Transforming the architect: Ownership form and archetype change

The adoption of the incorporated form of ownership in preference to partnership is linked to the shift to a more modem organizational archetype in professional firms. Yet existing empirical research offers insufficient insight into the organizational processes of this transformation in different professional arenas. Where ownership and control become separated, there is a clearer theoretical explanation of the implications for the way the firm is run. Where ownership and control remain inside, the firm, however, the consequences are not so clear and have not been well explored. Using survey and interview materials derived from a study of architecture practices, we examine the processes by which differences based on ownership emerge. Then, by drawing on Weberian theories, where they are concerned with professionalization as a project with material and social rewards, we specify more clearly the context for change in professional firms' archetypes. This, we conclude, provides a stronger basis for understanding the change trajectories of firms within professions and comparative organizational analysis between professions.

Taming the tigers? Reforming the security sector in Southeast Asia

Despite global trends towards military reform characterized by processes of professionalization and democratization, militaries in Southeast Asia have continued to play prominent roles in domestic politics since 11 September. This suggests that wider patterns of global military reform have not had as great an impact on the control, capacity and cooperative functions of armed forces in Southeast Asia as they may have elsewhere. In order to explore why the security sector reform agenda has had so little impact in the region, we investigate recent patterns of civil-military relations in Southeast Asia by focusing on the experiences of four of the region's militaries: Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia. We argue that the security sector reform agenda is informed by a predominantly North American approach to civil-military relations based on a number of core assumptions that do not reflect Southeast Asian experiences. Hence, we ask whether the reform agenda itself could be modified to better suit the Southeast Asian context. We suggest that although the regional military sector has not reformed along a 'Western' path it is nonetheless possible to see other types of, and potential for, reform.