تحلیلی بر مهم‌ترین مهارت‌های شهرسازان در ایران و موفقیت دوره کارشناسی در انتقال این مهارت‌ها

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

آموزش شهرسازی شامل سه مولفه اصلی است: دانش، مهارت­ها و ارزش­ها. مطالعات گسترده­ای به معرفی مهارت­های اصلی موردنیاز شهرسازان پرداخته­است ولی تفاوت­های بنیادی در آموزش شهرسازی در کشورهای در حال توسعه و کشورهای پیشرفته لزوم شناسایی مهارت­های مورد نیاز شهرسازان در این کشورها را افزایش می­دهد. برای شناخت مهم­ترین مهارت­های شهرسازان در ایران مجموعاً 341 پرسشنامه توسط دانشجویان، دانش­آموختگان، استادان و کارفرمایان شهرسازی تکمیل شده­است. در حالیکه مهم­ترین مهارت شهرسازان در کشورهای پیشرفته مهارت­های ارتباطی است، نتایج این بررسی نشان می­دهد که در ایران مهم­ترین مهارت برای شهرسازان با مدرک کارشناسی مهارت­های کار تیمی، مهارت­های تکنیکی و مهارت جمع­آوری اطلاعات می­باشد، و برای شهرسازان با مدرک کارشناسی ارشد مهم­ترین مهارت­ها شامل مهارت­های تحلیلی، ارائه شفاهی و تعریف مسئله است . این درحالی­است ­که دو مهارت بودجه بندی و مدیریت پروژه هم برای شهرسازان با مدرک کارشناسی و هم برای شهرسازان با مدرک کارشناسی ارشد دارای کم­ترین اهمیت می­باشد. ارزیابی موفقیت آموزش شهرسازی در انتقال مهارت­ها در ایران نشان می­دهد که سطح موفقیت در حد متوسط بوده­است. بیشترین موفقیت آموزش در انتقال مهارت­هایی چون مهارت­های تحلیلی، تکنیکی و سپس ارائه شفاهی دیده می­شود. در حالیکه مهارت­های مدیریتی (هر سه مهارت)، مهارت ارتباط با برنامه­ریزان و مسئولین طرح نیز در پایین­ترین حد است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the Most Important Skills Needed For Urban Planners In Iran And The Success Of The Undergraduate Education in Transferring Those Skills

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hossein Bahrainy 1
  • Elham Fallah Manshadi 2
1 Professor of Urban Design and Planning, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran.
2 PhD of Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

There has been extensive debates about the similarities and differences between urban planning educations in developed versus developing counties. Some believe that increasing interdependence among nations, an ever greater need for cross – cultural cooperation,  is required to close the gap in skill and knowledge between developed and developing countries and shrinking international borders make it necessary to have universalism in planning education (Amirahmadi,1990). On the other hand significant differences in value systems, stages of development, and socio – economic priorities between developed and developing countries make some fundamental differences in education in developing countries which could not be ignored (Burayidi,1993). In fact, urban planning education currently offered in the developed western countries may not be quite relevant and adequate for the students in the developing countries, which is due to fact that there exist real challenges in developing worlds (Banerjee, 1990).
These challenges make it necessary for urban planners in developing countries to have some specific skills to be successful in a world with different planning processes, compared to developed countries.  For example, while the proposed plan should be accepted by the public or residents of a neighborhood in a developed country, it only needs the approval of certain elected/selected officials in developing countries. This means that although communication skill is the most important skill in developed countries (Gospodini & Skayannis, 2005), it is the technical role which is the most important skill of planners in the third world countries (Diaw, Nnkya, & Watson, 2002). It becomes, therefore, obvious the required skills to be taught to planning students in developing countries, such as Iran, are not quite similar to that of developed countries.
This paper has two objectives. First, attempt will be made to prioritize urban planner's skills, at the undergraduate and graduate levels, in developing countries, using the case of Iran, and second, to survey how much planning education in Iran has been successful in training this skills.A total of 341 questionnaires were filled by planning directors and instructors, students and graduates of eleven universities throughout all over Iran.
The results of this research show that there is a crucial difference between urban planners’ skills in developing vs developed countries which comes from difference in preparation and approval procedure of urban development plans in these countries. While the most important skill required for planner in developed countries is communication skill; it is not the case for developing ones. For an urban planner in Iran, it is the team working, technical, and data collecting skills in the undergraduate level, and analytical skills, oral presentation and problem defining in the  graduate level that are regarded as the most important skills for planners. Managerial skills, such as ability to prepare a budget program and project management is less important, both for planners with undergraduate and graduate degrees. Planning education in Iran is at the moderate level in training planning skills. It is more successful in training analytical, technical and oral presentation skills while management skills, relation with other planners and official are neglected.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • urban planner skills
  • urban planning education
  • Evaluation
  • Iran
  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. Alexander, E. R. (2007). What Do Planners Need To Know? Journal of Planning Education and Research , 20 (3) , 376-380.
  3. Bayer, M., Frank, N., & Valerius, J. (2010). Becoming an Urban Planner: A Guid to Careers in Planning and Urban Design. U.S.A. Wiley.
  4. Budge, T. (2009). Educating Planners, Educating for Planning or Planning Education: the Never-Ending Story. Australian Planner ,46(1) , 8-13.
  5. Burayidi, M. A. (1993). Dualism and Universalism: Competing Paradigms in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(3) , 223-229.
  6. Cook, A. (1999). Undercurrents of Change in Planning Education in Hung Kong. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2) , 247-249.
  7. Dalton, L. C. (2001). Weaving The Fabric of Planning As Education. Journal of Planning and Research , 20(4) , 423-436.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Friedmann, J. (1996). The Core Curriculum in Planning Revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 15(2), 89-104.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Holliday, S. (2011). The Challenges of Being a Planner Today. Sydney: Planning Institute Australia (PIA).
  15. 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.
  16. Innes, J. (1997). The Planner's Century. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 16(3) , 227-228.
  17. 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.
  18. Kuehl, P. G. (1992). Job Analysis Survey: American Institute of Certifies Planners. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
  19. Kunzman, K. R. (1997). The Future of Planning Education in Europe. AESOP News.
  20. Mitrany, M., & Stokols, D. (2005). Gauging The Transdisciplinary Qualities and Outcomes of Doctoral Training Programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 24(4) , 437-449.
  21. Myers, D., & Banerjee, T. (2007). Toward Greater Heights for Planning: Reconciling the Differences Between Profession, and Academic Field. Journal of the American Planning Association , 71(2) , 121-129.
  22. 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.
  23. Sandercock, L. (1998). Toward Cosmopolis. UK: Wiley.
  24. Seltzer, E., & Ozawa, C. P. (2002). Clear Signals: Moving on to Planning's Promise. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 22(1) , 77-86.
  25. 25.  Zehner, R. (1999). Planners in OZ: Linking Practice with Education. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference. Chicago.