PARTICIPATORY ACTION IN THE COUNTRYSIDE A LITERATURE REVIEW
Diane Warburton
for the
Countryside Commission
August 1997
1Introduction 4?This Review4
?The Countryside Commission and participatory action4 2What is participation?7?Definitions7
?Ends or means9
?Power 9 3Who participates?11?Community11?Other interests (visitors and users, sociations, viewers, public
interest, professionals, disadvantaged groups, volunteers)12?Where should participation happen?16?Community
?Local
?Beyond the local
4Participation in other fields17?Social welfare17?Housing17?International development18 5Participation in environmental planning and
management20?Planning20?Regeneration20?Sustainable development21?Global
?Europe
?United Kingdom
?UK local government
?National Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)24?Countryside Commission 24 6Why has participation grown in recent years?26?Practical benefits of participation 26?Efficiency and effectiveness
?Ethics
?Public demand
?Possible costs and dangers of participation29?Changing political context 30?Changing role of government
?Changing view of management
?Changing world view
?New political action
?Communitarianism and social capital
?New social movements
?Participation: conservative or radical?
?Institutions and participation: risk and trust
?Institutional barriers to increased participation
?Summary of analysis of the growth of participation36
7How to increase participation in programmes38?Willingness to change38?Commitment to participation38?Balancing participation, statutory duties and public
accountability39?Principles of good practice40?Participation for its own sake
?Clarity of purpose, and stance
?The importance of context
?Timing
?General principles of good practice
?Participation requires resources43?Choosing the appropriate techniques44?Preparation for participation
?Participatory approaches
?Participatory techniques and mechanisms
?Participatory fact-finding and analysis
?Information giving
?Structures for participation
?Support agencies and techniques
?Assessing whether participation has been successful48 8Overall summary 51 9Conclusions and recommendations52?Responses to questions in the Brief52?Is participation a 'good thing'?
?Is participation understood, applied and achieved
by public officers, professionals, companies,
educationalists, communities and individuals?
?Is there is a consensus on any aspects of the
debate on environmental participation?
?Conclusions for the Commission54?Recommendations for the Commission55 10Appendices
Appendix 1.Agenda 21 and participatory action
Appendix 2.Current Countryside Commission programmes
and participation
Appendix 3.Booklist for participatory action in the countryside
Appendix 4.Author index to booklist (and full bibliography for report)
1.INTRODUCTION
This Review
This literature review was commissioned by the Countryside Commission in February 1997 to:
?examine the wider policy context in which participatory action in the countryside operates
?test some of the underlying assumptions about participation
?make recommendations on how the lessons from the literature can be applied to the Commission's programmes.
The review was undertaken essentially as a desk exercise, culminating in a complete first draft in April 1997. It is not a review of practice (generally or within the Commission), nor is it a practical guide to 'doing participation'.
The findings of the research were presented to two seminars of Commission staff, in York and in London, in June 1997. These seminars were invaluable in relating sometimes highly abstract analysis to specific policy priorities for the Commission. The key issues in those seminar discussions have been incorporated, wherever possible, into this final report.
The brief for the review identified a number of key questions to be addressed, including:
?Is the assumption that participation is a 'good thing' borne out by documentation on principles and practices?
?How much is actually known about how far participation is understood, applied and achieved by public officers, professionals, companies, educationalists, communities
and individuals?
?Is there a consensus view on all (or any) aspects of the debate on environmental participation?
These questions are specifically addressed in the Conclusions section of this report, together with proposed actions for the Commission to consider, in order to support increasing participation in the Commission's programmes and strategy development.
The Countryside Commission and participatory action
The Countryside Commission already has a long tradition of supporting participatory action in the countryside.
It has developed the concept of Participatory Action in the Countryside (PAC) which it has defined as "the principle and means by which decisions are made, action is taken and management applied by and on behalf of all the stakeholders in a locality or community affected by countryside conservation or recreational change" (Brief). This approach is based on its own experience (from its Groundwork programme, its community action programme, its involvement in Rural Action for the environment, and numerous other initiatives) that programmes which develop wider ownership by stakeholders result in more effective and more sustainable solutions to the issues it wishes to address.
