Changes in Professionalism: The Case of Estonian Chefs

Theoretical framework: Understanding professionalisation

Many scholars (e.g., Evetts, 2003, 2012; Noordegraaf, 2007; Van Ruler, 2005) have pointed out the ambiguous meaning of professionalism; in the context of multiple changes, different interpretations are needed to understand the links connecting occupational changes, the concept of professionalism and the power of the concept to promote occupational change. The lack of consensus on the meanings and approaches to conceptualisations in the debate on professionalism has been suggested by several authors (e.g., Evans, 2008; Freidson, 1994; Gewirtz, Manony, Hextall, & Cribb, 2009; Urban & Dalli, 2012). Both cultural and historical factors, as well as contemporary trends—particularly changing patterns of state regulation, including standardisation tendencies, and the growing internationalisation of markets, managerialism and consumerism (Evetts, 2012)—have influenced the substance and understanding of professionalism.

The traditional or ideological interpretation of professionalism articulated by Freidson (2001) stresses strong institutionalisation of an occupational group, exercise of control over entry to the profession, autonomy, self-control over the work, commonly accepted professional codes of ethics, long educational preparation and a specific, theory-related, professional knowledge base. The approach suggests the complexity of the work in an occupation considered as a profession; it is not possible to standardise it, thus demanding a high degree of self-regulation of the members of the occupational group and autonomy in their professional activities. Likewise, professionalism is strongly related to confidence in abstract systems and institutions, as well as trust in individual professional practitioners (Svensson, 2006).

However, the capacity of the ideological approach to professionalism (see e.g., Antikainen, Rinne, & Koski, 2009; Freidson, 2001; Johnson, 1984; Van Ruler, 2005) can no longer fully explain the developments in the system of occupations and professions and in the substance of professionalism. Furthermore, the boundaries between professions, especially in the case of developing professions, are no longer clear-cut (Eraut, 1999). Therefore, in the context of contemporary neoliberal societies that are trying to standardise occupational fields and at the same time, favouring flexible specialisation and emphasising consumers, cost control and performance management, professionalism is under pressure and needs re-conceptualising.

Professionalism as a sociological construct also refers to the concept of “professionalisation”, defined as the process in which occupations have become or seek to become recognised as professions (Hoyle, 2001) or as a collective desire of an occupational group to achieve better position, status and advantages in society (Van Ruler, 2005). In the background discussions of occupational and societal changes in professionalisation, two approaches can be discerned: de-professionalisation and re-professionalisation.

De-professionalisation has mainly been noted in cases where practitioners of some occupations think their professionalism has been devalued, faced with strong pressure from external control (standards, assessment and accountability) and evaluation involved with reform processes, such as in the case of teachers (e.g., Evetts, 2003; Ozga, 1995; Webb, 2004, as cited in Lai, 2010), thus diminishing their social position and leading to de-professionalisation (Hoyle, 2001).

Re-professionalisation has been identified in cases where changes have forced occupational groups to redefine their working roles to include their professional and moral values as well as their identities, reflecting the core concerns of their work (e.g., Helsby, 1999; Troman, 1996). Since a growing number of professionals are employed by organisations, in effect becoming “salaried professionals” (Murphy, 1990), their traditional autonomy has decreased as occupational control over the professional work has been (at least partly) replaced by managerial control (e.g., Evetts, 2012). Furthermore, the professionals have been pressured to take over administrative and managerial roles in organisations. The field of management itself has been marked by a conflict between two competing views of professional knowledge. First, the manager is a technician whose practice consists of applying the principles and methods derived from management science to the everyday problems of his or her organisation. Second, the manager is a craftsperson, a practitioner of an art of managing that cannot be reduced to explicit rules and theories (Schön, 1983). Thus, professionals in organisations can face the “boundary work” (van der Scheer, Stoopendaal, & Putters, 2008), guided by different sets of objectives and principles (professional and managerial) simultaneously.

Proceeding from Wilensky’s famous question: “Do we experience a ‘professionalization of everyone?’” (1964, as cited in Noordegraaf, 2007, p. 761), Noordegraaf (2007) distinguished amongst three conceptualisations of professionalism: “pure”, “situative” and “hybrid”. Pure professionalism refers to its traditional, ideological understanding (e.g., Freidson, 2001). Situative professionalism tries to expand the traditional concept by indicating how external/organisational control limits professional control and autonomy (e.g., Evetts, 2012; Larson, 1977; Whitley, 1989).

