在道德与职业之间:理论化的公众参与从业者的兴起。

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
Janice Barry, Crystal Legacy
{"title":"在道德与职业之间:理论化的公众参与从业者的兴起。","authors":"Janice Barry,&nbsp;Crystal Legacy","doi":"10.1177/14730952221107148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/4c/10.1177_14730952221107148.PMC9869749.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between virtue and profession: Theorising the rise of professionalised public participation practitioners.\",\"authors\":\"Janice Barry,&nbsp;Crystal Legacy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14730952221107148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/4c/10.1177_14730952221107148.PMC9869749.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221107148\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221107148","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

参与式规划实践正在发生变化,以应对受过专门训练的公众参与从业者的兴起,他们与规划师既有交集,又有区别。通过行业机构制定的新能力标准,这些从业人员正日益专业化。参与性规划的实证研究没有很好地解释这一影响,也没有很好地解释那些试图理解更审慎的城市决策方法的潜力和问题的理论文献。在本文中,我们重新审视了关于专业的社会学文献,并用它来批判性地质疑公众参与的“美德”(正义、公平和民主)与将公众参与实践整合为一种与专业规划相互作用但也位于专业规划之外的独特职业之间的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between virtue and profession: Theorising the rise of professionalised public participation practitioners.

Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Planning Theory
Planning Theory REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
20.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信