The Commission's overall aim is "The Countryside Commission aims to make sure that the English countryside is protected, and can be used and enjoyed now and in the future" (Countryside Commission 1996). This can be interpreted as a twofold mission, encompassing conservation and participation: conservation through protection of the countryside, and participation through the use and enjoyment of the countryside.
The participatory element of the Commission's overall work can itself be seen as twofold: participation as involvement in activity, and participation as involvement in planning and decision-making. The Commission's ten year strategy, A Living Countryside, attaches great importance to both types of participation. As well as promoting leisure uses of the countryside, it argues for "more open public commitment and partnership in decision-making and project management [with the expectation that] greater local or community ownership of problems and solutions will ensure the sustainability of action taken to protect the countryside itself" (Brief).
Taken together, these statements all incorporate a clear recognition that participation is not an optional extra for the Commission's work: it is an essential element. This is reflected in the numerous participatory mechanisms and approaches being developed in the Commission's current priority policy areas (see Section 5 below, and Appendix 2, for details). The Commission's commitment to participation appears to have developed as a result of a number of factors:
?Broader policy developments. The Commission's own priorities are set within the broad principles of sustainable development. The Commission recognises that "the
Government wants sustainable development to be reflected in all policies ... [and has] outlined the action needed in this country to protect the world's wildlife. We expect
to play a full part in taking this action forward" (Countryside Commission 1996, 2).
The Commission's policy and strategy are explicitly set within the guiding framework of the overall UK policy on sustainable development, which is itself set within the
principles of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration agreed at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. The European
Union's 5th Environmental Action Programme, Towards Sustainability, also
influences Commission programmes (Commission of the European Communities
1992).
All these programmes and policies place great emphasis on public and community
participation as key mechanisms for engaging in sustainable development (see
Section 5, and Appendix 1, for details).
?Public service principles. In an era when public trust in public institutions is at an historically low level, the Commission recognises the need to validate and gain
support for its approaches and programmes through public debate and involvement:
rebuilding trust through dialogue and collaborative participatory action.
?Desire to widen constituency. The Commission understands that the countryside has an importance which includes and goes beyond local interest, and that the
interests of all stakeholders need to be taken into account by extending participation to those who may in the past have been excluded from involvement.
?Limited resources. The Commission accepts that it cannot achieve its ambitious objectives for the countryside alone: its programmes require participation from
others in a range of relationships.
These relationships vary, depending on the specific programme objectives and the
interests of stakeholders and potential partners such as local authorities, other
public bodies, local residents, farmers and other landowners and managers, visitors,
conservation groups, voluntary organisations, community groups and the public in
general.
However, the Commission also recognises its limits in terms of developing
participatory action:
?It has statutory duties in relation to conservation, which need to be fulfilled
?It has time constraints
?It usually operates relatively short term programmes
?There is a lack of staff time for new developments
?It has size constraints
?The organisation is too small to work locally throughout the country ?It has priority constraints
?It must work strategically and nationally, not in an executive role at
local level
?It is not neutral: it has its own agenda (and therefore cannot simply
'facilitate', even if it wanted to)
?it is not a community development organisation but it wishes to work
in a way that supports sustainable community development, and to
work in partnership with agencies and groups which are concerned
with community development (particularly local authorities and
through Local Agenda 21 groupings)
In spite of these constraints, the Commission remains committed to investigating ways of increasing participation in its work. This Review is just one element of the Commission's continuing work in this field.
2.WHAT IS PARTICIPATION?
Definitions
Participation means different things to different people but it is essentially to do with involving the people affected by decisions in making, implementing and monitoring those decisions. Numerous attempts have been made to define participation, although it is generally recognised that "Participation defies any single attempt at definition or interpretation" (Oakley 1991, 6).
