Kontekstiks:

“Digital technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), is likely to give rise to dramatic changes in professions and professional practice. Yet the socio-economic process of this transformation is not well-understood.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 1)

Ennustused erinevad suurel määral:

“To date, empirical studies on the future of work are primarily about estimating the proportion of today’s jobs that are at risk of automation, or otherwise susceptible to digital technology. But such estimates vary enormously, from 9% in OECD countries Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (2016), 10–30% in the UK (The British Academy and Royal Society 2018), 47% of 702 O*NET occupations in the US (Frey and Osborne 2017) to 96% of 769 occupations (Dellot, Mason and Wallace-Stephens 2020; Manyika et al. 2017; Muro, Whiton and Maxim 2019).” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 2)

Autorid seavad eesmärke:

“Our aim is to empirically track a profession’s response, and to analyze the rationale behind the chosen response in terms of the nature of professional jurisdictional control. This approach enables us to link the concept of professional jurisdictional control to the contrast between “protective professionalism” and “connective professionalism” (Noordegraaf 2020; Noordegraaf and Brock 2021).” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 2)

Lugemisfookuse sättimiseks:

“Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), are transforming the world of work. In order to shed light on specific impacts on professional work, this section reviews two areas of literature: first, economic analysis of the future of work, and second, sociological analysis of the system of professions.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 3)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“With respect to the economic analysis of the future of work, our study points to professional jurisdictional control as an important factor that mediates the impact of digital technology on packaging tasks into jobs. In particular, professional jurisdictional control helps us narrow down the scoping condition, and points us to specific resolutions in terms of how new tasks are packaged into existing or new jobs.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 24) […] “It is also possible that a relational perspective of open interfaces with new professions (Kahl et al. 2016) and connective professionalism (Noordegraaf 2020) is more important than occupational closure for the survival of a profession when jurisdictional challenges come from professions whose knowledge base is quite different yet complementary.” (Sako et al., 2022, p. 24)

Sako, M., Qian, M., & Attolini, J. (2022). Future of professional work: Evidence from legal jobs in Britain and the United States. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac011