Introduction

This is the first of two complementary papers emanating from the research for the second volume of my sponsored history of Operational Research (OR) in Britain (Kirby, forthcoming). Volume one, which dealt with the inception of the discipline in the late 1930s up to 1970, was published in 2003 (Kirby, 2003a). The final chapter analysed the institutional development of the discipline, focussing on the foundation of the informal 'OR Club' in 1948, the launch of a specialist journal (the Operational Research Quarterly) in 1950, and in 1953, the transformation of the club into the Operational Research Society (ORS) as a duly constituted charitable organization charged with the task of promoting the adoption and diffusion of OR via '(a) lectures, classes, discussions and publications; (b) the promotion and organization of research projects; and (c) the encouragement of contact between workers in all relevant fields of inquiry' (Kirby, 2003a, p. 370). In terms of membership, the ORS grew from small beginnings—220 members at the end of 1955—to 2565 (augmented by students) in 1970. During the 1960s, the average annual rate of increase in the membership was in excess of 15 percent, fully reflective of the increasing penetration of OR into central and local government, the nationalized industries, the corporate sector broadly defined, and higher education. It was during that decade that a debate was inaugurated within the ORS, and continuing into the 1970s, concerning categories of membership in relation to professional status. It is this debate that provides the rationale for this paper. The issue of professionalism was to provoke considerable acrimony within the ORS at the same time as it raised fundamental questions concerning the role and function of the Society both in relation to its members and the external world. This experience must feature in the next volume of my history of OR and in that context a further object of the paper is to stimulate a correspondence between myself and the original participants in the debate. The research base for the article and its successor is derived from the ORS Archive in the Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick. The relevant papers provide the broad narrative of the debate (although for the historian the chronology of events is, at times, unclear), but I am sure that an enhanced understanding of the issues at stake can be obtained from personal reminiscences and, perhaps, papers in private hands. Volume one was certainly enriched by personal testimony, and I hope to replicate this aspect of the historical record in volume two.

The following section provides a scene-setting analysis of the growth of professionalism as a major, if not defining characteristic of the increasingly complex division of labour in advanced economies displaying a mixture of private and public sector organizations. In this respect, there is a dense literature, much of it rooted in jargon-ridden socio-political perspectives. The subsequent section deals with the period from 1967 to 1972 in the history of the ORS, focussing on the debate on professionalism over the divide of the 1970 Marlow conference. It identifies the arguments for and against professionalism and also the contending parties. The final substantive section notes that, notwithstanding the substantial opposition within the ORS to professional status, a professional register, endowing members with the designation of 'Fellow of OR' (FOR), was incorporated by the Department of Trade and Industry in April, 1974.

The sociological critique of professions

In the following discussion, the word 'profession' refers to 'an occupation that controls its own work, organized by a particular ideology of expertise and service'. 'Professionalism' is defined in terms of an 'ideology and special set of institutions' (Friedson, 1994). Notwithstanding the rise of the 'higher' professions from the 18th century onwards (the Anglican clergy, law and medicine) and the subsequent proliferation of more mundane professional societies and associations in the 19th and early 20th centuries (eg, engineering, architecture, the Whitehall civil service, bankers and railway executives/managers), scholarly analysis of the professions was notable for its neutrality, at least until the 1960s. In the preceding period, the literature was dominated by the American theorist, Talcott Parsons who highlighted the role of the professions as an integral element in modern society. In particular, he drew attention to the apparent contradiction between their claims to altruism and the 'common good', combined with the evident pursuit of self interest (Parsons, 1939). In the 1970s, the tone and content of intellectual debate was radically transformed in favour of more critical interpretations that emphasized the ideology of professions in their political and economic context. Thus, Friedson's work, in focussing on the medical profession, drew attention to 'the ideological character of professional claims, unjustified aspects of monopolistic privilege, and the way in which organized professional institutions create and sustain authority over clients, associated occupations, and the very way we think about deviant or undesirable behaviour' (Friedson, 1994, p 6). Similarly, Johnson related the concept of profession to the control of work and the exercise of power over consumers (Johnson, 1972). Perhaps the most compelling analysis on these lines was provided by Larson in 1977 (Larson, 1977). In The Rise of Professionalism she deployed Marxist and Weberian theory as tools for understanding the role of professions in modern society. Thus, the professions were viewed as interest groups seeking economic advantage and social standing in capitalist societies. The key themes of her analysis are as follows:

(1) Monopoly power Professionalisation is....an attempt to translate one order of scarce resources—special knowledge and skills—into another—social and economic rewards. To maintain scarcity implies a tendency to monopoly: monopoly of expertise in the market, monopoly of status in a system of stratification. The focus on the constitution of professional markets leads to comparing different professions in terms of the 'marketability' of their specific cognitive resources. It determines the exclusion of professions like the military and the clergy, which do not transact their services on the market. The focus on collective social mobility accentuates the relations that professions form with different systems of social stratification; in particular, it accentuates the role that educational systems play in different structures of social inequality (Larson, 1977, p xvii).

(2) Standardization of knowledge and market control The condition for the unification of a professional area is....that there be a group of professionals ready to champion the propagation of one 'paradigm', and that this group have enough persuasive or coercive power to carry the task through. The task is immensely easier when knowledge is depersonalised by formalisation, for all depersonalised knowledge tends to become objectified, if not 'objective'. This means that the validity of this knowledge appears to transcend the particular circumstances and subjective preferences of the groups that produce it (or reproduce it, by use or transmission). The more formalised the cognitive basis, the more the profession's language and knowledge appear to be connotation-free and 'objective'. Hence the superiority of a scientific basis for professional unification....A scientific basis stamps the professional himself with the legitimacy of a general body of knowledge and a mode of cognition, the epistemological superiority of which is taken for granted in our society (Larson, 1977, pp 40–41).

(3) The codification of knowledge As the codification of knowledge advances, apprenticeship is superseded, or at least necessarily preceded, by formal training. A profession's dependence on formal institutions of training enhances the role of educators, who are increasingly identified with the theoretical rather than the practical side of the profession. As the educators themselves develop a consciousness of their interests and become concerned with professional autonomy and professional privileges, their role increases in the profession as whole. A growing number of future practitioners is exposed to their influence and formed by a body of knowledge, which educators define and to which they often contribute directly. They are the first members of the profession to discern 'budding talent' and to attribute it on the basis of theoretical ability (Larson, 1977, p 44).