However, it is crucial that some common understanding of participation is achieved in order to progress the debate. Some contributions to the debate are given below:
?"Participation is concerned with human development and increases people's sense of control over issues which affect their lives, helps them to learn how to plan and
implement and, on a broader front, prepares them for participation at regional or
even national level. In essence, participation is a 'good thing' because it breaks
people's isolation and lays the groundwork for them to have not only a more
substantial influence on development, but also a greater independence and control
over their lives" (Oakley 1991, 17).
?Participation can also be understood in terms of its difference from conventional project management: "Participation is radically different from conventional project
practice ... experimentation is the order of the day; structured but sensitive,
manageable and yet not controlled" (Oakley 1991, 270).
However, even though there seems to be a consensus on paper about what participation is, there are "clearly fundamentally opposed views as to what participation means in practice" (ibid 269). Oakley argues that there is a fundamental difference between participatory development (top-down), and participation in development (bottom up).
Some attempts at definition of some of the other key terms in participatory practice are given below:
?Capacity building: "Training and other methods to help people develop the confidence and skills necessary for them to achieve their purpose" (Wilcox 1994, 31).
Chambers prefers the term 'capability', by which he means "the quality of being
capable; the ability to do something" (Chambers 1997, xiv) .
?Community action: Describes those activities which people undertake themselves to improve the quality of their own lives within their communities. In environmental terms it can range from direct action to save or improve land or buildings, to lobbying for changes in policy or legislation, with activities as diverse as setting up housing co-operatives, allotment societies, village appraisals, revitalising local customs, traffic
campaigns, city farms and large scale multi-objective organisations like development trusts. The key aspects of community action are that it is done by people for
themselves, it is done locally and it involves control by local people.
?Community development: The method or approach used by community workers, agencies and others to encourage and support community action. Three useful
definitions of community development are given below:
?"Community development is concerned with change and growth - with giving people more power over the changes that are taking place around them, the
policies that affect them and the services they use. It seeks to enable
individuals and communities to grow and change according to their own
needs and priorities rather than those dictated by circumstances beyond their
boundaries. It works through bringing people together to share skills,
knowledge and experience in the belief that it is through working together
that they will reach their full potential" (Taylor 1992).
?"Community development is a process which aims to make real and to extend participative democracy. Through its activities, the rights of citizenship are
claimed for traditionally unheard and powerless people. Social needs and
individuals problems are turned into public issues to be tackled through
collective activity, so that the people involved build up their personal skills
and confidence and take a greater control of their communal life" (Flecknoe
& McLellan 1994, 5).
?"Community development is seen as assisting people to: 'tackle for
themselves the problems which they face and identify to be important'. The
community then plays the leading role in defining both the problems to be
addressed and the manner of responding to them" (Voluntary Activity Unit
1996).
?Community education: "Community education is a process by which education workers engage with local people in a learning programme ... a process whereby
small groups of people are gathered together around a clear set of objectives to
engage in a learning process which has tangible outcomes for them as clients" (Fagan 1993, 9)
?Community involvement: This takes place when a process or project is defined and controlled outside the community: for example, involvement in a woodland
conservation project proposed and managed by an outside organisation. Community
involvement can work at a number of levels from simply giving information about the project to local people, to substantial involvement in the design and aftercare of the
scheme, but always stops short of ultimate responsibility or control.
?Community work: The profession (whether paid or not) of encouraging and supporting (or enabling) community action. There are numerous links between
community action, community work and community development: experienced
community activists may become paid community workers engaged in a community
development project.
?Consultation: Have deliberations (with person); seek information or advice from;
take into consideration (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
?Empower: Authorise, license (person to do); give power to, make able (person to do) (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
?Participation: Have share, take part; have something of (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
?Voluntary action: Essentially undertaken for the benefit of others (eg Meals on Wheels) and well-established, with some very large and influential voluntary
organisations as well as many smaller bodies. Some argue that community action is part of voluntary action, and some voluntary organisations have for many years
adopted a community development approach to their work.
Beyond defining terms, the literature identifies two main issues in debates about participation:
?Whether participation is, or should be, an end or a means
?The question of power.
Ends or means
There is a key distinction between participation as a method for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of projects by using the resources of local people, and participation as a part (at least) of the purpose of the project (Oakley 1991). This has been described as a distinction between instrumental and transformative (or developmental) participation (Nelson and Wright 1995).