Representatives of hybrid professionalism point out that compared to traditional professionals (advocates, doctors), the variety of new occupations (such as managers, administrators, salespersons, etc.), “open” professionals and practical experts—who do not have a strong institutional background and who have acquired professional knowledge in an informal and experiential way (Saaristo, 2001)—have emerged and are pursuing legitimate professions (Noordegraaf, 2007). Mieg (2001) claimed that with some reservations, we can consider management a type of professional expertise, too. For instance, managerial decision making can be viewed as a professional task (Mieg, 2001). Noordegraaf’s model (Noordegraaf 2007, p. 779) reinterpreted and introduced the concept of hybrid professionalism by calling attention to the following characteristics:

First, as professionals have to take managerial and market-oriented roles (Noordegraaf, 2007, p. 776) and managers, in turn, assume professional roles, there is a need to negotiate the ways in which professional and managerial control can be mixed and balanced in specific organisational and professional circumstances. Instead of “pure” professional control, new, combined strategies of controlling practices with subtlend selective standards are proposed.

Second, novel mechanisms of legitimising work in (new) occupations under various domains emphasise professionalism as a symbolic term, used in the discourses to legitimise the recent types of professionalism.

Third, the search for new identities is related to the “boundary work” (van der Scheer et al., 2008), where compromises should be made between different identities and norms to align various standards meaningfully and create communal identity (Noordegraaf, 2007, p. 779).

Additionally, Saaristo (2001) perceived openness as the most distinguishing feature of hybrid professionalism. He presented its three pillars: 1) exposure of professional activities, communication and interaction on a professional basis; 2) reliability and acceptance as a professional by colleagues and the general public; and 3) control over professional activity/content that can be accomplished by ideological, societal and technological direction or their combinations. Overall, the features of hybrid professionalism include:

1) no strong institutionalisation in terms of professional organisations and professional education—primarily or partly nonformal and experiential training (knowledge can be acquired from books, magazines, conferences, meetings, daily practices and so on); 2) service delivery and high service standards; 3) reflexive control—different controls (managerial, professional and customer) can be mixed in daily practices to establish meaningful connections amongst customers, work and action; 4) ethical code; and 5) communication with the public and public relations.

Changes in the work of Estonian chefs

Nowadays, chefs’ roles are related to management work and organisation, marketing and service, culture, food making, theory-based research and organisational ethics (Roosipõld, 2011).

Several researchers have pointed out the open-context expertise necessary for a chef, including communication skills (Surlemont, Chantrain, Nlemvo, & Johnson, 2005, Heikkinen, 2004), language and public speaking skills, creativity (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007; Sandwith, 1993), innovation (Hegarty & O’Mahony, 2001, Zopiatis, 2010, ; Bissett, Cheng, Brannan, 2010), creativity (Robinson & Beesley, 2010) creating a “good spirit” (Balazs, 2002; Kang, Twigg and Hertzman, 2010) and putting them all into practice (Turpeinen, 2006; Turpeinen, 2009), as well as flexibility, collaboration skills, readiness to change (Koponen, 2006), ability to help others and to keep one’s ego and emotions under control (Birdir & Pearson, 2000) and entrepreneurial ability (Johnson, Surlemont, Nicod & Revaz, 2005; Svejenova, Planellas & Vive, 2010). In managerial terms, the chef, sous-chef, maitre d’hotel and chef-sommelier constitute the “top management team” of the restaurant. The sous-chef, the second in command, is in many ways the chef’s polar opposite. He or she is often calm, introvert and stable, while the chef is quirky and can be upset and throw tantrums if things do not go well (Balazs, 2002). It explains why the chef differs from other managerial staff as a charismatic person.

