can only draw my conclusions from conversations with
individuals where military, enlisted IT staff, and other minor
non-managerial roles experience was sufficient enough to obtain the
CISSP. (Of which, you can make an argument about enlisted individuals
having some leadership / manager experience based on rank and role. But
that is another thread altogether.)

So I guess ultimately this questions is just one based on perception and
risk analysis. If you think one way and are willing to take the risk for
a higher paying job, then go for it.  
I am curious though, as to how certain companies would react.  An
individual is hired, they obviously passed the test, and have been
working for a company for x months, only to be told that there was a
mistake regarding the what ISC2 regards as experience.
Plus, would ISC2 revoke the entire cert, or just bump the individual
down to an associate? 
Either way, this has been an interesting debate.

Regards,

Simmons

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Wright [mailto:Craig.Wright () bdo com au]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:09 PM
To: Simmons, James
Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: CISSP Question

Simmons,

Your question:

"Why do you believe are the qualifications for an IT to be considered a
professional? What does an IT individual need to have done to earn such
a coveted title as a professional?" 

Is the heart of where we differ. I have 1 belief and accept no others
personally as belief. My 1 belief has no relevance to this topic. Other
than this I am a rational positivist. I place reliance on fact and
evaluation and use these faculties to either deduce or infer the other
aspects I need. Where this is infeasible, I place reliance on authority
until that source is superseded. Though long winded, I will eventually
in this post make answer to this and to the question of relevance to a
CISSP.

I am not an authority on any area of sociology. Although I have
completed some introductory topics I am naught but a babe in the woods
to this field. I do however know enough on the topic to place reliance
on those who are expert and authoritative on this topic.

Andrew Abbot is taken as authoritative in this field of knowledge. I
have read his disputation of the professions and although I am critical
of many aspects of this work, I have no where near the level of skills
to dispute any of it. The diagram you liked was not as I stated mine,
but from the book below by Dr Abbot.

Abbott, Andrew "The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of
Expert Labor". 452 p. 1988 -
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/2952.ctl  

A good critical version of Abbott's "system of professions" is contained
in the paper:

"Professional rivalry and changing management control approaches in UK
clearing banks" by Willie Seal and Liz Croft
-http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Ar
ticle&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=869691  

And 

System experts and decision making experts in transdisciplinary projects


Author(s): Harald A. Mieg 

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Art
icle&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=1563018&dType=SUB&history=false 

I have attached an introductory (anonymous) critique of Abbot below.

So I place my trust in those who are authorities in their fields. I have
no plans to add sociology to my studies in any greater way than I
already encompass and as such will acquiesce to the superior knowledge
and research of those who have wandered this path in depth. Abbot has
done this exploration. I have nothing to contend his research and
findings and nor do I believe that any other on this list could. It is
not after all a list that is generally frequented by research
sociologists.

So I would that if you wish to answer this, follow his work. It is
unfortunate that I can not attach the scan of his decision tree to this
post, but so is life. I would suggest that those who have an interest
read the books and papers I have attached. They are interesting reading
(at least I found them to be so).

So as an answer, some of us in IT engage our roles as professionals,
others do not. This is not a statement of how competent or ethical one
is; rather it is a classification and legal/sociological class.

A trade (eg as was suggested an auto worker) is none the less valuable
to society as it is classified as a trade rather than profession. An
artisan (as some roles in IT would relate) is again not only valuable,
but a class essential foundation to modern society. 

So whether one is engaged in an occupation, trade, artisan's pursuit or
profession makes us no more or less valuable, it is just a
classification. To desire to be a professional when one is not adds
nothing. A belief that only professionals have ethics or values adds
nothing. They are but separate designations. 

In perspective, the CISSP requires professional experience. This is the
dispute. Those who lack experience in advocacy seek to change the
defined boundaries of the classification.

In particular, job descriptors such as "coder" or "operator" are
generally not accepted by ISC2 as valid IT roles for professional
experience. People in these occupations have to first become an
associate and than progress in time to a CISSP.