(4) The market and professionalisation If we view professionalisation as a collective project which aims at market control, it appears, first, that this organisational effort brings together structural elements of different origins, which follow independent lines of evolution. On the one hand we have a specific body of knowledge, including techniques and skills; on the other, a market of services. Both elements have specific boundaries and specific structural characteristics in each profession; both vary nationally and historically....The structure of a professional market is determined by the larger social structure within which it is situated. The stage of economic development, the volume and distribution of national income, the class structure and ethnic composition, the average standard of living, the nature of the state and its policies, and ideology—including a variety of cultural traditions—define the potential, the characteristics, and the dynamics of a profession's market (Larson, 1977, p 50; italics added).

Larson's analysis has received widespread acclaim within the sociological community for its critical insights at a time when the professions were being subject to increasing public scrutiny. In short, the writings of the 1970s viewed the professions as 'Janus-headed,...[promising] both a structural basis for a free and independent citizenry in a world threatened by bureaucratic tyranny and at the same time themselves [harbouring] a threat to freedom' (Johnson, 1972, p 17). Readers of this journal, practitioners and academics alike, may feel uncomfortable with Larson's analysis, viewing it as overly critical of professionalism and excessively rooted in the politics of power in terms of the struggle for preferment and reward in the free market. It does, of course reflect the political economy of the era, not least in the British context, for as Perkin has shown, the two decades after 1970 witnessed a sustained assault on 'professional society' (Perkin, 1989, chapter 10, pp 472–519). Foremost among the critics were those who took the view that Britain's increasing economic malaise, reflected in 'stagflation' (falling growth rates combined with accelerating inflation), was the direct product of the 'expanded state'. Thus, the state-supported professions, such as the civil service, university academics and school teachers were identified as 'unproductive' insofar as they did not produce output with a direct saleable value in the market place. They were in effect parasitic, battening on the wealth-creating (and tax-paying) ability of the private sector. The commitment to the free market was writ large within the Conservative Party following Margaret Thatcher's election as party leader in 1975. Committed to 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' in order to release resources of labour and capital for a newly-invigorated private sector, Thatcher and her colleagues ranged far and wide in their critique of the professions. Indeed, the Thatcherite onslaught embraced such traditionally 'immune targets' as the law, medicine and the Anglican clergy. At a more prosaic level, solicitors were condemned for their exclusive right of conveyancing property and opticians for their monopolistic hold on the sale of spectacles. Similar criticisms were levelled at accountants, architects, veterinary surgeons and surveyors. The critical point to be made in this context is that influential elements within the ORS were determined to press the case for greater professionalism at the very time when the concept was being subject to increasingly critical public scrutiny. As the following section demonstrates, the advocates of professionalism, both explicitly and implicitly, conformed to key aspects of Larson's analysis: there was certainly a desire for 'market control' and the 'codification of knowledge'. Indeed, in this latter respect, senior elements within the contemporary ORS might be viewed as conforming to Andrew Abbott's conception of 'professional regression', the inevitable product of the 'academization' of OR. As Abbott stated, Once a field [such as OR] becomes self conscious and professional, practitioners draw their self respect from other colleagues' admiration. Since the professions are founded on knowledge, admiration peaks when knowledge is most pure, that is, when it is least deformed by actual application. Hence mathematical pre-eminence (Abbott, 1988, pp 237–238; italics added).

It remains to be said that one of the critical dividing lines between the supporters of professionalism and its opponents was the fear on the part of the latter that a professional society would seek to impose a rigid strait-jacket on educational provision for the subject in which the classical, or mathematical paradigm would remain forever pre-eminent at the expense of alternative and equally valid methodological approaches.

The debate on professionalism within the ORS

The original OR Club had operated on an informal basis with membership at the discretion of the steering committee and on the basis of 'one member per industry or organization'. In contrast, the succeeding ORS constitution removed the limit on membership, but as with the Club, the executive committee required that new members should possess 'what is regarded as a professional qualification. This cannot be more closely defined than by saying that they must have been engaged in operational research work, whether or not it is so called' (Anon, 1953). As for the ORS constitution, it provided the ORS with 'a legal personality' in its capacity as a 'charitable', that is nonprofit-making, organization. The somewhat vague criteria for membership were to remain in place until April 1966 when the issue of professionalism was considered fully for the first time. The key issue, upon which opinion was divided, was whether or not the ORS should confirm its status as a learned society or become a professional body in the accepted sense of the term. The then President of the ORS, Roger Eddison, proposed the establishment of a three-tier professional membership structure supplemented by 'nonprofessional associates', but this was decisively rejected at a subsequent extraordinary general meeting of the Society when those in favour of moving to full learned society status aligned themselves with members of some of the larger OR groups in industry who believed that Eddison's proposals were 'not professional enough' (Modern Records Centre [MRC (1959–1973)], Mss 335/50/1/2/6). A year later, a compromise was agreed whereby the ORS would operate as a learned society, but with two categories of membership. Category A was defined as follows: Qualifications An honours degree in a relevant subject;
Formal training in OR (full or part-time);
Acceptable alternatives. Experience Four years' continuous full-time OR work, including 2 years' project leadership.

Category B was reserved for those 'people who were not practitioners but who had made a major contribution to the subject, either in academic terms or through managerial or other support'. This classic 'fudge' created problems, not least for Rolfe Tomlinson, the newly appointed chairman of the ORS Membership Committee. As he recalls, there were real difficulties in interpreting the rules, notably in relation to Category B membership. Unsurprisingly, this was viewed by some aspirant members as bestowing inferior status and the matter 'came to a head when we had an application from a brilliant and recently appointed professor of statistics. He had developed techniques, which OR people were finding useful, but he had never been involved in OR work. He seemed an ideal candidate for B membership. He did not agree and made it known!' (R. Tomlinson to M. Kirby, 2004).

