Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: RE: CISSP Question
From: "Simmons, James" <jsimmons () eds com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:36:39 -0500
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
Current thread:
- RE: CISSP Question, (continued)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- Re: RE: CISSP Question barcajax (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- RE: RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Gillett (May 03)
- RE: "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- "Professional", RE: RE: CISSP Question David Gillett (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- Message not available
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 07)
- RE: CISSP Question Simmons, James (May 03)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 02)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 04)
- RE: CISSP Question David Harley (May 04)
- RE: CISSP Question Craig Wright (May 07)
- RE: CISSP Question Elizabeth Tolson (May 07)