Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Adams, T. L. (2015). Sociology of professions: International divergences and research directions. Work, Employment & Society, 29, 154–165.Google Scholar

Adler, P. S., Kwon, S. W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science, 19, 359–376.Google Scholar

Becker, G. (2011). Challenging Merton’s Protestantism–science hypothesis: The historical impact of sacerdotal celibacy on German science and scholarship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 351–365.Google Scholar

Ben-David, J. (1965). The scientific role: The conditions of its establishment in Europe. Minerva, 4, 15–54.Google Scholar

Ben-David, J. (1972). The profession of science and its powers. Minerva, 10, 362–383.Google Scholar

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brante, T. (2010). Professional fields and truth regimes: In search of alternative approaches. Comparative Sociology, 9, 843–886.Google Scholar

Braudel, F. (1992). The wheels of commerce: Civilization and capitalism, 15th–18th century (Vol. II). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1979)Google Scholar

Cadden, J. (2013). The organization of knowledge: Disciplines and practices. In Lindberg, D. C. & Shank, M. H. (eds.), The Cambridge history of science, Vol. 2: Medieval science (pp. 240–267). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4, 81–94.Google Scholar

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.Google Scholar

Carlton, E. (1996). The few and the many: A typology of elites. Brookfield, VT: Scolar Press.Google Scholar

Carolan, M. S. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of “expert” knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment, 11, 421–431.Google Scholar

Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The professions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891–896.Google Scholar

Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

City of London (2016). City livery companies. www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/about-us/community-partnerships/Pages/city-livery-companies.aspx.Google Scholar

Clark, G. L., Gertler, M. S., Feldman, M. P., & Williams, K. (2003). The Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, D., Lowe, A., Puxty, A., Robson, K., & Willmott, H. (1988). Regulating the U.K. accountancy profession: Episodes in the relation between the profession and the state. Paper presented at the ESRC Conference on Corporatism, London, January.Google Scholar

Davies, C. (1995). Gender and the professional predicament in nursing. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Dubar, C. (2000). La crise des identités: L’interprétation d’une mutation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. (1992). Professional ethics and civic morals. London: Forgotten Books.Google Scholar

Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A., & van Schie, N. (2011). Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 675–684.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39.Google Scholar

Edwards, P. N., & Schneider, S. H. (2001). Self-governance and peer review in science-for-policy: The case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Miller, C. A. & Edwards, P. N. (eds.), Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance (pp. 219–246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 23–39.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericsson, K. A. (ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population: A response to criticisms. Intelligence, 45, 81–103.Google Scholar

Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses, social workers. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1993). The elite connection: Problems and potential of western democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism. International Sociology, 18, 395–415.Google Scholar

Evetts, J. (2011). Sociological analysis of professionalism: Past, present and future. Comparative Sociology, 10, 1–37.Google Scholar

Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Current Sociology Review, 61, 778–796.Google Scholar

Faulconbridge, J. R., & Muzio, D. (2011). Professions in a globalizing world: Towards a transnational sociology of the professions. International Sociology, 27, 136–152.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1979). Governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness, 6, 5–21.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to professionalism as a disciplinary mechanism. Social Review, 47, 280–307.Google Scholar

Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Gobet, F. (2015). Understanding expertise: A multi-disciplinary approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gorman, E. H., & Sandefur, R. L. (2011). “Golden Age,” quiescence, and revival: How the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work and Occupations, 38, 275–302.Google Scholar

Gribbin, J. R. (2008). The Britannica guide to the 100 most influential scientists. London: Running Press.Google Scholar

Guthrie, W. K. C. (2004). The Greek philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1950)Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. In Haas, P. M. (ed.), Knowledge, power and international policy coordination (pp. 1–35). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Halliday, T. C. (1987). Beyond monopoly: Lawyers, state crises and professional empowerment. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hambrick, D. Z., Oswald, F. L., Altmann, E. M., Meinz, E. J., Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2014). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence, 45, 34–45.Google Scholar

Hoffman, R. R., Feltovich, P. J., & Ford, K. M. (1997). A general framework for conceiving of expertise and expert systems in context. In Feltovich, P. J., Ford, K. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), Expertise in context: Human and machine (pp. 543–580). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Hughes, E. C. (1965). Professions. In Lynn, K. S. (ed.), The professions in America (pp. 1–14). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 149–181.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jensen, K., Lahn, L. C., & Nerland, M. (eds.) (2012). Professional learning in the knowledge society. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and power. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16, 46.Google Scholar

Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kolabinska, M. (1912). La circulation des élites en France. Lausanne: Imp. réunies.Google Scholar

Larkin, G. (1983). Occupational monopoly and modern medicine. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lerner, R., Nagai, A. K., & Rothman, S. (1996). American elites. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Lindberg, D. C., & Shank, M. H. (eds.) (2013). The Cambridge history of science, Vol. 2: Medieval science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems (trans. Bednarz, J. & Baecker, D.). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

MacDonald, K. M. (1995). The sociology of the professions. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151–169.Google Scholar