The issue of membership was revisited in 1970 when Stafford Beer, the newly elected President of the ORS, launched a campaign for a fundamental reappraisal of the structure of the Society and its rationale. In the history of OR in Britain, Beer is a controversial, if not divisive, figure. As the founder of 'management cybernetics' (which he applied to the planned reorganization of the ORS) and pioneer of OR in the iron and steel industry, Beer's contribution to the development of OR was honoured abroad more generously than in his own country (Kirby, 2003a). As his ORS obituarists stated, Beer's 'enthusiasm for life in its many aspects could be over-powering and quite non- Anglo-Saxon. The world of those who encountered him tended to polarise between those who were distrustful of what they saw as his showmanship, and those who were converted into lifelong admirers and supporters' (Rosenhead and Martin, 2002, pp 16–17). That said, Beer had an ambitious agenda for OR which was well expressed in a letter addressed to The Times in September 1964, 1 month before the election of Harold Wilson's Labour Government. Here, Beer called for the active involvement of operational researchers in decision-making processes at the level of civil government: Firstly, a policy research orientation and facility is vital. We need operational research teams of outstanding ability working on problems of decision and control at the national level. Because these problems are usually discussed in economic terms, they are currently assumed to be purely economic problems: but they are not. Interdisciplinary scientific teams are needed to evaluate issues subject to conflicting criteria. Secondly, a new kind of administration is required that can encompass these advanced methods of management. The tradition of cultivated minds is inadequate to cope with the needed quantification of value judgements and with large-scale computer operations. Thirdly, we need ministers who can demand and use these facilities in resolving problems (The Times, 15 September, 1964).

Six years later, in his ORS presidential speech, Beer commented as follows: For a quarter of a century leading members of this society have tried to gain acceptance for operational research in the scientific management of civil affairs commensurate with its war-time contribution in the military field.
A certain amount has been done, which I earnestly wish to acknowledge ....[b]ut anybody soaked in the early history of OR and its immediate postwar promise feels let down. This is the cause for anger with which I began. And yet the feeling of anger almost dissolves into feelings of bewilderment and regret.
By the end of the 'forties it might have seemed that the days of positive anti-science in government were past. It was said at that time, with amused disgust, that we had seen the last of them...., but less than 2 years ago a distinguished civil servant—our own then president—was on this very occasion concerned lest a myth arise that operational research were [sic] less than an 'integral and essential part' of management.
The fact is that we had not after all gained the point. We have not gained it to this day (Beer, 1970).

Ironically, at the very time when Beer delivered his address, the pace of diffusion of OR into civil government was accelerating rapidly, not least within Whitehall departments following the incorporation of an OR facility within the recently-formed Civil Service Department (Kirby, 2003a, Chapter 10). But in drawing attention to the prevailing 'mood of anger' in the ORS, Beer was effectually inaugurating a decade of debate and introspection within the Society consistent with a growing lack of confidence in the achievements of the broader OR community and its future prospects.

Beer's publicly-stated concerns were taken sufficiently seriously for the ORS executive committee to convene a special meeting of the ORS council—'Marlow Seventy'—with the aim of reforming the Society's structure 'in order to build [the ORS] into a proper vehicle for the aspirations of its members' (ORS, Marlow Seventy, 1970). For Beer, the key issues for debate were as follows: It is part of the resolution of the long standing argument about professional status that we should aim to state this: 'Yes of course the OR man [sic] you can trust holds the Society's top professional rank—not because he would not be allowed to operate without it...., but because he inevitably plays a part in the affairs of his profession'. That is where we want to be. We could not say this today. At a guess, there are as many OR men—good ones—outside the Society as are in it. They read our journal on a circulation list basis, and are therefore subsidised by the membership. Let them now come forward and take up the cause in person (ORS, Marlow Seventy; italics added).

More specifically, Beer was concerned to address 'the existing ambivalence in the conduct of the society's affairs' as reflected in its national meetings, publications and educational efforts. As Beer stated, We begin with the question of national meetings, held in London, which well exemplify the problem and are not well attended. They are mostly interesting: but the programme as a whole is inevitably designed to be all things to all men. This is not a criticism of the programme but an acceptance of the inappropriateness in the 'seventies of traditions inherited from and suitable for the 'forties. The national Society will not continue to hold these meetings after the current session. Instead, it will convene a few national meetings, each designed with a specific and attainable purpose, and armed with a proper organisation to ensure its success (ORS, Marlow Seventy).

In organizational terms, therefore, the main thrust of the proposed reforms was towards decentralization of the Society's structure and business with the aim of engaging the interest both of OR practitioners and managers. In one sense this was mere recognition of one of the principal developments of the 1960s, namely the creation of regional societies, complemented by specialist discussion groups, many of which lay outside the national society and levied their own subscriptions (Kirby, 2003a, p 392). It was also recommended that the 'A' and 'B' classes of membership should be abolished in favour of a single tier consistent with an 'open' society. In this respect, the driving force was that element within the ORS, which laid stress on the wartime origins of OR rooted, as it was, in the coming together of scientists from many different disciplines, utilizing their skills on a collective basis in order to resolve complex problems. Thus, if OR was to continue to develop, both in methodology and practice, it was vital to sustain a broad base of recruitment to the ORS. More controversially, it was recommended that there should be a 'professional register' of members. In this context, it was stressed that the ORS should 'find a means of underwriting a practitioner's successful experience and practical wisdom' notwithstanding the fact that professional status was potentially inconsistent with the concept of a truly 'open' society (MRC (1970, 1970a, 1970b, and 1972a, 1972b;), Mss 335/50/3/18/1).

The Marlow proposals were discussed at the Annual General Meetings of the ORS in June 1970 and at an Extraordinary General Meeting in June 1971. According to the minutes, the 1970 meeting endorsed the proposals for reorganization, but did not vote on the proposals relating to professional status. Indeed, there appears to have been very little discussion of the issue, although Beer is recorded as stating that in his view the membership 'wanted a society that enhances their status' (MRC, Mss 335/50/1/1/2). At the 1971 meeting, however, those attending had been informed of the ORS Council's views on professionalism following the receipt of a paper prepared by Beer—'Marlow Seventy—the Aftermath'. The key section relating to professional status was drafted as follows: The pros and cons of these arguments [in relation to professional status] have been examined in great detail by the Internal and Current Affairs Committee of Council, who have decided to retain the original recommendation that we should institute a Register of Practitioners. The arguments for such a register are powerful and cogent, and we consider that it would be irresponsible not to institute it. We believe, however, that the business of maintaining such a Register can and should be separated from the main business structure of the Society, probably being given to a small team specially appointed by Council, rather than being seen as one of the responsibilities of a Council Committee. It is proposed that anyone who is currently a member of the Society shall be immediately eligible to go on the register if they so request. Appropriate standards to be used should be varied as experience requires, but to begin with will be equivalent to the existing requirements for 'A' membership....
In contemplating these issues and Council's advice, members are asked to remember that there is a powerful disagreement within the Society. We think that the solution proposed meets, and does not degrade, the majority wish for an open membership. We think that it also meets the case for a service from some members who should not be curtly told that the service is not available just because it is not in universal demand. The solution has this further appeal. Registration will require a positive act of application on the part of existing 'A' members. The next review of the situation will have the evidence as to how many applied (MRC, Mss CR 103/Co/RP/72; emphasis in original).

