تحلیل آموزش شهرسازی در ایران و رابطه آن با نقش متخصص شهرسازی

محورهای موضوعی : شهرسازی

سید حسین بحرینی ¹ , الهام فلاح منشادی ²

1 - استاد گروه شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران
2 - دکترى شهرسازى دانشگاه تهران، دانشکده شهرسازى دانشگاه تهران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/05/16 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/11/13 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/10/01

کلید واژه: محتوای آموزش شهرسازی, کشورهای درحال‌توسعه, نقش متخصص شهرسازی,

چکیده مقاله :

محتوای آموزشی هر حرفه از نقش و جایگاه آن حرفه در جامعه ناشی می‌شود و آموزش شهرسازی نیز از این قاعده مستثنا نیست. درواقع آموزش شهرسازی باید در عمل پاسخگوی نیازهای متخصصان شهرسازی باشد. در همین راستا، این مقاله ابتدا به بررسی نقش متخصص شهرسازی در ایران پرداخته و سپس با تعیین مهم‌ترین دانش و مهارت‌های متخصص شهرسازی، به ارزیابی میزان انطباق این نقش با محتوای آموزش شهرسازی می‌پردازد. نقش متخصص شهرسازی با مصاحبه با 12 فرد حرفه‌ای و مهم‌ترین دانش، مهارت و اهمیت ارزش‌ها در آموزش شهرسازی با تکمیل 341 پرسشنامه مشخص گردیده است. بررسی نقش متخصص شهرسازی در ایران مبین غلبه دیدگاه تکنسین و یا مشاور در فرایند تصمیم‌گیری بوده و تأکید اصلی بر تهیه طرح‌های توسعه در مقیاس‌های مختلف است. نمود نقش متخصص شهرسازی در محتوای آموزش شهرسازی غلبه دانش رویه‌ای/کاربردی، مهارت‌های تکنیکی و تحلیلی بوده و ارزش‌ها بی‌اهمیت است که نشان‌دهنده انطباق نقش متخصص شهرسازی با محتوای آموزشی در ایران است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

A review of the literature on the subject of urban planning education in the developing countries shows serious challenges in formulating the content of education in these countries. One subject is the relation between content of education in these countries and the role that planners play. No doubt the education content of what planners need should be in congruence with the professional role and position of planner in the society. In other words, before defining the education content, we should make it clear what kind of planner we intend to train and what do we expect of this planner to do. On these basis, this critical question may raise that what role urban planner essentially play in the developing countries and to what extent the content of education in these countries should adapt to this role? A brief review of the literature indicates that two general roles of active vs. advisory (or technician role) have been dominant in urban planning. Choosing between these two would imply different education content. The education content consists of three elements of knowledge, skills, and values, each of which has its own unique details. The importance of these sub-elements is different in different roles of planners. In the active role, the main knowledge needed is substantive/fundamental, the most important skill is communicative, and it is value or normative based. In the case of technician role, on the other hand, the dominant knowledge is procedural / applied, skills are technical and analytical and values are not important. In this article, the role of urban planner in Iran, as a developing country, will be analyzed, and, then, the most important knowledge and skills which are relevant to this role will be defined. In other words, this study intends to find answers to the following questions: What is the role of urban planner in Iran, as a developing country? What are the most important knowledge and skills needed by urban planners in developing countries? And finally to what extent the related educational contents are prioritized on the basis of actual role of planner? The study of planner role in the developing countries, and Iran as a case study, shows that the dominant view for the planner role is technician or advisory role in the decision-making process and the main focus is on preparing urban development plans at different scales (from national spatial planning to specific detailed plans). Planners are actively involved in physical studies. Reflection of the planner role on the education content in the developing countries shows the dominance of procedural / applied knowledge which are courses with physical orientation such as studios, urban space analysis, introduction to urban planning, urban design methods and GIS (versus environment, economics, social issues), and technical and analytical skills(versus communication skills) and values do not play any role in this regard. These results shows that there is a conformity between urban planner's role and educational content in Iran as a case study for developing countries.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Afshar, F. (2001). Preparing Planners for a Globalizing World: The Planning School at the University of Guelph. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (3), 339-352.


2. Agyeman, J., & Erickson, J. S. (2012). Culture, Recognition, and Negotiation of Difference: Some Thoughts on Cultural Competence in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32 (3), 358-366.


3. Alexander, E. R. (2007). What Do Planners Need To Know? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (3), 376-380.


4. Banerjee, T. (1990). Third World City Design: Values, Models and Education. In T. Banerjee, Breaking The Boundries (pp. 173-189). New York: Springer.


5. Bayer, M. Frank, N., & Valerius, J. (2010). Becoming an Urban Planner: A Guid to Careers in Planning and Urban Design. U.S.A. Wiley.


6. Budge, T. (2009). Educating Planners, Educating for Planning or Planning Education: the Never-Ending Story. Australian Planner,46(1), 8-13.


7. Burayidi, M. A. (1993). Dualism and Universalism: Competing Paradigms in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(3), 223-229.


8. Carter, E. J. (1993). Toward a Core of Body of Knowledge: A New Curriculum for City and Regional Planner. Planning Education and Research, 12(2), 160-163.


