Marlot Kuiper

23 The challenge of working with checklists On the one hand, there are claims of ‘de-professionalisation’. Formal standards, as being the ultimate bureaucratic instrument; explicating what to do when and in what ways (Berg, Horstman, Plass, & Van Heusden, 2000), are considered an assault on professional power. Freidson for example stressed that values prominent in an ideal typical ‘professional logic’ are increasingly oppressed by a ‘managerial logic’ encompassing organisational values. He argued that the profession “is seriously weakened in the name of competition and efficiency” (Freidson, 2001, p.3; see also; Reay & Hinings, 2009). Others added to this by stating how the effects of the New Public Management turned professionals into ‘occupational professionals’ that face organisational control, as they are being held accountable to their self-developed ‘bureaucratic’ standards (Exworthy & Halford, 1999). In short, far-reaching standardization and hence outside control of such professional standards is considered challenging for professional autonomy and power. On the other hand, there are claims that standards are not so much challenging professional autonomy – on the contrary, they are said to generate possibilities to further strengthen the position of professionals. From this perspective, a growing body of empirical research has focused on what professionals actively do to maintain or re - establish their obtained position. Actively resisting or reforming business-like standards to further professionals’ interests is part of that (Borkowski & Allen, 2003; Currie et al., 2012; Ferlie et al., 2005; Micelotta & Washington, 2013). In short, outside control of professionals is considered an opportunity to advance professional autonomy and power. Different research outlooks thus present professionals as either ‘de- professionalised victims’ that become suppressed by external control ‘or strategic operators’ that (re)take control over professional work (see also Gleeson & Knights, 2006). 1.5 Research perspective: Routines Although these explanations from both implementation science and the sociology of organisations and professions are relevant to consider, there is something missing in these analyses. There is something more to it than “the tool was not good enough”, “it’s implementation was not good enough” (implementation science) or “professionals are helpless victims” or, the opposite “professionals 1