| Summary: | This thesis describes how Green Infrastructure has been incorporated into the syllabi of vocational-professional courses within the planning occupation. Within this it examines the competing authorities that seek to determine how this is accomplished. what form this new knowledge takes and how it should be taught. Key drivers for change in syllabi are widely recognised: 'the market', universities as centres for innovation, professional associations as owners of a discrete body of knowledge, government as paymaster, and students as 'clients' or 'customers'. However, the relationship between these, as well as the relative power to determine authority, are undeveloped points within this understanding. Various methods were adopted, but a central part of the work is case studies on four universities teaching planning courses. These are identified as Quality University. Balance University, Process University and Industry University. Despite each having a different philosophy of approach towards the nature and provision of higher education, each is found to provide teaching forms within the same paradigm. However, students within each university interpret their learning needs separately. and there is a fissure in the understanding of teaching and learning between student and university. The research suggests that individuals are key drivers for change to syllabi. and proposes a number of ideal types: the Green Champion, the Green Infrastructure Champion, the Green Maverick, the Green Infrastructure Maverick. the Green Technocrat, the Green Antagonist. and the Green Ignorant. Champions are found to be a key driver in establishing new forms of knowledge and incorporating these into syllabi. Intellectual deviancy by individuals, identified as Mavericks, also introduces new forms of knowledge generally and Green Infrastructure specifically. However. quite where Green Infrastructure originates from is less clear. Professions also have a key role, despite their claims to be removed from the process of creating courses, but there is far less evidence on corporate university structures or the government generating change. One useful social theory to contextualise these ideas is Anthony Giddens' view of High Modernity, in which all knowledge is contingent and there is no determinant authority; rather, competing and transient authorities vie for control.
|
|---|