In the light of this statement, vigorous and full discussion took place at the EGM on the merits of a professional register when the following views were expressed:

1. Insofar as a professional membership register, administered and approved by the ORS, was designed to enhance managers' respect for OR practitioners, how impressed would they be 'with an amateur court of the kind described?'
2. OR competence on the part of practitioners could not be judged by peers: there could be acute issues of confidentiality in relation to 'trade secrets'.
3. OR in practice was a 'team effort', albeit necessitating team leadership: would the accolade of professional status be reserved for team leaders?
4. Practitioner competence could only be judged in the context of an agreed national curriculum for postgraduate qualifications followed by a regulated period of 'apprenticeship'.
5. There was tension between 'voluntarism' and 'professionalism': the very existence of the register would require all practitioners to join.
6. A register was necessary in order to offset the malign influence of small OR consultancies ('one or two men') who were giving OR 'a bad name'.
7. The OR world in practice was vulnerable to 'confidence tricksters' claiming OR competence—hence the need for a professional register.
8. Some companies already keep a register of competent OR practitioners and exchange information (MRC, Mss 335/50/1/1/2).

According to the minutes of the meeting it was decided not to proceed down the route of a professional register in view of the evident 'lack of consensus': certainly, no motion was put to the meeting. However, in the subsequent documentation in the ORS Archive, it is stated that the proposal for a professional register 'was approved at an informal meeting that followed [the EGM]....It was a separation from which all subsequent dissension flowed—dissension among other things about whether Council had a proper mandate to proceed with any professional proposals at all' (MRC, Mss 335/50/1/1/2). The relevant documentation provides the following rationale for the separation: The reason for this separation was that the Society was advised that for it to put forward proposals for a professional register within the Society would compromise its charitable status and render it liable to the full burden of rates and taxes, significantly increasing subscriptions to ordinary members (MRC, Mss 335/50/1/1/2).

This may be an ex-post rationalization of an extraordinary event, insofar as the ORS Council was to claim subsequently that the register proposal had been approved 'in principle' by the formal meeting of the Society. As indicated already, this does not accord with the minutes of the meeting.

It is hardly surprising that this was not to be the end of the matter because the ORS Council felt obliged to convene 'Marlow Two' as an extended Council meeting with the specific remit to consider further the issue of professionalism. Discussion at this meeting, held in November, 1971, focussed on the legal implications of a register administered by the ORS, the issue of professional standards in relation to ethics and the quality of practice, and the narrowness of OR education as a preparation for a professional career in OR (MRC, Mss 335/TOM). The key participants were Stafford Beer and his ORS presidential successor, Dr (later Professor) KD Tocher, an acknowledged authority on simulation modelling in OR and a former colleague of Beer within the United Steel OR and Cybernetics Department. At this point the narrative in the ORS archive becomes unclear, but the strong impression is that Beer and Tocher were instrumental in driving the case forward for a professional register. For the latter, a register was the only means of keeping OR free of 'charlatans': more specifically, 'we don't want jumped-up systems analysts claiming to be [operational] researchers' (Hanlon, 1973). In addition, Tocher argued that a professional body, in 'gaining control' over University courses would be in a position to 'raise standards', bearing in mind that there were two groups within the ORS with a vested interest in professionalism. Consultancy organizations believed that a professional register would give them 'credibility and restrict competition from other disciplines using OR techniques', while OR scientists in government employment, notably the Whitehall Civil Service, envisaged that membership of a register would facilitate career advancement in the context of 'bureaucratically minded organizations that want to see letters after peoples' names'. In particular, the accolade of professional status might facilitate 'the promotion of OR people to the Principal Scientific Officer grade as one of the first steps 'towards OR being designated as a separate scientific discipline in the Civil Service on a par with the Economists and Statisticians' (M. Shutler to M. Kirby, 2004). In all of these respects, a notable development was the despatch of a highly controversial letter from Tocher, in his capacity as the ORS President, to all members of the Society in May, 1972 (MRC (1972c), Mss 335/TOM). Here, Tocher stated that in the previous month a group of 'prominent and influential members' of the ORS Council (including himself) had decided to form an 'Institute of OR Practitioners'. In coming to this decision, Tocher stated that the group had considered three options—first to incorporate the Institute within the ORS, secondly for the ORS to grant the Institute affiliated status, and thirdly to accept that the new body would be independent from the Society. In advocating the first option, Tocher stated that because the ORS Council believed that professionalisation was 'inevitable', it was highly desirable that the ORS should exercise the 'tightest possible control' over the new body. Moreover, for the ORS to retain its 'learned society' status was a 'pipe-dream' because that would lead to 'a loss of influence'.

To the historian seeking to identify the gestation of professionalism within the ORS, Tocher's letter is deeply revealing in that it draws attention to the divisiveness of the issue even before it was subject to full-scale debate and subsequent voting. Thus, in acknowledging that 'emotion has run so high', Tocher dismissed the possibility of 'unilateral action' on the part of Council because that would run the risk of alienating further the Society's 'wildcat element' who were capable of engaging in 'gamesmanship'. For this reason, Tocher proposed that there should be an 'informal poll' of the membership in advance of the next Annual General Meeting, and that in order to inform the debate on professionalism, a steering committee should be established under the chairmanship of Maurice Shutler, a leading OR practitioner in central government. The Shutler committee was charged with the task of preparing a fully argued case for a professional register, as well as administering the poll of the membership.

