Purpose

The purpose of this paper aims to disclose shared beliefs and understandings about the concept of professionalism amongst Dutch commercial real estate valuers. It examines prevailing logics of action in a mature European valuation industry and reflects on the potential influence of these logics on the occurrence of judgement bias in valuation.

Design/methodology/approach

The underlying study adopted a grounded theory approach to facilitate reflexive in-depth interview sessions with 20 experienced valuation professionals in the Netherlands. Emerging data on core categories of professionalism were initially identified and grouped; and subsequently conceptualised into ideal role types of valuers using institutional logics theory.

Findings

Three different ideal types appear to guide Dutch valuation practice: the expert, the service provider and the reporter. The expert emphasises professional standards and technical quality, while the service provider advocates commercial quality and the reporter aims to uphold procedural quality. The authors find that the attention for technical quality associated with the expert role may be at risk of underexposure, fostering concerns about judgement quality and associated bias risks.

Research limitations/implications

The potential impact of both commercial and bureaucratic logics on valuation quality may raise authoritative and educational concerns over judgement bias effects. However, while trends in professionalism may transcend national boundaries, the specifics of local real estate market structures and regulations require replication of results in other markets.

Originality/value

Institutional logics provide an alternative, socio-economic perspective on present-day valuer behaviour that progresses the understanding of the valuer–client relationship, thereby advancing the knowledge base on valuer judgement and client influence. Furthermore, the authors' role typology offers future research opportunities in terms of measurement and explanation of differences.

中文翻译：

---

理想的估值师类型：专家，服务提供商或报告人？商业价值评估中的主要角色类型调查

目的

本文的目的是在荷兰商业房地产估价师中公开有关专业性概念的共同信念和理解。它研究了成熟的欧洲估值行业中流行的行为逻辑，并反思了这些逻辑对估值中判断偏差发生的潜在影响。

设计/方法/方法

这项基础研究采用了扎根的理论方法，以促进与荷兰20名经验丰富的估值专业人士进行反思性深度访谈。最初确定并归类了有关专业精神核心类别的新兴数据；然后运用制度逻辑理论将其概念化为估值师的理想角色类型。

发现

出现了三种不同的理想类型来指导荷兰的估值实践：专家，服务提供者和报告者。专家强调专业标准和技术质量，而服务提供商则提倡商业质量，而记者则致力于维护程序质量。作者发现，与专家角色相关的技术质量的关注可能处于曝光不足的风险中，从而引发了对判断质量和相关偏见风险的担忧。

研究局限/意义

商业和官僚逻辑对估值质量的潜在影响可能会引起权威和教育界对判断偏差效应的担忧。但是，尽管专业化趋势可能会超越国界，但当地房地产市场结构和法规的具体情况要求在其他市场上复制结果。

创意/价值

制度逻辑为当今的估值师行为提供了一种替代性的社会经济观点，可以增进对估值师与客户关系的理解，从而增进基于估值师判断和客户影响力的知识基础。此外，作者的角色类型学为衡量和解释差异提供了未来的研究机会。