Practitioner versus professional?

Dunedata

Without getting too academic about it all... there is a need for discussion and action on the development of the sustainability paradigmn in Western Australia ... as well as to what such a concept really means to all and sundry not just to a select few experts ,academics,corporates and other allied or connected professional groups.It is a situation in which there must be adopted a praxis and transversalist approach.That is... similar to what is advocated for professionals in 'fields' under conversion to a more sustainable approach...more multidisciplinary and connecting understanding across traditional boundaries.It must go beyond this limited expert approach and field to a transversalist approach that is open,inclusive of the masses of diverse opinioned and practiced workers and other professional groups who have not yet been touched,.. let alone heard of sustainability in all its many guises.Practitioners need to be seen as experts in praxis as well as developing theory.

The danger in developing accreditations,certifications and professionalisation too widely is that it may exclude and not necessarily facilitate a better and broader understanding of and practice of sustainable living...and it is after all, what we are attempting in our many ways to achieve.The example is that we may have many ecologists but this does not an environmentally friendly society make.So what sort of expert do we want?.What sort of proslytiser can we afford?

I think at base one of the problems is that we all have as a motivation of course the ability to be able to survive in a workforce sustainably ourselves.Given the mask and body of professionalisation and a body of gathered knowledge we hope to justify our expert status,as wellas maintain a standard for the ethics of the field and a certain type of control of application of the ideas.In addition though is embedded the notion of holding onto control of this field for experts only.This is something that we as practitioners and promoters of the concept need to come to grips with.How to be inclusive?At base of course is the need for experts to be paid there due and rightly so...this enables them to be sustainable in lifestyle.We dont want to go so far down the track that it excludes other forms and the aim of the understanding of praxis.

Like in permaculture there is room for many levels of training and types of educational practice...the body of knowledge is commonly owned ...but being an expert in permaculture means that you can train and practice acceptably at many differing levels.Ther are many bodies that govern this practice and promote it amongst garden enthusiasts,architects,engineers and many other fields of endeavour.Whether one professional body should determine who is allowed to enter the field and govern training is a delicate and fraught point.Should ethical standing,pay issues,educational levels and certification be set by one body?

Whatever types of bodies that do exist and develop there must be room for many certification levels that allow a progressive and non exclusive understanding of the concepts and principles of body of knowledge called sustainability.

More to follow.

Sustainability Practitioners?

Dunedata
In a recent discussion with a number of professional people who work in the broad church of sustainability and are looking at the training and educational development needs of 'practitioners'the following issues popped into my head...

''From previous meetings discussion the thought has been going around in my head that we are talking about two differing directions at least in our discussions, plans and clarifications of definitions/directions.The first is who are we attempting to serve/povide training for...is it a grass roots movement?... who need professional training in the area of sustainability ethics?understandings etc.skills?Secondly are we attempting to formulate a skills and training knowledge base to 'in service train and develop a profession' or justification for a profession who are titled sustainability professionals or practitioners.?I think what I am coming to grips with is are we establishing a knowledge base that will justify and support only professional or is it more open than this...eg in the manner of say ...action research professionals and those that facilitate in the broadest understanding? http://www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3280
http://www.facilitators.net.au/

In addition are we gearing ourselves and skills development to various or specific sectors?eg.corporate,civic,construction,architectural,arts/visual arts?etc.

Are we organisational change management specialists and require the skills of such?

Even the whole idea of the profession and professional is under threat and attack as can be seen with journalism and the the plethora of new or nots so new media/medium explorations such as blogs designed with many particular slants and backgrounds attached?
http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/currentprojects/theproducers/
Ciao for now. :-) 8-)