At this point, it is worthwhile identifying the 'wildcat element' within the ORS as identified by Tocher. Certainly, he was to describe them in colourful terms, notably as 'anarchists who are frustrated by not being able to destroy society and so are trying to destroy the OR Society' (Rosenhead and Thunhurst, 1982, p 115). In this respect, Tocher was referring to a politically radical element within the ORS, which was opposed to professional status on ideological grounds, buttressed by deep concerns about the future of OR as a practically relevant discipline. Insofar as the ORS membership was divided between academics and OR practitioners, it is fair to say that the opponents of professionalism were dominated by the former, although it is important to note that their opposition received powerful support from the practitioner community, some of whom were influential in the upper echelons of the ORS (see below). Foremost among the opponents was a future President of the ORS and professor of OR, Jonathan Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics. His radical credentials were writ large in a joint article published in 1982 with his colleague, Colin Thunhurst (Rosenhead and Thunhurst, 1982). Here, the authors called for the British OR community to replace its overwhelming commitment to the corporate boardroom and the controlling mechanisms of the capitalist (corporate) state in order to serve the needs of the exploited workforce—in effect replacing 'management science' with a nascent 'workers' science'. For Rosenhead and Thunhurst, OR in the guise of 'management science' was part of an ongoing 'Taylorist' offensive 'to control the workforce and to control the response'. OR is, in effect, Part of the forces of production (the resources and knowledge at the disposition of society to make use of nature) which under capitalism are the means by which the work-force is more efficiently exploited; and it is part of the ideological superstructure, the dominant system of ideas which dictate that the workers must accept the conditions of their exploitation (Hanlon, 1973).

These Marxist-inspired views were being expressed 10 years after the high point of the professionalism debate but it is not difficult to relate them to Rosenhead's original interventions.

In reflecting on the original debate, Rosenhead has emphasized the eclectic nature of the group of ORS members who were opposed to professionalism. Bearing in mind that a range of political opinions was represented, Most of the founders of the group had just met by happenstance through membership of a new organisation, the very broad church of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, which never had any sectarian affiliation. It was precisely because our political positions were so diverse that we decided to find out via the professionalisation discussion whether we could agree on any practical intervention within OR. We held a series of meetings....that got bigger and bigger. Ultimately, I think we had a circulation of around 30. Rosenhead was the oldest (34) and most established of the group, and had a room big enough for us to meet in. The problem of the group's name was solved by calling it ?OR?, and it produced two editions of a satirical/scurrilous magazine called OR?gasm (J. Rosenhead to M. Kirby, 2005).

Thus, while Rosenhead's own position was rooted, in part, in political considerations, he shared with others practical concerns about the future of the ORS, and equally important, the belief that the ORS Council was not following due procedure.

Before outlining Rosenhead's concerns it is worthwhile setting out the rationale for a professional register endowing members with the status of 'OR Fellow'. The case was described in some detail in the Shutler committee's report to the ORS Council delivered in October 1973. The key objectives were as follows:

(1) The quality of OR work This can be enhanced (a) by emphasizing the practice of OR in educational courses, (b) by requiring a demonstration of practical ability on the part of all applicants for the OR Fellowship, (c) by ensuring that younger OR practitioners receive an appropriate professional training, and (d) by a willingness to listen to complaints from managers that OR projects have been incompetently handled.

(2) The spread of OR This may be viewed as a function of the ORS itself. But insofar as there are competing organizations in the area of decision-making at the policy level, there is a need for an organization which can speak on equal terms with professional organizations as the ORS does to learned societies.

(3) Social responsiveness This is the hallmark of all respected professions. This would be done by the Fellowship concerning itself with Fellows who complained of pressure to ignore inconvenient facts or the wider public interest.

For the committee, the above objectives were buttressed by practical considerations. In this instance, a number of professional bodies relevant to management were in the process of grouping together under the auspices of the British Institute of Management at the same time as the EEC Commission was planning to harmonize all professional qualifications. As the Committee stated, Does Council wish that the professional practice of OR should be homologized, as the phrase is, with work study, with accountancy, with statistics or with computer science when Operational Research has long proclaimed itself to be distinct from all four of these, to mention no more? A professional body of ORS members is necessary, the Committee argues, so that Operational Research can speak with an equal voice in these counsels, indeed the objective '1' of the draft articles specifically charges the Fellowship with the duty of maintaining appropriate contacts (MRC, 1973b, 1973c, Mss 335/TOM).

In an earlier paper, Shutler had provided further arguments in favour of professional status focussing on 'who the register is for': It is for those men and women who see OR as their career, who are committed to OR as a way of life, and it is especially for the sub-set of those people who have not yet achieved professional fame and success. On the other hand, those who belong to other professions such as Statistics and Economics and who are merely interested in OR, or those who see OR as an academic discipline needing [a] learned society to unify the topic, would not be so eager to join such a body. The Institute of Statisticians happily co-exists with the RSS. Our proposed body will, we believe, co-exist even more closely with the ORS, or indeed could be part of it (MRC, 1972d, Mss 335/TOM).

Rosenhead's critical response was neatly summarized in a circular letter addressed to ORS members with the support of the following academics and practitioners—John Michaelson, Ray Paul, Hugh Sadler, Colin Thunhurst, Peter Viola and Jim Young—as co-signatories. Their counter-arguments were set out under the following headings:

Professionalism

We believe that the proposal can be better understood not as a demand for integrity and competence, but as a search for status and a means of restricting competition, by asserting property rights over certain techniques, and of ensuring conformity. The scheme will draw perimeters round the subject matter and personnel of OR, tend to exclude novel or controversial theories or individuals, and hamper cross-disciplinary fertilization. We believe this to be to the detriment both of OR and society.

Social control

An important aspect of the proposed Register will be a proliferation of social controls, especially on younger members, to ensure deference and 'acceptable' behaviour'. The Registered Associate (Fellow) will be in a highly vulnerable relation to his Registered Practitioner (Fellow) (who will normally be his boss). Thus entry to the Register, or at least its timing, will depend on the Practitioner's good opinion. An unconventional approach to life or work could well be thought (and actually be) too risky. Everyone knows the possible pressures within a firm to carry out work, which falls short of standards of professional or social integrity. Refusal to cooperate might jeopardise an Associate's future. Such pressures are strong enough now. They should not be added to.

Both Associates and Practitioners will be judged by panels of their seniors (draft regulations). Thus hierarchy within firms will be reproduced within the Register's procedures. Experienced OR men outside the Register will feel the pinch because they cannot take 'apprentices'. OR courses that do not conform to the requirements of the Registrar will not provide remission of 1 year's Associateship (draft regulations): they will lose students. The effects of a Register will permeate OR, and the pressures will be to conform.

