IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v43y2016i1p74-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-perceptions of the role of the planner

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Fox-Rogers
  • Enda Murphy

Abstract

The role of the planning practitioner has received considerable attention in a diverse range of theoretical and empirical debates within the broad spectrum of planning scholarship from normative debates surrounding the planner's role in society, to more empirical investigations into the skills, attributes, and evolving nature of planning practitioners. Fundamental questions surrounding the role and purpose of planners have also entered into more mainstream discussions as the democratic nature of the planning system has been consistently undermined by allegations of misconduct, corruption, and incompetence. Despite the broad range of literature and debate which centres on the role of the planner, relatively few studies have explored the views of planning practitioners themselves, making it difficult to judge whether the ideas of planning academics are actually shared by those in the field. In this paper we seek to address this particular gap and argue that such insights are critical in determining the extent to which planning practitioners serve to challenge, maintain, or reinforce existing power imbalances in the planning system. The methodology consists of a series of qualitative interviews with twenty local authority planners working throughout the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The results suggest that planners' self-perceptions of their role tend to reflect traditional pluralist and managerialist perspectives. More broadly, the results suggest that the role orientations of contemporary planners are being shaped by dominant discourses in current planning ideology — namely, collaborative and participatory approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Fox-Rogers & Enda Murphy, 2016. "Self-perceptions of the role of the planner," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(1), pages 74-92, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:74-92
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813515603860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813515603860
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813515603860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "How Planners Deal with Uncomfortable Knowledge: The Dubious Ethics of the American Planning Association," Papers 1303.7405, arXiv.org.
    2. P M McGuirk, 2001. "Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(2), pages 195-217, February.
    3. Heather Campbell & Robert Marshall, 2000. "Moral Obligations, Planning, and the Public Interest: A Commentary on Current British Practice," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 27(2), pages 297-312, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jessica S Pineda-Zumaran, 2018. "Exploring practitioners’ perception of ethical issues in planning: The Peruvian case," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(6), pages 1109-1132, September.
    2. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    3. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    4. Kristof Van Assche & Martijn Duineveld & Raoul Beunen, 2014. "Power and Contingency in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(10), pages 2385-2400, October.
    5. Stjernström, Olof & Junker, Eivind & Thorsen, Hans Wilhelm, 2023. "The private in the public: The case of Norwegian private zoning plans," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    7. Baudot, Lisa & Cooper, David J., 2022. "Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    9. Elaine Stratford & Martina Jaskolski, 2004. "In Pursuit of Sustainability? Challenges for Deliberative Democracy in a Tasmanian Local Government," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 31(2), pages 311-324, April.
    10. Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2015. "The ‘social choice’ of privatising urban water services: A case study of Madrid in Spain," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-629.
    11. Takeda, Louise & Røpke, Inge, 2010. "Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management: The case of Haida Gwaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 178-188, December.
    12. Brett Milligan & Alejo Kraus-Polk & Yiwei Huang, 2020. "Park, Fish, Salt and Marshes: Participatory Mapping and Design in a Watery Uncommons," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    13. Efrat Eizenberg & Mor Shilon, 2016. "Pedagogy for the new planner: Refining the qualitative toolbox," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(6), pages 1118-1135, November.
    14. Mark Purcell, 2006. "Urban Democracy and the Local Trap," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(11), pages 1921-1941, October.
    15. Jon Coaffee & Patsy Healey, 2003. "'My Voice: My Place': Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(10), pages 1979-1999, September.
    16. Jonathan Jae-an Crisman, 2022. "Co-Creation From the Grassroots: Listening to Arts-Based Community Organizing in Little Tokyo," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 340-350.
    17. Gunter Ashley, 2014. "Mega events as a pretext for infrastructural development: the case of the All African Games Athletes Village, Alexandra, Johannesburg," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 23(23), pages 39-52, March.
    18. Maarten Wolsink, 2003. "Reshaping the Dutch Planning System: A Learning Process?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(4), pages 705-723, April.
    19. Valtonen, Eero & Falkenbach, Heidi & Viitanen, Kauko, 2018. "Securing public objectives in large-scale urban development: Comparison of public and private land development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 481-492.
    20. Christos Zografos & Joan Martínez-Alier, 2009. "The Politics of Landscape Value: A Case Study of Wind Farm Conflict in Rural Catalonia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(7), pages 1726-1744, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:74-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.