I have stated that there is a risk of applying without the requisite
experience due to possible future deposition or exposure to the forensic
process. Many on the list would presume that they are unlikely to have
to face court as they are not in LE or digital forensics. 

HOWEVER, how many of us know the future with precision? What will the
next 20 years bring? Something now that is an exaggeration may come back
in the future to bite us. 

The case in point is this... As a future IT security manager or
professional (if not a current one), how can you state with certainty
that you will never have to be involved with a criminal prosecution or
civil court action? I would hazard a guess that a good percentage of
those on the list will be involved in some action in some manner within
the next 20 years. 

The number of incidents is on the rise each year and the criminalisation
of cyber attacks is progressing significantly. As a current or future IT
Security manager or consultant, it is likely and even probable that we
(us on the list) will have to respond to an incident. It is feasible
that this will end us in court as an expert witness - which we will like
it or not have to testify. 

So to conclude and being that the law has a long memory[1], is it worth
ignoring the legal definition and basis for a classification just
because we enjoy calling ourself something that we may not fall into?
Alternatively, do we decide that not all IT people are actually
professionals and that not all IT occupations are professionally
associated? That helpdesk operators (as an example) is an introduction
to IT that may (and oft does) lead to professional experience, but that
not all roles are automatically such.

I stand on a rather risk adverse platform. I see that I may be called to
testify at any time and base my actions and statements on what I can
categorically support. Than again, I do digital forensic work,
insolvency support etc on a day to day basis. Maybe the risk is
acceptable to others; that is the crux - it is your personal decision.

Regards,

Craig

[1] The statute of limitations need not apply in cases where you have
for instance exaggerated experience to gain a certification (eg a
CISSP). In going to court, your testimony is taken at that point and
unless you are to state that you lied in this effect (while you are
under oath) you are involved in a continuing action and thus the
limitations are placed from the time you last stated that you had the
required experience - i.e. there in court. If alternatively you do state
that you lied or exaggerated to gain the certificate while in court, you
have than (under oath) stated that you breached the terms of the
contract that you made to obtain the certification and thus will be
excluded from this - a bit of a catch 22 analogy really...

 


Critique Of Andrew Abbott (I do not have the citation for this)


