Current Professional Experience
Reflections on Industry
Key Issues between planning theory and practiceThe rational model that is taught mostly in education does not adequately prepare students for real world practice. This model does not account for any communicative action and moral judgement that is used in practice. However, this can be taught as well as learnt in practice. The biggest issue with planning is its misunderstanding of what it is, how it’s done and who does it. It is as Innes (1995, p 187) puts it; ‘Learning by doing has far more power than simply learning by reading or listening’.
It is argued that ‘Planning is a moral activity’ (Hemmens 1980, p. 259), and with these moral actions planners need to use communication to identify and determine human behaviours and intentions to come up with mutual goals. Planning does not exist behind a closed door where the ‘planning gods’ make all the decisions for the public. And yet for some part of it does. While we can argue that this is changing, we still exist in a world where we have two sides of planning, Rational, (action/planning) model planning and Communicative planning. As Innes (1995, p. 186) puts it; ‘planners divided themselves into those who saw their role as technicians; those who saw themselves as actors; and the others who could not classify themselves either way, but felt strongly the competing pressures of both roles’. Planning practice relies on communication while theory is consistently one sided. More reading and watching. Communication skills are the biggest piece of the puzzle. Innes, J 1995, ‘Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.14, no.3, pp. 183-189. Hemmens, G 1980, ‘New Directions in Planning Theory’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol.46, no.3, pp. 259-260. |
Comparing my experience to theoryMy placement at Brisbane City Council, has been with the Transport Planning and Strategy department working in Active and Public Transport. My supervisor is an avid Strategic planner. Our team work on many levels ranging from Strategic (mandate) to local and point. We range from being participants in the realm making decisions based on behaviour as well as intention to trying to change behaviour to suit specific needs (This is done through physical barriers and signage). At times we are the ‘actor’ determining what it is our behaviour tells us we do but also identifying the intent to what we are doing. This helps to determine needs in a strategic viewpoint but also to determine a point source solution to problems. There is still a ‘gap’ between theory and practice as well as a ‘gap’ between the differing types of planners (which side they work within). However, this isn’t always a bad thing. This helps to see alternate points of view and allow for discussion to come up with a mutual solution. Often the biggest ignored point is that Planning is political in nature. Understanding that while we try to be social planners with moral intentions. We cannot always make everyone happy.
|
Want to know more about me?
Click to view my resume
|