Marlot Kuiper

51 Standardization in professional settings description of professionals as powerless victims consequently results in claims of de-professionalisation (Reed, 2007; Vogd, 2006). Increasingly however, it is acknowledged that this rather cynical idea about changes in professionalism do not accurately describe reality. In her publication in Current Sociology (2011, p.405) Julia Evetts reflects on her own earlier work and self-confessedly states: “ This rather pessimistic interpretation has been prominent in my own recent writing (Evetts, 2009) where I have characterized recent changes as a threat to the third logic of professionalism as an occupational value and expert judgment, and professional discretion as something worth protecting and preserving.” From a pessimistic view in which standardization and performance measurement are seen as mere threats, follows the identification of professional responses that are merely resistant and defensive (e.g. Abel, 2003; Ackroyd &Muzio, 2007; Reed, 2007). The identification of opportunities however, next to these ‘threats’, has led to the theorizing of a ‘new professionalism’. ‘New professionalism’ Rather than ‘passive victims’, scholars have illustrated how professionals are capable of living up to new expectations of accountability and transparency without compromising on their own professional values (Davies, 2006; Evetts, 2006; Kuhlmann, 2006; Noordegraaf, 2011). 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. Thus, reforms also pose opportunities for professionalism. From this perspective, a growing body of 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 (e.g. Borkowski & Allen, 2003; Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin, &Waring, 2012; Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Wood, &Hawkins, 2005; Kerpershoek, Groenleer, & De Bruijn, 2016; Micelotta & Washington, 2013). In short, outside control of professionals is considered an opportunity to advance professional autonomy and power. In these accounts of a ‘new professionalism’, most emphasis is on how professionals use managerial reforms to further their own professional interests. From this perspective, they might therefore be seen as ‘strategic operators’ (Gleeson & Knights, 2006). 2