Part A: Summary Introduction: Andrew Abbott's book, The System of
Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour contains a mix of
comparative historical analysis and current evaluation, which is
assembled within an analytical model that looks at professions from the
viewpoint of their jurisdictions, the tasks they do, the expert
knowledge needed for those tasks, and how competitive forces internally
and externally work to change both the jurisdictions and the tasks.
Abbott attempts to show that professions are interdependent systems,
containing internal structures. He accomplishes this task by means of
analyzing the emergence of modern professions and their relationships
with each other cooperatively and competitively. Section I: Work,
Jurisdiction, and Competition Abbott's book takes on an individualistic
direction in its inception then moves to a more systematic view of
professions. Modern studies of formal professions began with the rise of
the discipline of social sciences in the 19th century. In the beginning,
scholars debated about the theoretical interpretations of
professionalism. There was a split between proponents of functionalist
and monopolistic approaches. However, academics on both sides agreed,
"that a profession was an occupational group with some special skill"
(Abbott 1988: 7). Abbott mentions that there have been four different
perspectives that have sought to interpret professionalization, a
functional, structural, monopolistic, and a cultural view. Abbott states
that the tasks of professions are to provide expert service to amend
human problems (Abbott 1988: 33). These problems can be objective, in
that they originate naturally or through technological imperatives.
Problems can also be subjective, whereby they are imposed by society or
a culture either from the present or past. Abbott argues that the "real
difference between the objective and subjective qualities of problems is
a difference in amenability to cultural work" (Abbott 1988: 36). Abbott
outlines that there are several types of objective foundations for
professional tasks. Some being technological, some organizational, other
sources of objective qualities lay in natural objects and facts, while
others came from slow-changing cultural structures. Abbott also argues
that a "profession is always vulnerable to changes in the objective
character of its central tasks" (Abbott 1988: 39). Besides the objective
qualities, professional tasks also have subjective qualities, which make
them susceptible to change. Unlike objective tasks, change does not come
from the vagaries of external forces, but from the "activities of other
professions impinge[ing] on the subjective qualities (Abbott 1988: 39).
According to Abbott, three acts helped to embody the cultural logic of
professional practice. The three subjective modalities being diagnosis,
inference, and treatment. Diagnosis is the process wherein information
is taken into the professional knowledge system, and treatment is
wherein instruction is brought back out from it (Abbott 1988: 40).
During the process of diagnosis, relevant information about the client
is assembled into a picture of the client's needs. This picture is then
categorized into a proper diagnostic category. This process consists of
two sub-processes known as colligation and classification. "Colligation
is the first step in which the professional knowledge system begins to
structure the observed problems (Abbott 1988: 41). Colligation is the
forming of a picture of the client, and consists primarily of "rules
declaring what kinds of evidence are relevant and irrelevant, valid and
invalid, as well as rules specifying the admissible level of ambiguity
(Abbott 1988: 41). Classification is the referral of "the colligated
picture to the dictionary of professional legitimate problems" (Abbott
1988: 41). Colligation and classification help to define which type of
problems fall under which body of profession, and specifically what kind
of problem it is in that particular profession. Abbott mentions that
sometimes problems of classification arise. For some problems are
constantly shifting classifications, and fall under more than one
classification, due to their defining traits. This may lead to
intervention or competition by other professions who want to assimilate
the unclear problem into their own professional repertoire (Abbott 1988:
44). The procedure of "treatment is organized around a classification
system and a brokering process," whereby results are given to the client
and prescription is offered (Abbott 1988: 44). One major problem
associated with treatment is the client's willingness to accept
treatment. A profession that adamantly forces clients to take treatment
risks losing clients to their competition who may be more flexible to
their client's wishes (Abbott 1988: 47). Inference is the process that
takes place "when the connection between diagnosis and treatment is
obscure" (Abbott 1988: 49). Inference can work in one of two ways,
either by exclusion or construction. With regards to the ideals of
inference, is the fact that professions that have several chances to
infer solutions to a problem will consequently have more failures, than
a profession that gets only one chance. In addition, professions with
multiple chances are generally more vulnerable to intervention and
competition, or what is known as ceteris paribus, for treatment failure
is the main attacking point for invading professions (Abbott 1988: 49).
Another factor that leaves professions prone to external attack is the
existence of a problem where no treatment can be inferred. To counteract
this potential downfall, Abbott suggested that professions often direct
these unsolvable problems to elite consultants or are academicized as
'crucial anomalies' (Abbott 1988: 50). These procedures help to make the
difficult problem connected with a vague public label, "which serves as
a stopgap against dangerous questioning" (Abbott 1988: 51). This in turn