During the Soviet period in Estonia, the profession of chef was unknown and its forerunner was the production manager, whose social status was relatively low. After the country regained independence, the first role models for Estonian chefs were Finnish chefs, who began to teach their profession to Estonian cooks. This development was facilitated by the heavier ship traffic between Tallinn and Helsinki, where Finnish chefs shared their wisdom with the young Estonian cooks. In the mid-1990s, those trained Estonian cooks moved to Estonia for self-actualisation. In 2000, the Estonian Chefs Association (ECA) was created. The ECA helps develop the curriculum for cooks in vocational education and the society’s members participate in vocational school councils. Since 2006, the ECA has been a part of the World Association of Chefs Societies. Current statistics show that the cooking profession is extremely popular in Estonia. (Järveots- Lumiste, 2014)

Cooks obtain their profession but no special education is provided for chefs. However, there is a vocational standard developed for cooks and level V (European Qualifications Framework, 2014) describes the requirements for chefs. In Schön’s (1983) words, chefs can be depicted as “the reflective practitioners” who are not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique but construct a new theory of their unique case.

Methodology

The qualitative method was implemented to ascertain how Estonian chefs understand and interpret the changes to their occupation, as well as what meaning they ascribe to those changes from the perspective of professionalisation.

The semi-structured interview was applied as the tool for data collection. The interviews were conducted with nine of the most outstanding chefs in Estonia, of whom seven were male and two female, and with two experts in the field of food science, both of whom represented formal education, one in higher and the other in vocational education. At the first stage of data collection, the chefs were interviewed. At the second stage, it was the experts’ turn in order to determine the factors related to cooperation between higher educational institutions and chefs as well as tendencies towards institutionalisation of the chefs’ occupation.

In preparing the interview guidelines, we proceeded from the concept of “ideological professionalism”. For every topic, one open question was asked, with leading questions on the assumption of the theory. With such questions, we tried to change the implicit comprehension of the interviewee into an explicit understanding. These questions proposed the positions with which the interviewee could agree or not, whether they were in accordance with his or her subjective theories.

Each interview lasted for 45 minutes on average. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim.

In the data analysis, first, the text was examined with an open categorisation of the primary data. Second, under each broad category, the repertory of answers/meanings was brought out. Third, on the basis of the emerging information, the substance/contents of the broader categories were generalised and interpreted as the characteristics of the chefs’ professionalism. The opinions of chefs and experts were analysed altogether. In cases where the experts’ opinions were totally different and new, these were pointed out separately.

As the next step of the analysis, the theoretical and empirical aspects were compared. Its aim was to evaluate the characteristics presented by the chefs against those of theoretical models of professionalism.

The life cycle of knowledge in this occupation is perceived as a short-term process; therefore, a broad education and lifelong learning are more important than a certain educational background. Consequently, the learning patterns of chefs have been analysed more broadly (theory-based knowledge, professional knowledge and lifelong learning).

Results: Topics discussed by chefs and experts

Discussion

In talking about their profession, the chefs set apart several topics that referred to the attributes of hybrid professionalism (Noordegraaf, 2007), highlighting their multiple roles in the organisation. Foremost, they emphasised that the chefs are specialists in their field/, but their role as a leader in the organisation is equally important.

The main point of the discussion of the results is to explain how the major features of the hybrid model of professionalism are manifested in the chefs’ case. The six key aspects identified in the analysis of the interviews can be distinguished, which are relevant in determining how chefs’ professionalism matches the pattern of hybrid professionalism.

First, the institutionalisation of the chefs’ occupation is weak. It means that the roles of theoretical knowledge and higher educational institutions in building the occupation’s knowledge base are weak; similarly, the professional associations’ function in regulating and controlling the chefs’ work is almost nonexistent. The chefs focused on nonformal learning. Theory-based knowledge and academic education were considered much less important (even irrelevant) than nonformal and experiential learning. Similar learning patterns had also been mentioned in the context of the chefs’ work by several researchers (Balazs, 2002; Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007; Pratten & O’Leary, 2007; Walter, Edvardsson, & Öström, 2010, Roosipõld, 2012). Most chefs have been trained by working in the best kitchens in the world. Some chefs around the world have taught themselves and advanced to achieve very high positions, for instance, Heston Marc Blumenthal, who now holds a Master of Science and enjoys fruitful cooperation with research institutions and universities (Barham, 2007). Another example is Ferran Adria, who travels internationally, gathering and developing ideas with the help of scientists, as well as creating techniques and concepts that generate many recipes (Carlin, 2011).

