In this essay, four leading scholars provide critical commentary on an article entitled ‘Protective or Connective Professionalism? How Connected Professionals Can (Still) Act as Autonomous and Authoritative Experts’ (M Noordegraaf, 2020, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7/2) Of central concern to all four commentators is Noordegraaf’s use of ideal types as a heuristic device to make his case and capture historical change over time While some question the usefulness of ideal types, others question Noordegraaf’s use of them The commentators raise additional concerns, especially the limited attention to variations across professions, geographic regions, and limited attention to social–historical contexts

中文翻译：

---

连接专业精神：走向（又一个）理想类型

在这篇文章中，四位主要学者对一篇题为“保护性或连接性专业主义？互联专业人士如何（仍然）充当自主和权威专家”（M Noordegraaf，2020，Journal of Professions and Organization，7/2）所有四位评论员的核心关注点是 Noordegraaf 使用理想类型作为启发式方法，使他的案例并捕捉随着时间的推移的历史变化 虽然有些人质疑理想类型的有用性，但其他人质疑 Noordegraaf 对它们的使用 评论员提出了额外的担忧，尤其是对跨职业、地理区域差异的有限关注以及对社会历史背景的有限关注