The roles of the citizen practitioner in citizen engagement for architecture, urban design, and planning policy: A Phronesis-based approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The challenges facing citizen participation/engagement in policy are a pressing area of concern for architects, urban designers, planners, policy-makers, and researchers. This dissertation explores the relationships between citizens and their representatives or professionals, with an emphasis on the nature of their participation in matters of policy in such communities. The purpose of this work is to advance a Phronesis-based approach as a transformative participatory perspective, enabling direct communication between ordinary citizens and their representatives or professionals, through an interface of Phronesis and citizen participation/engagement for architecture, urban design and planning policy design, development and implementation. The scope of this study is: 1. an evaluation of the current state of research on citizen participation/engagement policy strategies through a variety of literature reviews, addressing all predisposed findings through a phronetic lens. 2. An exploration of the roles of the individual in a community as a "citizen practitioner", whose life experiences and practical knowledge shape that individual's self-narrative and community level of participation and enriches local place knowledge transmission in architecture, urban design, and planning policy strategies and outcomes. 3. An application of the Aristotelian concept of Phronesis to examine the intersection of authority/expertise vs. knowledge in a conceptual framework driven by several exploratory questions and the research question: How can current architecture, urban design, and planning research methods and practices concerned with citizen participation/engagement in policy be redefined as learning systems in a Phronesis-dominant approach? A. The methodology of this work employs a fully integrated mixed model design in a triangulation of three research methods: a primary method, a secondary method, and a tertiary method. Meta-research analysis was conducted of the work of influential writers on citizen participation/engagement, in policy. This is followed by a comparative analysis of two competing paradigms, two case studies and a thematic analysis of secondary semi-structured interviews with second-homeowners in Central Ontario, Canada. B. The findings indicate that current citizen participation/engagement strategies in policy are lacking in effectiveness, relevancy, validity, credibility. The lack of emphasis on value, trust and meaning in dialogues between citizens and their representatives or professionals are some among other challenges. Findings also indicate that in order to overcome such challenges, architecture, urban design, and planning participatory policy strategies can be redefined as learning systems in a Phronesis-based approach, characterized by three components: context, value-rationality, and praxis. Conclusions reached are that there exists a very real necessity for face-to-face interaction and relationship building between people to occur at an individual level, along the lines delineated by a Phronesis-based approach utilizing the life experience-based self-narrative of the citizen practitioner, as a relevant and effective means of transmitting and exchanging local place knowledge between citizens and their representatives. Limitations of this study include compromised effectiveness in a politically charged context and partial or misconceived interpretation and implementation, as well as and resistance by officials, professionals and academicians to the approach and its associated terms. This study contributes a conceptual framework that explicitly integrates knowledge and learning into an understanding of authority and expertise, and redefines classical case study research and practice. It also provides an original contribution to the research, education and practice of policy-oriented participatory processes in architecture, urban design and planning with an impact that extends to other fields.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».