The literature suggests that unless participation is explicitly part of the overall purpose of the project - an end as well as a means - the initiative is unlikely to be sustainable. Power
Arnstein's ladder of participation recognised in 1969 that power is a key issue in participation. The ladder remains a useful analysis of power relations in participation (Arnstein 1969; Hart 1994). It consists of eight levels:
Level 1 Level 2Manipulation
Education
These levels assume a
passive community,
given information
which may be partial or
inaccurate
Level 3Information People are told what is
going to happen, is
happening or has
happened
Level 4Consultation People are given a
voice, but no power to
ensure their views are
heeded
Level 5Involvement People's views have
some influence, but
traditional power
holders still make the
decisions
Level 6Partnership People can begin to
negotiate with
traditional power
holders, including
agreeing roles,
responsibilities and
levels of control
Level 7Delegated power Some power is
delegated
Level 8Citizen control Full delegation of all
decision-making and
action
Participation can be defined as encompassing everything from Level 4 (consultation), depending on how it is done, to Level 8 (citizen control).
Oakley's more recent analysis suggests three broad levels of power and control related to participation (Oakley 1991, 6):
?Participation as contribution. At this level, control and direction are not passed to local people; they are just asked to contribute resources.
?Participation as organisation. The creation and/or the development of organisations and institutions is an important element in participation. Formal
organisations (such as trusts) may result from a participatory process, as well as
informal groupings. There is a distinction between organisations externally
conceived and introduced, and organisations which emerge and take structure as a result of the process of participation. However, in both cases, the development of a new (or changed) organisation will involve some delegation of power and control.?Participation as empowerment. At this level, the relationship between power and participation is made explicit: participation is developmental and power and
control are devolved. There is debate about the notion of empowerment. Some see empowerment as the development of skills and abilities to enable people to manage better, or negotiate better for services. Others see it as enabling people to decide
upon and take the actions they believe are essential to their development.
Oakley stresses that the first of these types of participation (contribution) is fundamentally different from the other two: both organisation and empowerment involve a transfer of control (Oakley 1991).
There is much debate in the literature about power: whether it is 'power to' or 'power over'; the differences between power which is coercive and power which works through covertly creating contexts within which all overt power is exercised; whether power should be envisaged as finite, like a cake (so the more you have, the less I have); whether power should be envisaged as a flow, so we all have it, and just manipulate and collect it differently; how power is exercised through aesthetic choices which confer status (Bourdieu 1986). It can also be argued that power grows by being shared: the more people who share power, the more power there is.
Overall, the literature suggests that, to be effective, participatory initiatives must include a sharing of power: "Participation implies a more active form of public involvement, where decisions are taken jointly between the community and decision-makers. It requires decision-makers to be willing to share their power and responsibility" (Bell 1995).
Almost all the benefits of participation only accrue when people involved feel they have some say in the decision: some level of ownership of solutions is essential to sustainability. Without this sense of agency (being able to influence things and make changes), people soon lose interest and trust in the process.
3.WHO PARTICIPATES?
Community
There is still much stress on 'community' as the key focus for participation, but there is also more recognition that this is not the only way of defining who participates. The concept of community is confusing because it relates to place as well as people, and can also be applied to all sorts of collectivities not related to place at all (eg Muslim communities, the gay community).
The literature on community in relation to environmental management suggests that definitions of community only begin to have relevance when the links between community and place are recognised:
?"Concern for familiar topography, for the places one knows, is not about the loss of a commodity, but about the loss of identity. People belong in the world: it gives them a home. The attachment to place - not just natural places, but urban places too - is one of the most fundamental of human needs ... The important thing about places, of
course, is that they are shared. Each person's home area is also other people's. The sense of place is therefore tied to the idea of 'community'" (Jacobs 1995, 20).
?"'Community' is that web of personal relationships, group networks, traditions and patterns of behaviour that develops against the backdrop of the physical
neighbourhood and its socio-economic situation. Community development aims to
enrich that web and make its threads stronger, to develop self confidence and skills, so that the community (the people) can begin to make significant improvements to
their neighbourhood (the place and its material environment)" (Flecknoe & McLellan 1994, 8).
