Marlot Kuiper

251 Conclusion dimension, an ethical dimension and a regulatory dimension. In the well- known traditional model of professionalism, professionals possess specialized knowledge acquired through enduring training, they are devoted to serving the public good according to ethical norms and values, and they have control over the content of their work and the leeway to make decisions about individual cases. Because of their cognitive and ethical base, the professions are granted autonomy and trust. However, because of various developments that occurred in- and outside of the professions, this traditional model has come under pressure. For instance, cases have become more complex, clients more critical and demanding, technologies transform work practices, and incidents raised public attention. Trust is in the professions is therefore no longer guaranteed, and performance constantly has to be proved and accounted for. In addition, increasing complexity and multi- problem cases direct professionals towards and collaboration beyond their professional borders. These developments have led to new conceptualizations of professionalism, in which scholars point toward different directions. Some have identified processes of ‘de-professionalisation’, in which professionals have become victims of managerial pressures and their professional characteristics become eroded. A less pessimistic direction is that of a ‘new professionalism’ in which professionals strategically operate to maintain or restore their position as professionals. A third and more recent conceptualization points toward ‘hybrid’ or ‘organised’ professionalism. From this perspective, professions and organisations are not inherently opposed to each other. Rather, values like objectivity, efficiency, autonomy, and empathy become interwoven. Hence, organising becomes part of professionalism. “What are standards and medical checklists, and what is their (intentional) professional usage?” (chapter 2) This theoretical question was posed to demarcate the core concepts ‘standard’ and ‘checklist’. A review of the literature indicated a clear tendency towards standardization in professional work settings, championed by the medical domain. The underlying reasons for standardization are multiple, though the most reported impetus for standardization is ‘quality improvement’, which is then referred to as making practices more efficient, reducing variability in service delivery, and dealing with increasing complexity and uncertainty (Timmermans 8