Marlot Kuiper

24 Connective Routines actively capture or resist standards to protect their position” (sociology of professions and organisations). All the aforementioned perspectives depart from certain dichotomies, that naturally also result in dichotomous explanations. Although research projects conducted in the field of implementation science led to the identification of multiple valuable barriers and facilitators, there is a lack of understanding how these factors actually interrelate in practice. Scholars increasingly differentiate between ‘individual’ and ‘system barriers’ when it comes to standard implementation (see e.g. the overview of Grol & Wensing, 2004). It remains largely unknown however, how the dynamics between individual and system levels plays out in professional practice. In Sociology of Professionalism literature, the contrast between occupations and organisations, and managers and professionals has sustained for a very long time (Noordegraaf, 2011). Conceptual dualisms between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ are therefore firmly embedded (Gleeson & Knights, 2006, p.277-278). The professional as victimmainly reflects explanations that focus on structure, in terms of how the professional got subjected to governmental and organisational structures typified by ‘managerialism’ (Exworthy & Halford, 1999; Freidson, 2001). By contrast, the professional as ‘strategic operator’ emphasizes agency, in terms of how professionals construct meaning and identity through everyday practices (e.g. resisting or complying with standards), neglecting the institutional environments that form and constrain their work. Yet, each of these analyses reduces analysis to one side of the coin, without explicitly bearing in mind the coin as a whole and considering the relationship between individuals and systems, or between structure and agency. Increasingly, professional services are studied by more dynamic and relational approaches that do not isolate one particular aspect, but analyse how aspects are interrelated (Noordegraaf, 2011). Contemporary research efforts aim to overcome the divide between ‘organisations’ and ‘professionals’, reflected in work on ‘hybrid’ and ‘organised’ professionalism (Evetts, 2016; Hendrikx & van Gestel, 2017; Kirkpatrick, 2016; McGivern, Currie, Ferlie, Fitzgerald, & Waring, 2015; Noordegraaf, 2011). Still, there is an urgent call to study on micro-level how professionals within organisational environments actually give shape to new standards in the everyday course of their work (Denis et al., 2015; Wallenburg et al., 2016; Waring & Bishop, 2013).