Twinn, C (2013) Professionalism, sustainability and the public interest: What next? Building Research & Information, 41(1), pp. 123-128. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
With mankind on a trajectory towards an untenable situation on a finite planet, a radical acceleration is needed in society's direction towards sustainability. Instead, progress is slowing. There is a concentration on short-term returns and limited change, with small steps being promoted to the public as much greener than they actually are. A defining component of a profession is to work for the common good. However, UK built environment professionals seem to have been driven into a space in which they are expected to apply their skills with little question or reflection about the risks of business as usual. If professionals are to act as a positive catalyst and influence on wider society, then their practices and organizations will need to articulate more clearly how their independent protection of the public good will bring benefits. Changes to professional practice and professional organizations must focus on outcomes and long-term issues.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accountability; agents of change; built environment; influence; professional knowledge; professionalism; professions; public interest |
| Index terms: | public interest, society, accountability, professional knowledge, profession, reflection, built environment, public good, professionalism, agent, professional practice, acceleration |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, institututions, practitioner, political science, liability law, infrastructure and transport systems, communities and social development, project controls, professional development |
| Topics: | Time Control, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Governance, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here