For all these reasons the Register should be rejected (MRC, Mss 335/50/3/18/1).

Further, clarification of Rosenhead's critique is provided by the minutes of a well-attended 'Public Meeting of Former A and B Rules ORS Members' held in London under the auspices of Shutler's Steering Committee early in July 1973, but chaired by Tocher as President of the ORS (MRC, 1973a, Mss 335/TOM). Here, Rosenhead reiterated the above arguments, but went further when he stated that It is not the general public which the Steering Committee has had in mind when drawing up the proposals, solely the management public. This is the only public trust which [O.R.] people generally worry about; its emphasis in the proposals will reinforce technocracy and make [O.R.] still more remote from the general public (MRC, Mss 335/TOM).

In other words, professional status would 'reinforce the tendency for O.R. to be used to blind laymen with science....There are no important mysteries in O.R. from which the layman is inevitably excluded. Until we spread this realization, the public will be at the mercy of managers, manipulators and politicians, who say 'leave it to the expert''.

There are indications here of Rosenhead's Marxist perspective on the role of the ORS (see above), but as indicated earlier, there was a second plank to the Rosenhead critique, namely that the ORS Council was subverting the democratic constitution of the Society. In short, Tocher's claim that the ORS had endorsed the principle of a Register (reiterated in this meeting) was wrong insofar as 'a decision to go ahead with a Register had never been taken by a formal ORS meeting (ie an AGM or EGM)' (MRC, Mss 335/TOM; italics in original). Thus, according to Rosenhead, the Shutler Committee was 'self selected' by Council in order to produce a previously agreed result. In other words, 'a small cosy committee will approve it [professionalism], Council will express itself satisfied that opinion is favourable, and hey presto—a REGISTER!' (MRC, Mss 335/TOM). In this respect, a key element in the Rosenhead critique was an outright concern with the Shutler Committee's alleged manipulation of an earlier questionnaire addressed to the ORS membership in the Autumn of 1972 (MRC, Mss 335/TOM). Within the questionnaire itself the key questions on which members were asked to vote were numbers 2, 3, 4 and 8. The results were as follows:

In this light, Shutler's report to the ORS Council commented as follows: ....analysing the 'yeses', we see that about 46% answered 'yes' to questions 2 or 3 and 41% answered 'yes' to question 3—in favour of an Engineering Institution type of solution. Including the 'yeses' to question 8, 68% answered in favour of a professional grouping of some form or other (MRC, Mss 335/TOM).

It followed, therefore, that ....it is worthwhile continuing to find a solution acceptable to the [ORS]. It seems that a solution would gain most support if it were acceptable to all those who answered 'yes' to at least one of questions 2, 3, 4, or 8 (68%); it would still gain a majority if it appealed to those who answered 'yes' to at least one of questions 2, 3 or 8 (53%) and even if it were acceptable only to those who answered 'yes' to questions 3 or 8, that still would account for 49% of respondents (MRC, Mss 335/TOM).

Rosenhead's response was dismissive. As he stated in a letter addressed to the ORS Council, [The] questionnaire seems to be designed to produce responses favourable to the Register. The interpretation [of] your working party has ingeniously sought to find a majority for some kind of professional grouping. Moreover, only vague details are given [concerning] entry qualifications, methods of operation and aims which could be interpreted as an attempt to obtain from members a blanket approval which they might well withhold from specific proposals (MRC, Mss 335/TOM).

At this distance in time, it is tempting to dismiss the Rosenhead critique of professionalism as a reaction of youthful and left-wing/radical members of the ORS against conservative forces. But, as indicated earlier, the radicals had some powerful allies, among them senior practitioner and academic members of the ORS. For example, Pat Rivett, an early pioneer of OR in the National Coal Board, former ORS President and foundation Professor of OR at the University of Lancaster, explicitly agreed with the Rosenhead group when he stated that The impression....is that the Council is ramming this [the Register proposals] down the throats of a reluctant membership. The operation of the register, the decision as to who should go on it, the way in which it will be operated, are all decided in 64 Cannon Street [the then ORS headquarters]. The whole thing has been centralised in a way in which any Regional Society would resent very greatly, its affairs being centralised (MRC, Mss 335/TOM).

A different concern was expressed by Steve Cook, a highly experienced OR practitioner from within the coal and iron and steel industries and foundation Professor of OR at the University of Aston. Significantly, and in the academic context, Cook took the view that professional status via a register would encourage the ossification of OR methodology insofar as the proposals laid emphasis on 'formal theoretic training' at the level of university courses. For Cook, OR needed to assert its independence from 'management science' in view of an existing interface with the social sciences (MRC, 1973d, Mss 335/TOM).

A professional register established

A professional register of OR, entitling its members to call themselves 'Fellow of Operational Research' [FOR] or 'Associate Fellow', received the formal approval of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in April 1974. Contrary to Tocher's original vision, it was an independent body, unaffiliated to the ORS. The aims of the Register/Fellowship were summarized as follows: The objectives of the Fellowship are to ensure the maintenance and continued development of Operational Research as a profession to establish and administer standards of practice concerning the competence and ethical conduct of members and to provide a body to further the interests of those engaged in Operational Research as a profession. The Fellowship is particularly concerned with the needs of younger practitioners....It is, of course the policy of the Fellowship to co-operate fully with other management science organisations in achieving these objectives.
The standard of entry....to the Fellowship is high [it was in conformity with the original 'A' grade membership criteria]. As an independent professional body, the Fellowship has also a duty towards....practitioners who have not yet formally qualified to be Fellows. The Associate grade of membership exists for these practitioners (Management in Action, 1974).

In addition, it was envisaged that members of the Register would cooperate fully with the ORS, insofar as every 'Fellow' who was a member of the Society would pay a reduced subscription and that the ORS would be invited to appoint a representative to serve on the Register's membership committee. Finally, Fellows and Associate Fellows who were not members of the ORS would be encouraged to join the Society (MRC, 1974a). In the ORS Archive there is a letter from Colin Croskin, the newly appointed administrator/secretary of the Register, addressed to the ORS President, Rolfe Tomlinson, and John Stringer, head of the Institute for Operational Research, drawing attention to their agreement to 'cooperate fully' with the Register 'to ensure that the best interests of [OR] are served by our respective organizations' (MRC, 1974b, Mss 335/TOM). Clearly, the contending parties envisaged a mutually beneficial relationship, notwithstanding earlier controversies. The fact remains, however, that the relationship was not consummated. The reasons for this are easily identified, given the gestation of the debate on professionalism.

In December, 1973 (MRC, 1973e), by which time the Shutler committee's register proposals had been subject to extensive comment and scrutiny, the ORS convened an EGM with Rolfe Tomlinson in the Chair. The key issue for debate was whether or not the ORS should accept the register as an affiliated organization. The vote was decisive with 446 in opposition and only 137 in favour. A second vote, authorising the ORS to negotiate with the register with a view to meeting the well-known concerns of the Society was also heavily defeated. As if to force the message home, a final vote rejected a proposal that the ORS Council should be empowered to canvass further the views of the membership on the issue of professionalism (MRC, Mss 335/TOM). As Brian Kingsman was to state subsequently, the overwhelming impression gained from this sequence of votes was that a decisive majority within the ORS was intent upon a policy of 'noncooperation and cold-shouldering' with regard to the Register (MRC, 1974f, Mss 335/TOM). At this point, the 'schism' in the OR community attracted the attention of The Times in its 'Business Diary' section. Under the theme of 'Divided OR', the article commented that although OR was 'the study of applying [the] scientific method to organisations, the ORS was 'beset by organizational problems of its own' given that the society was 'split right down the middle between practitioners and academics (The Times, 1974). Tomlinson's reply, printed in the following week, sought to 'put the facts straight', in the first instance by emphasizing that far from the ORS being 'split right down the middle' on the issue, only 3% of the membership had voted in favour of affiliation with the register. He went further: There are many reasons why professionalism has become such an emotive issue in OR as it has in many other subjects. To some, of course, professionalism in its narrowest sense is objectionable as a matter of principle. I suspect, however, that two other issues have probably carried greater weight in the overall debate.
In the first place, there is severe doubt as to how far it is possible to test for 'professional' competence in the subject which is one where an intuitive understanding of the decision-maker's problems and an orientation [towards] the development of practical solutions are vital, often indeed of greater impact than the formal knowledge and manipulative skills used in developing that solution.
Secondly, there is a deep fear that to establish professional standards would risk imposing such rigidity on the subject as to fossilise it, which would be fatal to an activity in which innovation and change are of the essence.
Division on such issues seems to me to be no bad thing. Rather, it indicates a lively society anxious to get the further development of its subject right and deeply concerned about standards (The Times, 1974).

As a damage-limiting exercise, this was a wholly satisfactory response insofar as it got to the heart of the key issues debated within the ORS. Moreover, it emphasized the fact that far from 'being split down the middle' on the issue, the advocates of professional status within the ORS were in a small minority, notwithstanding the fact that debate had been heated and occasionally bitter (R. Tomlinson to M. Kirby, 2004)

There remains the issue of the OR Society's response to the reality of the Register. The dilemma was summarized well by Noel Falconer, one of the original members of the Shutler Committee and one of the first ORS members to be invited to join the Register. In a long letter to Rolfe Tomlinson in which he confessed to being in 'two minds on the issue', he commented as follows: There appear to be two basic strategies, the choice of the systemic or extra systemic intervention level. We could accept the Fellowship and try to lead it and the ORS to amicable co-existence and effective cooperation, or we could try to minimise its size and influence.
In the first case one joins and works for rapprochement. It is a relatively pleasant task, made more rewarding personally by that apparently prestigious title 'Fellow', which surely must be attractive to many potential employers. This, however, ....accentuates the schism in the OR community. Not only is this directly damaging, but there is a secondary effect of some importance. The successful fight against an ORS-affiliated professional group was led by some of our more extreme members [Rosenhead and his supporters]. I am not unsympathetic to their concepts of social responsibility in science but I believe their approach is often emotional rather than scientific—and—some of the actions they suggest are wholly unacceptable. They might see a friendly attitude as a defiance of the will of the Society, leading to a re-run of the battle of 1973 with perhaps the same result and yet more prestige and influence to the militants....I am reluctant to present them with another winning situation (MRC, 1974e).

Falconer evidently favoured 'rapprochement', but he was acutely aware of the 'grave dissent' that might arise if the ORS proceeded in this way. In this respect, his conclusion was revealing: These arguments concentrate on the effects on the OR community because I think that these are of much greater importance than the intrinsic merits and demerits of of the Fellowship, which indeed seem very even....
It is possible to delay acceptance for a limited period, but if the decision is to oppose, the sooner action is taken, the better (MRC, 1974).

Similar sentiments were expressed by George Mitchell, a future ORS President, writing to Rolfe Tomlinson in April 1974: I see no merit, and much to deplore, in objecting further unless (as seems unlikely) to do so would kill the Fellowship or change it significantly. It might be prudent to take legal advice about the chances of successful litigation, success in the sense of killing or changing [the Fellowship] significantly, to assuage the anti-Fellow faction. But to fight on regardless will alienate an important section of the membership, deflect the Society from immeasurably more important things and run the risk of valid charges of folly.
As you know, I have always taken the view that the Fellowship is likely to fail in its grander aims through lack of support. If it were to succeed, and usurp the Society's authority and status...., then good luck to it. In such circumstances I hope the Society would gracefully acknowledge the new roles, a stance the more easily taken if there is no history of bitter litigation (MRC, 1974d).

In the event, the ORS Council did seek legal advice and also registered its concerns with the DTI, in this latter case by claiming that non-Fellows may 'injure [their] career prospects', that the ORS itself might wish to use the term 'Fellow' at a later date, and that the Register of Fellows might claim the sole right to speak on behalf of the OR profession (MRC, 1974c, 1974g). The DTI response appeared at first sight to be helpful in that it confirmed that the ORS was entitled to mount a legal challenge 'on the Proportional Rights of the use of the term Operational Research based on past usage by the Society' and that objections could be made with a view to limiting the activities of the Register in the 'soliciting of members of the ORS' (MRC, 1974). Ironically, on the day preceding the receipt of this letter by the ORS Secretary, the Fellowship of Operational Research was incorporated by the DTI with the status of a company limited by guarantee. As for a formal legal challenge to the Fellowship, correspondence in the ORS Archive confirms that the advice received ruled this out as extremely costly, independent of the wise counsel expressed by Mitchell.

Conclusion

The decade of the 1970s was one of deep controversy in the evolution of the OR community in Britain. At one level the period was characterized by a 'crisis of confidence and a crisis of identity' in the future of OR following on the heady days of expansion in ORS membership in the1960s and the continuing diffusion of the discipline at the levels of practice and academia (British Coal Archive (1971), 2644/1 p.c. BOX 148). Of course, diffusion was to continue into the 1970s, notably within Whitehall departments, one of the fruits of the 1964–1970 Labour Government's commitment to the reform and modernization of the civil service. But in spite of this, the 1970s stand out as a period of increasing introspection within the OR community in general and the ORS in particular. Worries were certainly expressed about the closure and downsizing of some practitioner groups, which followed in the wake of the economic recession of the early 1970s, while the decade as a whole witnessed increasing discontent with the 'mathematization' of OR at the expense of practical relevance, a discontent which was to reach its climax in Russell Ackoff's highly controversial contributions to the 1978 annual conference of the ORS (Kirby, 2003b). This paper has addressed another aspect of the 'crisis' insofar as it related to the internal governance of the ORS and its external profile. The evidence confirms that there was a profound division of opinion within the ORS on the merits and demerits of professional status, with even those in favour, or neutral, concerned to sustain the internal cohesion of the Society and therefore, on balance, prepared to marginalize the issue as far as practicably possible. As stated in the introduction, one purpose of this paper is to stimulate the memories of those who participated in the debate. If only for the sake of an accurate chronology of events long ago, the author would welcome feedback, critical or otherwise.

References

1. Abbott A (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Expert Division of Labour. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
2. Anon (1953). Club into Society. Opl Res Q 4: 58.
3. Beer S (1964). Letter. The Times. 15 September.
4. Beer S (1970). Operational research as revelation. Opl Res Q 21: 9–21.
5. British Coal Archive (1971). Pat Rivett to Rolfe Tomlinson, 1 November. 2644/1 p.c. BOX 148.
6. Friedson E (1994). Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy and Policy. Blackwell: Oxford.
7. Hanlon J (1973). New professions v. the charlatans. New Scientist, 28 June.
8. Johnson T (1972). Professions and Power. Macmillan: London.
9. Kirby MW (2003a). Operational Research in War and Peace: the British Experience from the 1930s to 1970. Imperial College Press: London.
10. Kirby MW (2003b). The intellectual journey of Russell Ackoff: from OR apostle to OR apostate. J Opl Res Soc 54: 1127–1140. | Article |
11. Kirby MW (forthcoming). Operational Research in Theory and Practice: Volume 2 of the History of Operational Research.
12. Larson MS (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. University of California Press: Berkeley.
13. Management in Action (1974). Comment on the Fellowship of Operational Research, October.
14. Modern Records Centre (MRC) (1959–1973). ORS AGM and EGM. Mss 335/50/1/1/2.
15. MRC (1970). Marlow Seventy: Statement by Stafford Beer on Behalf of Council, 10 April. Mss 335/50/4/3/6.
16. MRC (1970a). Register of Practitioners. Mss 335/50/3/18/1.
17. MRC (1970b). Jonathan Rosenhead et al: Some Comments on the Proposed Register of Practitioners. Mss 335/50/3/18/1.
18. MRC (1972a). Register of Practitioners: History, 10 April. Mss CR103/Co/RP/72.
19. MRC (1972b). Transcript of a special meeting, Royal Aeronautical Society, 27 April. Mss 335/TOM.
20. MRC (1972c). Letter to all ORS Members from Prof. K.D. Tocher, 12 May. Mss 335/TOM.
21. MRC (1972d). Jonathan Rosenhead to ORS Council, 20 October. Mss 335/TOM.
22. MRC (1973a). Steering Committee: Professional Grouping of OR Scientists: Minutes of the Public Meeting of Former A and B Rules ORS Members, 3 July. Mss 335/TOM.
23. MRC (1973b). M.F. Shutler: the Proposed Fellowship, July. Mss 335/TOM.
24. MRC (1973c). Steering Committee for a Professional Grouping of OR Practitioners: Report to Council, October. Mss 335/TOM.
25. MRC (1973d). Steve Cook to ORS Council, 22 November. Mss 335/TOM.
26. MRC (1973e). Minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting, 12 December. Mss 335/TOM.
27. MRC (1974a). Draft Constitution of FOR, January. Mss 335/TOM.
28. MRC (1974b). Colin Croskin to ORS Council, 14 February. Mss 335/TOM.
29. MRC (1974c). ORS to N. Naylor, Assistant Registrar, DTI, 12 March. Mss 335/TOM.
30. MRC (1974d). George Mitchell to Rolfe Tomlinson, 9 April. Mss 335/TOM.
31. MRC (1974e). Noel Falconer to Rolfe Tomlinson, 15 May. Mss 335/TOM.
32. MRC (1974f). B.G. Kingsman to Ray Showell, 23 May. Mss 335/TOM.
33. MRC (1974g). DTI to R.A. Showell. Mss 335/TOM.
34. MRC (undated). Register of Practitioners Working Party: Summary of Responses to Questionnaire. Mss 335/TOM.
35. Operational Research Society (1970). Marlow Seventy. Operational Research Society: Birmingham, UK.
36. Parsons T (1939). The professions and social structure. Social Forces 17: 457–467. | Article |
37. Perkin H (1989). The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880. Routledge: London.
38. Rosenhead J and Thunhurst C (1982). A materialist analysis of operational research. J Opl Res Soc 33: 111–122.
39. Rosenhead J and Martin D (2002). Stafford Beer. OR Newsletter no. 382 (October): 16–17.
40. Rosenhead J to Kirby M. (March 2005).
41. Shutler M to Kirby M. (November 2004).
42. The Times (15 September 1964; 2 January 1974; 11 January 1974).
43. Tomlinson R to Kirby M. (8 September 2004; 12 October 2004).

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Barbara Kirby and the staff of the Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick for research assistance in the preparation of this paper. I am also indebted to George Mitchell, Jonathan Rosenhead, Maurice Shutler and Rolfe Tomlinson for their comments and advice. I am solely responsible for errors of fact and/or interpretation.