结论
过去10 年，英国专业博士学位的兴起和扩张，与专门职业更广泛的议程和更广泛的专业化计划有关。然而，这种联系是复杂、多方面的。作为本章研究主题的两个专业博士学位项目，是首批在英国设立的专业博士项目，尽管设立的原因不同，针对的也是非常不同的职业群体。专业化（professiondisation）的一个方面是对专门化（specialisation）和专门化的知识（specialised knowledge）有所宣称。对于EngD 来说，发展专门化的专业知识是明确的目标，以学界与业界的协同合作为基础，其关注点在于工具化；这种协同合作源于工程与自然科学研究理事会对EngD 的发展历程，它也有理由发展EngD。相比之下，EdD 项目对发展专门化知识的主张是有限的，大学与职业场所之间的关系往往更为脆弱，并且主要通过个人的专业发展来调节。
我们进一步指出，职业群体的知识发展是区域化的，因而通用的模型是站不住脚的。一个职业群体对专业地位和对知识体系的垄断程度，由知识发展的三个场所中的一系列因素所决定，是该职业群体与国家间特殊关系的结果。专业授权在两个职业群体——工程和教育——中显示出了不同的运作方式。其结果是，专门知识或强或弱地被架构（framed），如果是后者，那么会影响该职业群体围绕受过训练且得到认证的工作者群体建立劳动市场保护的能力，也会影响其维持在本职业内不同劳动分层或分工之间实现强烈区隔的能力。不过，我们也指出这只是其中的一个因素而已，特定职业内的结构问题也可能会产生影响。最后，我们并不是说专业博士学位本身唯一地决定了职业群体对专门化知识体系的控制程度，只是说它们可以成为加强或者削弱垄断控制的一个因素。
参考文献
[1] Allen, C., Smyth, E. and Wahlstrom, M. (2002) Responding to the field and to the academy: Ontario’s evolving Ph.D., Higher education Research and Development, 21(2): 203-214.
[2] Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity, London: Taylor and Francis.
[3] Bernstein, B. (1997) Class, Codes and Control, Volume 3, London: Routledge.
[4] Bottery, M. (1997) Teacher professionalism through action research—possibility or pipe dream, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 29 (1): 273-292.
[5] Bottery, M. and Wright, N. (2000) Teachers and the State: Towards a Directed Profession, London and New York: Routledge.
[6] Cowan, R. (1997) Comparative perspectives on the British Ph.D., in N. Graves and V. Varma(eds), Working for a Doctorate: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences, London: Routledge.
[7] Etzioni, A. (ed.) (1969) The Semi-professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, London: Collier-Macmillan.
[8] Finniston Report (1979) Committee of Enquiry into British Engineering, London: HMSO.
[9] Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[10] Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.
[11] Gunter, H. and Ribbins, P. (2002) Leadership studies in education: towards a map of the field, Educational Management and Administration, 30(4): 387-416.
[12] Hanlon, G. (1998) Professionalism as enterprise: service class politics and the redefinition of professionalism, Sociology, 32(1):43-63.
[13] Helsby, G. (1999) Changing Teachers’ Work: The Reform of Secondary Schooling, Buckingham: Open University Press.
[14] McWilliam, E., Taylor, P., Thomson, P., Green, B., Maxwell, T., Wildy, H. and Simons, D. (eds) (2002) Research Training in Doctoral Program: What Can be Learned from Professional Doctorates?, Canberra: ACT: DCITA.(https://www.daowen.com)
[15] Maxwell, T. (2003) From first to second generation professional doctorate, Studies in Higher Education, 28(3): 279-292.
[16] Millerson, G. (1964) The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professiona- lisation, London: Routledge.
[17] Moore, R. and Muller, J. (2002) The growth of knowledge and the discursive gap, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4): 627-637.
[18] Parnaby Report (1992) Working Party Report, London: HMSO.
[19] Quality Assurance Agency (1999) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Postgraduate Research Programmes (updated 2004), London: QAA.
[20] Saks, M. (1995) Professional and the Public Interest: Medical Power, Altruism and Alternative Medicine, London: Routledge.
[21] Scott, D., Lunt, I., Brown, A. and Thorne, L.(2004) Professional Doctorates: Integrating Professional and Academic Knowledge, London: Open University Press.
[22] Seddon, T. (2000) What is doctoral in doctoral education?, paper presented at the 3rd International Professional Doctorates Conference, Doctoral Education and Professional Practice: The Next Generation?, Armidale, 10-12 September.
[23] Skrtic, T.M. (1991) The special education paradox: equity as the way to excellence, Harvard Educational Review, E(12): 148-206.
[24] Smyth, J. (2001) A culture of teaching ‘under new management’, in D. Gleeson and C. Husbands (eds), The Performing School: Managing, Teaching and Learning in a Performance Culture, London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
[25] Troman, G. (1996) The rise of the new professionals? The restructuring of primary teachers’ work and professionalism, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(4): 472-487.
[26] Whitty, G. (2001) Teacher professionalism in new times, in D. Gleeson and C. Husb and s (eds), The Performing School: Managing, Teaching and Learning in a Performance Culture, London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
【注释】
[1]profession 与occupation 这两个概念容易混淆。在本章中， profession 被译为“专门职业”或“专业”（出于行文流畅的考虑），occupation 被译为“职业”。professional 做形容词时，被译为“专业的”；occupational 被译为“职业的”；specialised 被译为“专门化的”。——译者注
[2]HEFCE 的全称为Higher Education Funding Council for England，可译为“英格兰高等教育基金管理委员会”。——译者注
[3]OFSTED 是英国负责评价学校标准的政府部门，其全称为the Office for Standards in Education，Children’s Services and Skills. ——译者注，详见网址：https：//www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted