My past work experiences would likely use the same definition of "professionalism" the module provides. However, in my past work experiences I witnessed (and sometimes experienced directly) frequently the failure of "professionalism" when maintained as an individual directive with no community accountability.
For example, I witnessed many times individuals or myself attempt to address unprofessional (and often violent) behaviors, statements or patterns respectfully and receive no resolution. In these cases, the other party or parties did not benefit from changing their behavior and were not required to change their behavior by their supervisors, organizational leadership and the organization's culture -- because, in those instances, the unprofessional and violent behaviors were actually structural design choices of the organization (as opposed to "bugs"). Instead, the people who respectfully addressed the unprofessionalism and/or violence became labeled as "unprofessional" themselves.
I have spent the last few months reflecting on the above, which has led to more questions: what is "respect" in this kind of organization, and who benefits from requiring communication to be handled "respectfully?" What choices do I personally want to make in this kind of environment, and what boundaries do I personally set, whether or not those boundaries fall into the explicit or implicit definitions of professionalism?
I will be curious to see how the GSSWSR handles accountability as a community, particularly when thinking critically about how social institutions that create power and power disparities (such as race, gender and class) and institutional roles (student versus professor versus administrator) impact interpersonal, community and organizational dynamics.