All these characteristics ensure that a professional demonstrates expertise and dominance over his or her trade. Thus, professionalisation became a common trend among different occupations, and one that has received great attention from sociologists (Wueste, 1997).
Whilst professionalisation is generally accepted as an important direction among occupations, it has received various criticism coming from different angles. Andrew Abbott’s main critic about the notion of professionalism are particular claims of theorists that “the evolution of professions are unidirectional; that the development of individual professions does not depend on that of others; that what professions do—the work as well as the requisit expertise—is less important than how they are orgnised to do it; that professions are homogeneous units; and that the process of professionalisation does not change over time” (Wueste, 1997, p. 8). Related to the last element identified by Abbot, another major critcism relies on the manner that professionalism is instituted. A number of occupations have developed higher levels of training and standards of practice to enhance their claims to professional status. However, Wilensky (1964) said that many of these groups rested on a knowledge base which was either too general and vague, or too narrow. Their knowledge base was weak and not directly used by them. Professionalism is further complicated by copmeting modes of institutionalising expertise, such as commodification and beurocratic organization (Wuestes, 1997). Thus, a more preferred term was used by Etzioni (1969) to classify these occupations: semi-professionals.
The field of education has been historically in constant threat of de-professionalisation (Bottery & Wright, 2000), and teachers may be seen as being prime examples of what Etzioni (1969) call as semi-professionals. Much of the issues are traced to how the educational