CON • TEXT - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo - AHO

A G R E E M E N T A N D D I S C O R Dand vocational experiences, and by membership of professionalassociations (local, regional, national and international) andsocieties where practitioners develop and maintain a sharedwork culture” (Evetts 2003:401).In view of this, structural models at the state and organisational level are notsufficient. Abbott claims that: “The central problem with the current conceptof professionalization is its focus on structure rather than work” (Abbott1988:19). Also the professions are changing, some becoming redundant, andsome growing with new demands. However, there is a factor to consider evenon the level of work practice that will apply to them all. The professions willbe seen as parts of a whole. Not any one profession can be seen as unrelatedto another. They are recognised by their boundaries — what separates themfrom the next. Here the thoughts of a system, rather than a structure, arevaluable. “Professions are never seen alone, but they are also not replaced bya single encompassing category of “the professions”. They exist in a system”(Abbott 1988:33). This will mean that discussions concerning theprofessionalism of A&C teachers within DKS, have to be made in relation tothe Artists in the project. One profession’s boundaries are recognised by theboundaries of the professions in proximity to it. They ‘work’ together, and assuch, can tell us of the dynamics that come into play in that particular case.My focus on this ’micro’ perspective in the DKS program and evaluatedDKS projects — the perspective of the work and the justifications concerningthe choices made in the work practice — thus becomes of great importance.“It is the content of the professions’ work that the case studies tell us ischanging. It is control of work that brings the professions into conflict witheach other and makes their histories interdependent” (Abbott 1988:19). It isin the justifications of the DKS practice that the agenda of the two involvedprofessions and their place in relation to each other are communicated andestablished. Their expert knowledge is commented on and expressed bymedia and evaluation narratives. It is in the differences that characteristics arehighlighted (Latour 2005), and in the similarities that cause disruption thatthe change in placement can be seen, and the public is brought into thestruggle. It is in the ambiguous situations (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) thatoccur and the justification narratives that are told that the boundaries betweenthe professions are challenged, and recognised, as they are articulatedthrough purpose and the distribution of perceived relevant knowledge. Thecollaboration projects within DKS can, in my view, be seen as an arena fornarratives of professional struggle based on how representations ofprofessionals and professional practice are presented to the public. Actionscan be seen as a form of justification in its own right. The strategic sides ofactions, to organize the work in relationality, are what professional claims are71