**5. Conclusions**

Using the Place Model to reimagine a more commodious understanding of the place of professionals provides a timely and candid analysis which does not lose sight of those who most need the services of the most dependable experts. The Model delivers a useful map of the tensions which exist between the many contrasting viewpoints about who, if anyone, might still be a professional. Those entering the professions must have opportunities to cast a critical eye over their careers, to appreciate that many professionals may be (required to be) increasingly shiny, but are neither expert nor trustworthy, are vilified rather than supported by those in power, and are subject to both market**i**zation of their services and to bureaucratic accountability and also to replacement or augmentation by AI. Likewise, the Model points to ways in which markets and bureaucracy are deforming underestimations of human potential, whist the potential of AI is as ye<sup>t</sup> insu fficiently understood. While the competitive markets patrolled by pervasive (and sometime well intentioned) bureaucracy may well be underestimations of the potential of humanity, perhaps inclusive professions are an overestimation. On the other hand, Bourdieu, for all his enduring esteem, has perhaps underestimated the persistent place of professionals as trustworthy experts, particularly in roles involving human qualities which continue to be in demand but cannot be straightforwardly bought, sold, measured or robotized. Such is the place of the inclusive professional, an ideal which (yet) has much to o ffer to the betterment of the world.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** I acknowledge the advice of Professor Marilyn Cochrane Smith around the stripped back version of the Place Model in this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