Second, service orientation of chefs at work was considered vital. Chefs deliver services under rigorous standards of restaurants; the importance of service in chefs’ work had also been mentioned by many authors (Balazs, 2002; Birdir & Pearson, 2000; Hu, 2010; Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007).

Third, another critical issue cited in chefs’ occupation was the code of ethics, manifested in terms of quality, honesty, responsibility for customers’ health, and respect for employees, customers and owners. It coincides with the earlier findings of researchers (e.g., Fauchart & Hippel, 2008; Hollows & Jones, 2010) who highlighted the importance of professional ethics in the context of chefs’ professionality.

Fourth, reflexive control was covered in the interviews. There was an expressed understanding that a chef does not need a licence or certification. The work is rather controlled by owners and customers, meaning that organisational and societal influences are dominant. The latter had been emphasised by earlier research as well (e.g., Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007). Finally, self-control is also important and works through ethical principles, the mission of the chef’s occupation and as a basis for self-reflection. Occupational control is quite weak, although states establish occupational standards and some chefs are members of the working groups that formulate the occupational standards. However, occupational standards are not considered important by employers when recruiting and training staff, nor by chefs themselves in terms of willingness to follow the standards; in other words, the occupational standards do not apply in everyday practice.

Fifth, communication with the public and public relations were pointed out in the chefs’ discourse as essential aspects of professionalism. This matter had also been mentioned previously by Balazs (2002), Henderson (2011) and Surlemont and colleagues (2005).

Sixth, although a professional organisation/association of chefs exists, its role is vague and rather weak. Membership is not essential for the chefs and the organisation does not support their professional development because it does not unite the chefs effectively. Communication and teamwork are unsatisfactory within the organisation and it does not cooperate with higher educational institutions. It means that there is no information exchange, neither among these institutions nor among individual chefs. The weak institutionalisation of the chefs’ occupation seems to support the openness of the profession; therefore, no closure strategies (licensing or certifying) have been implemented in this case. There are no institutional barriers to occupational entry and the pursuit of a chef’s career.

In Kitchener’s (2002) words, these results describe an idea of professionalism as a new approach to establish institutional legitimacy, accompanied by new social categories. In this regard, the professionalisation of Estonian chefs can be described not so much as being a professional as becoming a professional in modern times. More precisely, hybrid professionalism legitimises ways of becoming professional without ever really becoming so (Noordegraaf, 2007).

Conclusions

This study shows that in the case of chefs, hybrid professionalism is preferable to the traditional type, although with some reservations. The weak institutionalisation does not support professionalisation and a sense of collegiality due to the competition’s failure to create prerequisites for consolidation on the basis of a vocational group.

The emergence of new roles in the course of working as a chef in an organisation/restaurant has not been accompanied by any reliance on theoretical knowledge and academic education. However, lifelong learning in several forms and experiential training are considered crucial for professional development.

New roles have transformed the occupation and raised the status of chefs, for example, roles related to communication—performer on TV shows, public figure, etc. The managerial roles (roles of leader and entrepreneur) add prestige, too; being an owner also allows greater freedom to be innovative, which in turn improves professionalism and enhances one’s reputation. Chefs are also on a quest to find a compromise between managing and their professional job (cooking); the struggle continues between these two worlds as a conflict over occupational or professional identities. Chefs have mixed occupational identities, with the ability to speak both languages that might help bridge the gap between the different domains of managers and professionals. The managerial role can create the motive to acquire academic education, but such is not the case in the role of cook-expert.

Performing and supporting both roles require some flexibility in chefs’ work schedules to accommodate their university training in andragogy, management, entrepreneurship, etc. These lessons could be matched with formal and informal studies in collaborative networks (reflection, working in different kitchens, etc). Future research should focus on a larger sampling of chefs (not only outstanding ones) to determine their beliefs and opinions about their work and the need for upgrading their competences

Acknowledgements

This article has been prepared and completed within the research projects “Fundamental Education Change: vocational teachers as change agencies in the course of VET reforms” and “Teachers’ professionality and professionalism in changing context” funded by the Estonian Research Council.