Search

How do data scientists frame their relations with domain experts? This study focuses on data scientists' aspired professional jurisdiction and their multiple narratives regarding data science's relations to other fields of expertise. Based on the analysis of 60 open-ended, in-depth interviews with data scientists, data science professors, and managers in Israel, the findings show that data scientists institutionalize three narratives regarding their relations with domain experts: (a) replace experts, (b) absorb experts' knowledge, and (c) provide a service to experts. These three narratives construct data scientists' expertise as universal and omnivorous; namely, they are relevant to many domains and allow data scientists to be flexible in their claim for authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this comment to Noordegraaf's 'Protective or connective professionalism? How connected professionals can (still) act as autonomous and authoritative experts', we argue that Noordegraaf has contributed significant insights into the development of contemporary professionalism. However, we argue for a less binary and more complex view of forms of professionalism, and for finding ways of understanding professionalism grounded in a relational view of everyday professional work. The first section (by Johan Alvehus) suggests that Noordegraaf's 'connective professionalism' is primarily about new ways of strengthening professionalism's protective shields by maintaining functional ambiguity and transparent opacity around professional jurisdictions. The second section (by Amalya Oliver and Netta Avnoon) argues for viewing professionalism on a range of protection–connection and offers an approach for understanding how connective and protective models co-occur. Both commentaries thus take a relational, dynamic, and somewhat skeptical view on the reproduction and maintenance of professionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]