9. Chettiparamp, A. (2006). Bottom-Up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2),185-194.


10. Cook, A. (1999). Undercurrents of Change in Planning Education in Hung Kong. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), 247-249.


11. Davidoff, P., & Boyd, L. (1983). Peace and Justice in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3(1), 54.


12. Diaw, k., Nnkya, T., & Watson, V. (2002). Planning Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Responding to the Demands of a Changing context. Planning Practice and Research,17(3), 337-348.


13. Edwards, M. M., & Bates, L. K. (2011). Planning's Core Curriculum: Knowledge, Practice, and Implementation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(2), 172-183.


14. Ellis, G., Morison, S., & Purdy, J. (2008). A New Concept of Interprofessional Education in Planning Programs: Reflections on Health Urban Planning Project. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 75-93.


15. Fainstein, S. (2000). New Direction in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451-478.


16. Faludi, A. (1987). Dutch Planning Education in Its International Context. Journal of Housing and Environment Research., 2(4), 285-298.


17. Frank, A. I. (2006). Three Decades of Thought on Planning Education. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(1), 15-44.


18. Freeston, R., Williams, P., Tomapson, S., & Thrimbath, K. (2007). A Quantitative Approach to Assessment of Work-based Learning Out-comes: An Urban Planning Application. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(4), 347-361.


19. Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning As A Vocation (part 1).Plan Canada, 6, 99-124.


20. Friedmann, J. (1996). The Core Curriculum in Planning Revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15(2), 89-104.


21. Galloway, T. D., & Mahayani, R. G. (1977). Planning Theory in Retrospect: The Process of Paradigm Change. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43(1), 62-71.


22. Gospodini, A., & Skayannis, P. (2005). Toward an Integration Model of Planning Education Programs in a European and International Context: The Contribution of Recent Greek Experience. Planning Theory &Practice,6 (3), 355-382.


23. Gunder, M. (2004). Shaping the Planner's Ego-Ideal, A Lacanian Interpretation of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(3), 299-311.


24. Guzzetta, J. D., & Bollens, S. A. (2003). Urban Planners Skills and Competencies: Are We Different from Other Professions? Does Context Matter? Do We Evolve? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 96-106.


25. Holliday, S. (2011). The Challenges of Being a Planner Today. Sydney: Planning Institute Australia (PIA).


26. Horen, B. V., Michael, L., & Pinnawala, S. (2004). Localizing a Global Discipline, Designing New Planning Programs in Sri Lanka. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(3), 255-268.


27. Innes, J. (1997). The Planner's Century. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(3),227-228.


28. Kaufman, S., & Simons, R. (1995). Quantitative and Research Methods in Planning: Are Schools Teaching What Practitioners Practice?. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15(1), 17-33.


29. Klosterman, R. E. (1992). Planning Theory Education in 1980s: Results of a Second Course Survey. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 11(2), 130-140.


30. Kuehl, P. G. (1992). Job Analysis Survey: American Institute of Certifies Planners. Rockville MD: Westat, Inc.


31. Kunzman, K. R. (1997). The Future of Planning Education in Europe. AESOP News.


32. LeGates, R. T. (2009). Competency-based UK Urban Spatial Planning Education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2), 55-73.


33. Mc.Cledon, B. (2003). A Bold Vision and a Brand Identify for Planning Profession. Journal of American Planning Association, 69(3), 221-232.


34. McIntyre, S., McNaney, K., Morgan, K., Rucci, C., & Sexsmith, L. (1997). Planning curriculums for the 21st century: What do Canadian and American schools say they do? Master’s student project, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Available from http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/dorcey/: Master's Student Project, University of British Columbia.


35. Nutt, T. E., Susskind, L. E., & Retsinas, N. P. (1970). Prospects For Urban Planning Education. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 36(4), 229-241.


36. Ozawa, P., & Seltez, E. (1999). Taking Our Bearing: Mapping Among Planning Practice, Theory and Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(3), 257-266.


37. Pezzoli, K., & Howe, D. (2001). Planning Pedagogy and Globalization, A Content Analysis of Syllabi. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(3), 365-375.


38. Pinson, D. (2004). Urban Planning: an Undisciplined Discipline? Future,36 (4), 503-513.


39. Pivo, G. (1989). Specializations, Faculty Interest, and Courses in Physical Planning Subjects at Graduate Planning Schools. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 9(1), 19-27.


40. Poxon, J. (2001). Shaping the planning profession of the future: the role of planning education. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(4), 563-579.


41. Sandercock, L. (1999). Expanding the Language of Planning: A Mediation on Planning Education for Twenty-First Century. European Planning Studies, 7(5), 533-544.


42. Schuster, J. (1986). Quantitative Reasoning in Planning Curriculum. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 6(1), 30-36.


43. Seltzer, E., & Ozawa, C. P. (2002). Clear Signals: Moving on to Planning's Promise. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 77-86.


44. Swearing white, s., & Mayo, J. M. (2005). Environmental Education in Graduate Professional Degrees: The Case of Urban Planning. Report and Research, 36, 31-38.


45. Sweet, E. L., & Etienee, H. F. (2011). Commentary: Diversity in Urban Planning Education and Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 332-339.


46. Talor, N. (1999). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: Sage.