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McClelland, C. E. (1990). Escape from freedom? Reflections on German professionalization 1870–1933. In Torstendahl, R. & Burrage, M. (eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 97–113). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1973a). The normative structure of science. In Storer, N. W. (ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1973b). The Puritan spur to science. In Storer, N. W. (ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 228–253). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1938)Google Scholar

Merton, R. K., & Zuckerman, H. (1973). Age, aging, and age structure in science. In Storer, N. W. (ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 479–560). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1972)Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A. (2001). The social psychology of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (New paperback edition, 2012)Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A. (2006). System experts and decision making experts in transdisciplinary projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7, 341–351.Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A. (2009). Two factors of expertise? Excellence and professionalism of environmental experts. High Ability Studies, 20, 91–115.Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A. (2014). The organisational embedding of expertise: Centres of excellence. Talent Development and Excellence, 6, 71–93.Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A., de Sombre, S., & Naef, M. A. (2013). How formality works: The case of environmental professionals. Professions & Professionalism, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/pp.564.Google Scholar

Mieg, H. A., & Frischknecht, P. M. (2014). Multidisziplinär, antidisziplinär, disziplinär? Die Geschichte der Umweltnaturwissenschaften an der ETH Zürich (History of environmental sciences at ETH Zurich). In Engler, B. (ed.), Disziplin/Discipline (pp. 135–169). Fribourg Academic Press.Google Scholar

Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19, 1–31.Google Scholar

Moran, B. T. (2006). Courts and academies. In Park, K. & Daston, L. (eds.), The Cambridge history of science, Vol. 3: Early modern science (pp. 251–271). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1993). Toward a social psychology of science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 23, 343–374.Google Scholar

Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism. Administration & Society, 39, 761–785.Google Scholar

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

OECD (1999). Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2005). Oslo manual: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Olgiati, V., Orzack, L. H., & Saks, M. (eds.) (1998). Professions, identity and order in comparative perspective. Onati: International Institute for the Sociology of Law.Google Scholar

Pareto, V. (1963). The mind and society: A treatise on general sociology (ed. Livingstone, A.). New York: Dover. (Italian original from 1916: Trattato di sociologia generale)Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1968). Professions. In Sills, D. L. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 536–547). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12, 378–394.Google Scholar

Perera, A. H., Drew, C. A., & Johnson, C. (eds.) (2012). Expert knowledge and its application in landscape ecology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Rau, D., & Haerem, T. (2010). Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers. Information Systems Frontiers, 12, 287–297.Google Scholar

Ross, S. (1962). Scientist: The story of a word. Annals of Science, 18, 65–85.Google Scholar

Rucht, D. (1990). The strategies and action repertoires of new movements. In Dalton, R. J. & Kuechler, M. (eds.), Challenging the political order: New social and political movements in Western democracies (pp. 156–175). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Sagasti, F. (2000). The twilight of the Baconian age and the future of humanity. Futures, 32, 595–602.Google Scholar

Saks, M. (1995). Professions and the public interest. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Saks, M. (2010). Analyzing the professions: The case for the neo-Weberian approach. Comparative Sociology, 9, 887–915.Google Scholar

Scholz, R. W., Mieg, H. A., & Oswald, J. (2000). Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management: Towards mutual learning of science and society. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 123, 477–487.Google Scholar

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Sciulli, D. (2005). Continental sociology of professions today: Conceptual contributions. Current Sociology, 53, 915–942.Google Scholar

Shank, M. H. (2013). Schools and universities in medieval Latin science. In Lindberg, D. C. & Shank, M. H. (eds.), The Cambridge history of science, Vol. 2: Medieval science (pp. 207–239). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shanteau, J. (1988). Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers. Acta Psychologica, 68, 203–215.Google Scholar

Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 252–266.Google Scholar

Shanteau, J. (2015). Why task domains (still) matter for understanding expertise. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 169–175.Google Scholar

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357–358.Google Scholar

Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. D. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.Google Scholar

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313.Google Scholar

Stewart, D. D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628.Google Scholar

Stichweh, R. (1992). The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context, 5, 3–15.Google Scholar

Stutt, A., & Motta, E. (1998). Knowledge modelling: An organic technology for the knowledge age. In Eisenstadt, M. & Vincent, T. (eds.), The knowledge web (pp. 211–224). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Tawney, R. H. (1921). The acquisitive society. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Thompson Klein, J. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 63, 68–74.Google Scholar

Toma, C., Vasiljevic, D., Oberlé, D., & Butera, F. (2013). Assigned experts with competitive goals withhold information in group decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 161–172.Google Scholar

Turner, S. P. (2014). The politics of expertise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 51–74). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1917). Wissenschaft als Beruf (Science as a vocation). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1979). Economy and society (trans. Roth, G. & Wittich, C.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Weiss, D. J., & Shanteau, J. (2014). Who’s the best? A relativistic view of expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 447–457.Google Scholar

Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137–158.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, H., Cole, J., & Bruer, J. (eds.) (1991). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: Norton.Google Scholar