The inspiration for this site was found in a therapeutic communication course I took at Ryerson University in the spring of 2017. The course was rooted in inter-professional education; meaning that it was open to all students within the Faculty of Community Services, which includes Nursing, Early Childhood Studies, Social Work, Nutrition, Child and Youth Care, and Urban Development. Ryerson is one of the few urban planning schools that is located alongside such caring professions as opposed to more traditional disciplines like engineering, architecture, geography, applied science or environmental design. The unique arrangement of the Faculty of Community Services only arose because of Ryerson University’s winding history bridging applied and academic education. The Faculty of Community Services is comprised of the degree programs that existed in the 1970s during the first phase of Ryerson’s transition from technical school to university (1). Essentially, the Faculty location of Ryerson’s urban planning school arose by chance. However, given my positive experience in the therapeutic communication course, perhaps there is more to the relationship between planning and the caring professions than the Faculty realizes.
The novelty of Ryerson’s planning school situation is representative of the current tension within planning’s professional identity over the planner-public relationship. At the time, I was the first and only urban planning student to take an inter-professional course in the Faculty of Community Services. This experience raised several critical questions: Why had other planning students not taken this class before? Were there logistical hurdles or is learning about therapeutic communication not as big a priority for planning students as it is for those in the caring professions? Following that, what exactly does it mean for a profession to be caring? Is planning a caring profession? If so, how does caring fit into planning pedagogy and practice? If not, why does planning resist care? And, what could the profession gain from embracing a therapeutic imagination?
The richness of these questions became immediately apparent as I engaged in the inter-professional environment of Ryerson’s therapeutic communication course. My classmates from the caring professions came from disciplines that have well established theories of care such as Nightingale’s theory of caring (2), person-centred care (3), and relational care (4). Where is planning’s theory of care? Is it embedded in professional ethics? Or in planning theories like the rational comprehensive model or communicative planning? Is the provision of care an important enough element of planning, for the profession to have a theory of care in the first place?
Beyond theory, the caring professions have created models of practice to embody caring into their professional identity. For example, in the therapeutic communication course, we covered such techniques as: reflective practice, mindfulness, person-centred care, narrative therapy, coaching, non-violent communication, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and dialectic behaviour therapy. These techniques are a sample of the progress that the caring professions have made at applying and expanding a theory of care into serving individuals and communities. While planning does not have a theory of care, are there any elements of care in planning practice? There seems to be an opportunity for care in planning as many of the techniques of therapeutic communication (reflective practice, non-violent communication, coaching) could easily be incorporated into current practice. Some planners have already begun experimenting with these techniques laying the groundwork for planning to become more of a caring profession (5).
The most developed of these attempts is the emerging theory of therapeutic planning. It was first introduced by Leonie Sandercock in their book Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. Sandercock described a therapeutic imagination that saw planning as capable of not only “bringing people together to share their experiences and work in solidarity, but also to work through their differences in transformative ways” (6). Sandercock later expanded this imagination into a full-fledged planning model, which has recently been picked up and explored by Erfan (7) and Schweitzer (8). While therapeutic planning is an emerging model, it has currently only been applied to situations where the planning process is explicitly intersecting conflict, trauma or reconciliation with indigenous communities. But what about planning more broadly? Should planning embrace the therapeutic imagination and become an explicitly caring profession? This question is the focus of this exploration, which will be explored through a literature review as broken down into what, why and how.
The novelty of Ryerson’s planning school situation is representative of the current tension within planning’s professional identity over the planner-public relationship. At the time, I was the first and only urban planning student to take an inter-professional course in the Faculty of Community Services. This experience raised several critical questions: Why had other planning students not taken this class before? Were there logistical hurdles or is learning about therapeutic communication not as big a priority for planning students as it is for those in the caring professions? Following that, what exactly does it mean for a profession to be caring? Is planning a caring profession? If so, how does caring fit into planning pedagogy and practice? If not, why does planning resist care? And, what could the profession gain from embracing a therapeutic imagination?
The richness of these questions became immediately apparent as I engaged in the inter-professional environment of Ryerson’s therapeutic communication course. My classmates from the caring professions came from disciplines that have well established theories of care such as Nightingale’s theory of caring (2), person-centred care (3), and relational care (4). Where is planning’s theory of care? Is it embedded in professional ethics? Or in planning theories like the rational comprehensive model or communicative planning? Is the provision of care an important enough element of planning, for the profession to have a theory of care in the first place?
Beyond theory, the caring professions have created models of practice to embody caring into their professional identity. For example, in the therapeutic communication course, we covered such techniques as: reflective practice, mindfulness, person-centred care, narrative therapy, coaching, non-violent communication, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and dialectic behaviour therapy. These techniques are a sample of the progress that the caring professions have made at applying and expanding a theory of care into serving individuals and communities. While planning does not have a theory of care, are there any elements of care in planning practice? There seems to be an opportunity for care in planning as many of the techniques of therapeutic communication (reflective practice, non-violent communication, coaching) could easily be incorporated into current practice. Some planners have already begun experimenting with these techniques laying the groundwork for planning to become more of a caring profession (5).
The most developed of these attempts is the emerging theory of therapeutic planning. It was first introduced by Leonie Sandercock in their book Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. Sandercock described a therapeutic imagination that saw planning as capable of not only “bringing people together to share their experiences and work in solidarity, but also to work through their differences in transformative ways” (6). Sandercock later expanded this imagination into a full-fledged planning model, which has recently been picked up and explored by Erfan (7) and Schweitzer (8). While therapeutic planning is an emerging model, it has currently only been applied to situations where the planning process is explicitly intersecting conflict, trauma or reconciliation with indigenous communities. But what about planning more broadly? Should planning embrace the therapeutic imagination and become an explicitly caring profession? This question is the focus of this exploration, which will be explored through a literature review as broken down into what, why and how.
1. Amborski, D. (2018, March 16).
2. Nightingale, F. (1989). Notes on Nursing: What it is, and What it is not. Edited by D. Appleton and Company. New York.
3. McCormack, B. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Person-Centred Practice with Older People. International Journal of Nursing Practice,9(3), 202-209.
4. Doane, G. H., & Varcoe, C. (2007). Relational Practice and Nursing Obligations. Advances in Nursing Science,30(3), 192-205.
5. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.
Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
6. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
7. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
8. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
Doane & Varcoe, 2007
2. Nightingale, F. (1989). Notes on Nursing: What it is, and What it is not. Edited by D. Appleton and Company. New York.
3. McCormack, B. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Person-Centred Practice with Older People. International Journal of Nursing Practice,9(3), 202-209.
4. Doane, G. H., & Varcoe, C. (2007). Relational Practice and Nursing Obligations. Advances in Nursing Science,30(3), 192-205.
5. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.
Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
6. Sandercock L. (2003). Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
7. Erfan, A. (2017). Confronting collective traumas: An exploration of therapeutic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 34-50.
8. Schweitzer, L. (2016). Restorative planning ethics: The therapeutic imagination and planning in public institutions. Planning Theory,15(2), 130-144.
Doane & Varcoe, 2007