Practitioners' pursuit of change
A theoretical framework
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11370418 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Emilia Ravn Boess (0000-0001-9732-2185, Aalborg University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 98 |
| Pages | 106928 |
| Publication date | 2023-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Impact Assessment Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0195-9255 • E-ISSN: 1873-6432 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106928 |
| OpenAlex | W4302763989 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 20 |
The fact that environmental assessment (EA) practice is executed by multiple practitioners from different stakeholder groups with varying interests means that individually molded ideas of practice are brought into collaborative spaces, where they are negotiated and reworked into an executed practice. This research investigates the practitioner's ability to constitute and change their practice, in terms of how their individual motivations interacting with others' prompts and restricts action. By synthesizing extant theories on decision-making, a new theoretical framework of ‘spaces for practice’ is proposed, encompassing concepts of motivation, action, discretionary freedom, non-decisions, and rule-following. The framework recognizes practice as consisting of a practitioner's motivation and resulting action, in which constituting a practice is both a matter of restricting potential practice to executed practice, but also using discretion to pursue new opportunities for practice. Besides being a scholarly contribution to theory building within the EA field, the theory is also expected to contribute to understanding how EA practice can develop, supporting the notion that EA is a fluid practice subject to a process of continuous reconfiguration. The theory emphasizes the importance of the practitioner's role, perceiving them as active engineers of the process, rather than as passive participants reacting to a predetermined practice. The framework provides EA practitioners with a theoretical tool for reflecting upon their own role and better understanding the opportunities they may have for influencing it
Action (physics · Discretion · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Extant taxon · Knowledge management · Management science · Political science · Practice theory · Process (computing · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Stakeholder · Computer Science · Engineering · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Law · Mining and Resource Management · Psychology · Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
The interminable issue of effectiveness
Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality
Can Tour de France inspire SEA effectiveness? An analogy to encourage a broader systems thinking
Critical challenges to consultants in pursuing quality of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (Esia) in Cambodia
Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems
SEA and planning
Strongly sustainable development goals
Impact assessment in the European Commission – a system with multiple objectives
Space for action
Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA
Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’
Just so that we don't miss it
The discretionary power of the environmental assessment practitioner
The mutualism of strategic environmental assessment and sustainable development goals
Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment
| Citations per year | 1.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |