Academic work as a profession is a debate. One perception is that academic work is a profession because professions and academe have developed closely together within Western traditions (Halsey, 1992; Henkel, 2000; Wilson, 1979). Others held different views and perceive academic work as a vocation (Weber, 1918); as halfway between a job and a vocation because teaching is a way of life (Hogan, 2003); as an expert occupation (Piper, 1994; Williams, 2008). There are three main reasons why academic work is perceived as a profession: (1) the traditional professions develop from universities; (2) the professional ethos for academics has deep roots; (3) academic work possesses the attributes of a profession, such as special expertise, moral integrity and control over who practices (Wilson, 1979). These attributes are similar with that of the traditional profession, such as, law and medicine, raised and discussed by Freidson (2001), Johnson (1972) and Larson (1977). However, others have questioned the assumption that academic work is a profession (Piper, 1994; Williams, 2008). The main reasons are: there is a lack of comprehensive training for higher education teaching and the lack of qualification makes academe different from the traditionally accepted professions (Piper, 1994). In the consideration of the debates on the identity of academic work, this paper explores perceptions from academics. It examines why academics in a pre-1992 university in England consider themselves as professionals. It reveals to what extent the conceptual framework of ‘profession’ fitted their work. The context of an audit culture in the higher education sector is considered because the audit has been used as a main way to assurance and to enhance the quality of teaching in the higher education sector in England. The term ‘audit’ used in this paper refers an audit culture. It includes the assessment activities of a range of internal and external quality mechanisms researched in a pre-1992 university in England. The reason for the study of the quality mechanisms is because the audit achieves its impact on the institution through implementation of these mechanisms (Power, 1997).

Eight quality mechanisms were examined in this research. Four mechanisms were set up within the case study university: peer observation; Student Course Evaluation; Annual Programme Review; and the Approval System for New and Revised Programmes and Units. The other four mechanisms were developed outside the university: the QAA for Higher Education in England; External Examining; the National Student Survey; and Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory bodies. The researcher adopted theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and chose sixty-four academics from seven different departments/schools. There were two phases of interviews in this research. The first phase included sixty-four interviews and investigated respondents’ views of the audit and its related quality mechanisms. The second-phase interviews were conducted via email. This phase of the study examined why respondents considered their work as a profession, and how their professionalism interacted with the audit process that they were facing.

All the thirty respondents in phase-two interviews claimed that their work was a profession. More than half of the respondents argued that there was a tension between the audit and their notion of professionalism. The tension was perceived to have been caused by the audit’s distrust of academics, the time cost of the audit procedure and the bureaucracy of the audit. In spite of the perceived tension, fourteen respondents argued that meeting the requirements of the audit was a matter of accountability, not distrust. They regarded regular review and self-evaluation as part of their professional activity. The acknowledged importance of accountability, in the words of Walden (1996), stems from the demand for higher education institutions to be answerable for their use of public resources. This increased accountability awareness could be perceived as a change produced by the audit process itself, although it was only a minority attitude among respondents.