For decades, the Weberian approach to the study of professions has been strong, emphasizing state authorization and market monopolies as constituting what is considered a profession. Originally, however, the Weberian conception of closure, or the ways in which a profession is constituted and made separate, was broader. This article suggests a revision of the closure concept, integrating insights from Pierre Bourdieu, and conceptualizing professional closure as the intersection of social, symbolic and legal closure. Based on this revision, this article demonstrates how to apply such a concept in empirical studies. This is done by exploring social, symbolic and legal closure across sixteen professional degree programs. The analyses show a tendency for some overlap between different forms of closure, with a somewhat divergent pattern for legal closure. Results support the argument that we need to study these processes as an intersection of different sources of closure, including capital, lifestyles and discourse
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).