Theory of social closure predicts: Profession will close ranks

Max Weber [1], the renowned sociologists, described social closure [2] as the tendency of groups to restrict entry to outsiders in order to maximize their own benefit.

I was reminded of this when I read an article, unrelated to IT Security, where the author described his view on why there seems to be reluctance to promote education to all levels of society. In his view, the very classes who were proponents of providing everybody with the benefits of education will stop doing so once they have accomplished it themselves, thereby preserving an advantage. ("Hauen und Stechen in der Chancengesellschaft [3]" - "Push comes to shove in a society of opportunity", in German language)

Let's put this idea to the test and look at our own profession. Are we socially inclusive or socially exclusive? [4]

Security people often are extremely good networkers. They meet at conferences, they network online, they engage in open dialogue. Generally, they like to help newcomers who come with an open attitude. This is an open, prolific, seminal social group.

However, at the moment the market is still booming [5], so it's easy for people to find their own niche, even if they are new to the trade.

On the other hand, I have heard numerous presentations from people calling for licensure - where security professionals would need an accreditation in order to exercise their profession. The British Institute of Information Security Professionals [6] (IISP) was founded [7] on this very idea, and some governments [8] and government agencies, International Organizations [9] and large enterprises are moving into the same direction.

So I'm sure we're going to see tendencies and pressure to move in this direction. Personally, I think it's a risk to the security profession if we in any way throttle our supply of fresh brains moving into this exciting field. This is not to say we shouldn't professionalize - but the entry hurdles must be so that they are providing value (such as entry and advanced certifications) and not artificially restraining the market (such as being at the mercy of an agency whose mission it is to maintain a monopoly). Medieval guilds [10], anyone?