removes direct and stigmatizing responsibility of treatment failure away
from a profession, which "protects a profession's jurisdiction" (Abbott
1988: 51). "Diagnosis, treatment, inference, and academic work provide
the cultural machinery of jurisdiction" (Abbott 1988: 59). However,
Abbott argues that this is not enough for an organized structure to
claim jurisdiction. In order to claim jurisdiction, a profession must
ask "society to recognize its cognitive structure through exclusive
rights" (Abbott 1988: 59). Jurisdictional claim by a profession can be
achieved in several possible arenas, within the legal system, the realm
of public opinion, and within the arena of the workplace. Claiming
jurisdiction is only one means of overcoming jurisdictional disputes by
professions, Abbott mentions that there are five other known types of
settlement options. A profession's social organization is comprised of
three distinct internal structures, they being groups, controls, and
worksites. These modules of professional organization work in unison to
create a more bonded and organized professional structure. Together they
influence professions in several ways. First, the more organized a
profession is, the more effective it is at claiming jurisdiction.
Second, organization of a profession into "a single, identifiable
national association is clearly a prerequisite of public or legal
claims" (Abbott 1988: 83). Third, in some conditions oddly, some
relatively less organized professions due to their internal structures
have a certain advantage in workplace competition. For these
professional organizations lack rigid focus, and thus have freedom to
move back and forth from different tasks, whereas more organized
professions lack this flexibility to venture into other areas of work to
increase diversity, to become more competitive. Finally, professions
that have highly organized internal structures are more resilient to
attacks by less organized professions. These facts illustrate that the
social structure of professions is neither fixed nor uniformly
beneficial; the nature of it is "constantly subdividing under the
various pressures of market demands, specialization, and
interprofessional competition" (Abbott 1988: 84). In addition, these
facts demonstrate that different competitive conditions favour a more or
less organized profession. Taken together these factors imply that the
professions as a group will develop in the structured dynamic pattern
that Abbott calls the system of professions. Abbott upholds in his book
the ideal that professions constitute an interdependent system, and that
jurisdiction is exclusive (Abbott 1988: 86). That being true, then a
move by one inevitably affects the others. Change occurs within
professions according to Abbott through two sources. One source is from
external factors, these initiate the "opening or closing [of] areas for
jurisdiction and by existing or new professions seeking new ground"
(Abbott 1988: 90). New tasks areas of jurisdiction are opened; some
professions prosper by the acquisition of these new jurisdictions by
procedures such as enclosure at the expense of destroying old
jurisdictions, that lead to the weakening of the jurisdiction of other
professions (Abbott 1988: 91). A second source of change comes from
internal factors, these causes unlike external factors do not create or
abolish jurisdiction. Change is initiated internally within the dynamic
structures of professions through the development of new knowledge, and
expansion of jurisdictional consolidation by processes such as
professionalization or reduction (Abbott 1988: 91). Section II: The
System's Environment Abbott defines professional power "as the ability
to retain jurisdiction when system forces imply that a profession ought
to have lost it" (Abbott 1988: 136). The power of professions to expand
their cognitive domain, and thus their jurisdiction, Abbott maintains is
dependent on their use of abstract knowledge to annex new areas of work,
and to define then as their own (Abbott 1988: 102). Abbott also adds
that knowledge must not be too abstract or concrete to be
jurisdictionally advantageous for a profession. Two mechanisms help
professions to maintain an optimal level of abstraction, these being the
processes of amalgamation and division. Within professions there exists
internal differentiation between the organized groups of individuals
that comprise the profession. One major source of internal
stratification comes from the phenomenon of professional regression.
This is a process whereby professionals withdraw into themselves,
working in more purely professional environments, as a consequence of
gaining greater status (Abbott 1988: 118). They inevitably become
segregated from the tasks for which they claim jurisdiction, and from
clients, the public, and other subordinate professionals. Besides
professional regression there is the concept of client differentiation,
which leads to specialization within professions, this creates internal
divisions of labour. A process correlated to labour division is that of
degradation. Degradation is the progression whereby work is
systematically segmented from professional to non-professional status,
which leads to the division of labour between "an upper, truly
professional group and a lower, subordinate one" (Abbott 1988: 128). An
interrelated issue of labour division is that of career patterns, Abbott
argues that career patterns are often quite rigid, and that
interchangeability between work of different professions is impossible.
For due to demographic rigidity, some professions size and reproduction
mechanisms prevent them from expanding or contracting rapidly, thus
constraining their professionals from practicing outside of the
profession (Abbott 1988: 129). Abbott proposes that large scale general
changes on the structures that make up the system of professions, and
not their effects on individual professions must be examined, to
