Disparate goals, progressive ideals? Professional biographies of planners in the UK and their ideas of ‘mission’

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we utilise data from biographical interviews to examine the values held by UK planners and whether and how they promote progressive planning ideals in their everyday work, often despite countertendencies in planning systems and organisational priorities. Our research concurs with the idea of a mildly progressive, yet conservative, positioning: in Hillier’s (2002) terms, some planners are ‘on a mission’ but these missions vary from common-good orientations, a desire to do ‘better’ planning in a putative public interest, to more justice-based commitments to certain progressive ‘causes’ such as particular publics, cultural heritage, special places, or the environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Planning practice
• biographical interviewing
• professional values
• organisational cultures
• careers

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the research participants of the ESRC funded Working in the Public Interest project and our fellow researchers: Zan Gunn, Andy Inch, Abby Schoneboom, Jason Slade, and Malcolm Tait. Three anonymous referees provide valuable comments on an earlier draft.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. in the Anglo-Saxon world at least, and we note here a dominance of work in this area from such contexts which we are mindful of perpetuating.

2. By progressive we mean, ‘decision-making on the basis of whether a decision increases flourishing or equity’ (McClymont, 2014, p. 188), as opposed to merely oiling the wheels of capitalism, see also Zanotto (2019).

3. Planning is a devolved function in the UK, so reforms of the planning system vary between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

4. Most of their work involved using the tools of the state – neighbourhood planning, parish planning – and so wasn’t a pure form of radical planning but they frequently co-designed new practices with communities that effectively challenged planning orthodoxies. This was in part-contrast with Planner 1, working within local government using the same technologies, who also saw their role as serving citizens, not their employer, but more within existing frameworks, bending them where they could to meet community objectives.

5. A phenomenon noted in other professions (see Suddaby et al. (2007)). Historically in (US) planning see Howe (1980).

Additional information

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council Award Number: ES/P011713/1.