Professional institutions in UK construction: practitioners' perspectives on competence, standards and institutional boundaries

Purpose This study examines how professional institutions are interpreted by practitioners within the UK construction sector, with particular attention to competence, standards and disciplinary boundaries. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts an interpretive qualitative approach based on narrative interviews with 27 professionals working across the UK construction sector. Relevant interview extracts concerning professional institutions, competence, accreditation and professional standards were collated and analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021). Findings The findings indicate that professional institutions are commonly associated with competence, credibility and professional recognition, while also revealing variation in perceived standards, prestige and competence assurance across institutions. Participants further described persistent disciplinary silos and fragmented understandings of professionalism across the sector. Professional institutions were therefore interpreted both as markers of professional standing and as associated with disciplinary separation within project-based construction environments. Research limitations/implications The UK-specific sample and single-researcher analysis require care when considering transferability. Comparative research across occupational and national settings is recommended. Practical implications The findings indicate a need for professional institutions to clarify competence assurance and support multidisciplinary teams in navigating different institutional standards and boundaries. Social implications Greater transparency in qualification and accreditation processes may support fairer recognition and career progression across professional institutions perceived as carrying different levels of prestige. Originality/value The paper shows that the authority of professional institutions is interpreted conditionally through perceptions of rigour, competence assurance, disciplinary coordination and practical relevance. Within this broader finding, a credibility–fragmentation tension is identified between professional standing and concerns regarding uneven prestige, standards and disciplinary separation.