generate an accurate picture of the variables that mediate change
(Abbott 1988: 143). Abbott mentions that two significant circumstances
have helped in the advancement of professional jurisdictions. One being
the rise of the large-scale organization, and the other being the rise
of technology (Abbott 1988: 144). Beyond technology and organizations,
social movements have also been responsible for the creation and
abolishment of professional work. With the organizational revolution of
the 19th century professions became more bureaucratic. The rise of
bureaucracies has increased competition between professions, by
absorbing certain forms of work, and thus creating struggle for work
that remains (Abbott 1988: 157). As a consequence, there has been a
split between workplace and public jurisdiction, and subsequently a
division between administrative and legislative authority. This Abbott
contends leads to various changes in audiences for professional claims
dependent on the social environment (Abbott 1988: 157). Related to the
increase of bureaucracy is that of co-optation, the phenomenon of
professions shrinking in number and becoming more monopolized in power.
This process has not decreased interprofessional competition, but has
simply changed its location.... and involving different arrangements of
'friendly' groups (Abbott 1988: 176). Besides the many social
organizational and structural changes of professions that have occurred
throughout the short history of professions, great cultural changes have
also been involved in remaking the work of professions. The three of
most significance have been the growth in size and complexity of
professional knowledge, the emergence of new types of legitimacy claims
for that knowledge, and the rise of the university. The changes in
professional knowledge have involved two processes, that of growth and
replacement. Growth has lead to the subdivision of knowledge, while
replacement has pressured knowledge towards abstraction (Abbott 1988:
179). Legitimation of professions justifies what forms of work they can
do and how they are to do it (Abbott 1988: 184). The emergence of new
forms of jurisdictional legitimacy has been warranted by cultural shifts
such as secularization, and changing cultural values. This has led to a
shift in professional legitimation from a reliance on social origins and
character values to a reliance on scientization or rationalization of
technique and on efficiency of service (Abbott 1988: 179). The ascent of
the modern university has been a great external force behind the
development of professions. Universities have served as legitimators of
professional knowledge and expertise. They have helped to generate new
techniques of practice, and have been the training ground for
professionals. Finally, universities have also become another arena for
interprofessional competition (Abbott 1988: 196). Section III: Three
Case Studies In his discussion of information professionals Abbott
states that there are two types. There are those who reside in
qualitative information, such as librarians, academics, advertisers, and
journalists, and those who abide in quantitative information, such as
cost accountants, management engineers, statisticians, operations
researchers, and systems analysts. The move by qualitative professions
into technical organization has been attributed to the concept of
scientific management. Qualitative information work has been shaped
decisively by organizational and demographic developments... [as well as
by] major technological events (Abbott 1988: 219). The area of
quantitative information has developed through the advent of two
detrimental disturbances. One being the invention of mechanical devices
for calculation and tabulation, which helped to rountinize the work, and
the other being the birth of cost accounting, which helped professions
to become more competitive (Abbott 1988: 228). The 1930's were the
beginning of the unification between qualitative and quantitative
information. This brought about the emergence of two practical claimants
of this new area of information jurisdiction. The first was information
science (IS) which took a purely theoretical perspective on the topic,
and the second was management information systems (MIS), which had a
more practical orientation. The initial structural development of the
English legal profession began in the early 19th century, while the
onset of that of the Americans came at a much later time. Two
organizational structures attributed to the growth in demand for legal
services in the 19th century. One was large commercial enterprise, the
other was administrative bureaucracy. In its infancy legal work outgrew
its profession. This led to three types of conflict between competitors
within the profession. The first case known as excess jurisdiction
occurs when an incumbent profession cannot grow to meet demand, or
increase output, and thus faces invasion by outsiders. The second kind
of conflict arises when a professional group's potential output exceeds
its current jurisdiction. The third type of conflict occurs when groups
who provide equivalent services at lower prices seek to invade into a
settled jurisdiction. Due to the structure of the American legal
profession these conflict problems were less severe than in the British
system (Abbott 1988: 252). The American system because of its use of
large firms and the replacement of clerkship with law school, helped it
to produce higher output, thus it avoided problems related to demand and
supply (Abbott 1988: 252). Taken together, this shows that the
differences in the development of the English and American legal system
was caused by the actions of the two professions themselves, the general
social environment, and by competitors trying to secure control of areas
of importance to the legal profession (Abbott 1988: 275). Abbott posits
that the birth of professions coincided with the rise of personal
problems (Abbott 1988: 285). Thus, the history of professions is a
biography of the relationship between problems and the tasks that seek
to resolve them. The first groups that attempted to assert professional
jurisdiction over these personal problems were the clergy and
neurologists. This was the beginning of a gradual recognition of
personal problems as legitimate categories of professional work (Abbott
1988: 286). Other groups that subsequently joined the race for
professional jurisdiction were gynecologists, psychiatrists, as well as
weaker groups such as psychotherapists. In his book, Abbott outlines the
history of professional development by showing that professions have
evolved simultaneously through similar patterns of development. In
chapters six and seven he argued that professions are organizational
structures made-up of many internal components and divisions of labour.
Related to this issue was his belief that professions were
interdependent structures. Abbott believed that the power of professions
lay in their jurisdictional power, which set the boundaries of what an
occupation's work embraced. Work and claims to jurisdiction over tasks
for Abbott was what defined a professions power. He illustrated this by
showing that professions struggle and compete against each other to gain
control over undefined and unclear areas of tasks, to expand their
jurisdictional and overall strength. Chapters two to four devote most of
their attention to addressing these issues of work, competition, and
claims to legitimacy, which are related to jurisdictional power. The
primary goal of Abbott's book was to attempt to show that professions
exist within a system, he did this by demonstrating that changes in one
affects the other, and that one profession preempts another's work. This
was shown by his outlined principles in chapter four of his book, which
posit that external and internal changes in one profession causes
disturbances through the systems of professions. For professions as he
advocated constitute an interdependent system. Therefore, relations
between professions and their work determine the interwoven history of
professional development. In other words, one has helped to transform
the other, similar to the system whereby the factors of genetics and
environment symbiotically influence the direction of evolutionary
processes. Abbott wanted to address the issue that to study the
evolution of professions completely and accurately, it is not enough to
study them individually, that researchers have to examine the
relationship and development of all professions to understand any of one
them. For professions are as he states interdependent systems, which
influence each other prospectively. Part B: Discussion The social
construction of skill and its relationship to workers' autonomy and
discretion relate to Abbott's discussion for it was mentioned that
workers derive their skill by means of educational attainment and
achievements of credentials. These merits are defined and constructed by
the professions, it is up to their discretion to design the skill
requirements for entry into the professional body. That being so,
professions have a structured path for its prospective employees. This
would make the career pattern for many workers quite rigid, providing
them with very little autonomy and discretion in the career choices
(Abbott 1988: 129). We alluded to in class that sometimes the social
construction of skill may help to restrain the worker's ability for
autonomy and discretion. For instance, in the French system of the
1970's, the government pushed education to be highly specific in its
professional focus (Abbott 1988: 133). Thus, the educational system
produced skilled, but specifically skilled workers for society. Workers
knowledge and skill was highly specific and not broad or generalizable.
The French society socially constructed its own definition of skills
needed for society and education. However, the inevitable consequence of
such actions caused the problem of low interprofessional mobility.
Workers there had very little autonomy or discretion with regard to
their work (Abbott 1988: 133). Here, we see a situation where the social
construction of defining skill has led to the restriction of workers'
occupational freedom. Even with the social construction of skills that
defined the potential autonomy for workers, factors related to the
organizational structure of professions can limit such freedom. It was
discussed in class that workers choices and freedom to choose what they
want to do is often restricted by structural factors, such as division
of labour and company size. Abbott alludes to this in his discussion of
career patterns, he posits that the career paths in professions are
often quite rigid, with very little chance for interchangeability
between professions (Abbott 1988: 129). For example, a doctor cannot
move into the profession of law with his present skills, and vice versa
for a lawyer. The demands of those professions constrict the autonomy
professionals within those professions have, with regards to
interprofessional flexibility. Although the case may be that within
their own prospective professions, professionals have their own forms of
discretion and occupational autonomy dependent on their skill and
expertise. This inflexibility in interprofessional and career pattern
autonomy is controlled by the factor of demographic rigidity. Some
professions, due to their size and reproduction mechanisms, prevent them
from expanding or contracting, this constrains their professionals from
practicing outside of the profession (Abbott 1988: 129). This
illustrates that factors of a professions structure mediates the affect
of socially constructed skill with worker's autonomy and discretion,
that the organization of a profession can confine a professionals
occupational freedom. However, the situation of restricted freedom for
occupational alternative is not always the case, as has been mentioned
in class, sometimes through conditions of an individual's skill and by
organizational forces, workers find themselves confronted with
opportunities for advancement or differentiations. Abbott illustrates
that through the phenomenons of specialization and labour division
workers can increase their status and thus allow themselves chances for
expansions into other tasks areas (Abbott 1988: 128). Abbott advocates
that for some workers their professions allow them great autonomy and
discretion, this is based upon the set of socially constructed skills
they obtained. For example, the skills that society has required
librarians to acquire for their occupations, has given them more
opportunity for personal autonomy and discretion regarding their work
(Abbott 1988: 123). Librarians are differentiated and restricted only by
their own diverse choice of clientele (Abbott 1988: 123). They can
choose to work in schools, industry, government, public, and even in
academic areas. Their socially demanded skills in research and knowledge
allow them to move from one professional arena to another with ease, for
their skills are highly generalizable (Abbott 1988: 123). Sometimes, an
individuals credentials so happens allow him or her access into other
professions, giving him or her discretion to choose where he or she
wants to work, or what tasks he or she wants to do. Abbott argues that
some credentials allow individuals to claim jurisdiction under more than
one profession, allowing them autonomy to choose where they want to
reside, and allowing them the opportunity to switch over to another
jurisdiction as they wish (Abbott 1988: 103). For example, Abbott
proposes that a degree such as a M.B.A, because of its broad coverage of
diverse forms of knowledge and training, allows its owners numerous
areas for claimants (Abbott 1988: 103). Thus, students of diverse
specialties as psychology, sociology, law, economic, etc. can claim
jurisdiction in business management even though their primary study has
no relations, as long as they possess the certification of a M.B.A
degree. Simply by possessing credentials under a certain expertise and
skill that society has defined as expert, individuals can increase their
autonomy of career choice by great folds. This points to the fact that
the attainment of what society constructs as expert skill, can help in
ones' achievement of autonomy and discretion. Another process that leads
to the autonomy of the individual is through the process of degradation.
Degradation leads to the explicit division of labour, which inevitably
allows workers different career directions and alternatives (Abbott
1988: 126). In his discussion of the profession of computer programmers,
Abbott illustrates that the sudden explosion in the computerization of
industry in the 1970's created a large demand for computer programmers.
This led to a division in the work between normal and specialist
programmers, and while causing the subordination of some, this created
many new opportunities for specialty (Abbott 1988: 127). Specialists in
that field were presented with total autonomy and discretion with
regards to their work. They could set their own standards and
jurisdiction, for there existed no forbearers in their expertise to
restrict the creation of their own jurisdiction (Abbott 1988: 123). As
it has just been illustrated, the social construction of skill and its
relationship to workers' autonomy and discretion has not always been a
positive one. In some circumstances, workers are provided with great
freedom with regards to their work, but in others, the defined skills
constructed by society help to restrict the autonomy and discretion of
workers. Factors such as government intervention, the organizational
structure of professions, individual merit and choice, and processes of
labour division and destruction all play a role in determining the
occupational free choice of workers. Abbott's book outlined many of
these factors, his findings helped to substantiate ideals related to
this topic discussed in class. 

Bibliography

Reference Abbott, Andrew. The System of Professions: An Essay on the
Division of Expert Labour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1988. 

See also:

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, RH. 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.

--------------------------------------
From: Simmons, James [mailto:jsimmons () eds com]
Sent: Fri 4/05/2007 9:06 AM
To: Craig Wright
Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: CISSP Question


Ok so I will attempt this a different way, since I am getting no where
here. Why do you believe are the qualifications for an IT to be
considered a professional? What does an IT individual need to have done
to earn such a coveted title as a professional?

Regards,

Simmons

Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems

Direct +61 2 9286 5497
Craig.Wright () bdo com au
+61 417 683 914

BDO Kendalls (NSW)
Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001
Fax +61 2 9993 9497 www.bdo.com.au

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and
Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential.  If
you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy,
distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it
contains.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your
system. 

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls.  You may not rely on this
message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed
by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls.  It is your responsibility to
scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and
other defects.  BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or
damage however caused which may result from this communication or any
files attached.  A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our
Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at
http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au.

BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and
entities.