Community is usually understood as being to do with "locality", with "actual social groups", with "a particular quality of relationship" which is "felt to be more immediate than society", and when used in conjunction with other activities, such as 'community politics', is "distinct not only from national politics but from formal local politics and normally involves various kinds of direct action and direct local organisations, 'working directly with people', as which it is distinct from 'service to the community'" (Williams 1988).
However, the idea of community is easily over-romanticised and, as Taylor points out, "Communities ... can be scene of conflict and exclusion as well as togetherness, and many of the stresses of modern life work against a community 'spirit'" (Taylor 1992, 2). Community does not mean consensus. Living in the same place does not guarantee a common view about local issues.
Geographically defined communities are convenient for agencies who want to be able to draw lines on a map and develop participation within those boundaries. Where those geographical boundaries exist (such as district council or parish council boundaries) they may be appropriate in certain circumstances. However, these sorts of externally defined boundaries should not be regarded as immutable.
Community is more than just a place on a map: "Despite easy cynicism, 'community' is more than an empty rhetoric-word. And it represents more than nostalgia too for a bygone age of monolithic classes and localities. Community is the recognition that people are not just individuals, that there is such a thing as society to which we belong, which makes us who we are, and without which there can be no true human flourishing" (Jacobs 1995, 20-21). Community can therefore be seen almost as an aspiration as much as a place, and as a collection of certain sorts of relationships which are related to place but not defined by the physical place.
In many participatory initiatives, the debate has gone beyond the 'what is community' issue, concluding that defining 'community' is less important than identifying who are the people affected by the decisions under debate: stakeholders is often the preferred term, signifying a practical personal interest.
Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the community (in terms of the people who live and work in a particular location) will still be the most important group to be involved in any initiative focused on a specific place. They are the people who will have to live with the consequences of whatever happens; others may care about it but their lives are less likely to be affected by the ultimate decision.
Other interests
Alongside local people, other groups have been identified in the literature as having a stake in decisions about countryside or environmental management including visitors and users, sociations, viewers, the common or public interest, professionals, disadvantaged groups and volunteers.
All these groups go beyond the obvious stakeholders in any local area, but all care and all would be affected in different ways by changes to specific places. Recognition of this wider constituency will require the development of a wider range of participatory mechanisms than has been the norm in the past. The possible interests of each of these groups is outlined below.
Visitors and users
People may not live in an area of countryside, but may have a strong commitment to it and concern about it because they regularly use it for a range of purposes. These purposes may be economically based or for leisure: dog walkers who are known to have fought to preserve and then managed woodlands (Warburton 1995); or people who have traditionally collected produce from areas (from coal on beaches to fruit from hedgerows).
'Sociations'
Other groups also visit and use the countryside for leisure purposes, and will often vehemently defend their access and their activities.
'Sociations' is a term which refers to the networks created by individuals involved in specific areas of interest or activity, such as cyclists, rock climbers, walkers etc (Clark et al 1994). These groups develop a mutuality and collective action around what could be called 'hobbies', although that term goes nowhere near expressing the commitment and identification people feel within these groups (Hoggett and Bishop 1986). These groupings may be maintained through regular publications, organisational structures and occasional events.
It is suggested that people are using these links to create new forms of social identity through sharing their commitment to these activities, and that this lies behind the strong feelings aroused by threats to their access to the places they use for their activities -especially the countryside (Clark et al 1994): "the individual is creating his or her sense of self through a series of consciously adopted commitments - manifested in consumption patterns ... and in chosen affiliations with other individuals reflecting particular aspects of his or her patterns of moral or practical concern" (Clark et al 1994, 31), including, particularly, leisure activities.
Clark et al argue that "people are now moving in their everyday behaviours towards new forms of social identity, linking themselves in fresh ways with other people sharing, and perhaps giving concrete form to, their commitments" (Clark et al 1994, 32). These links can result in people's attachment to their activities (such as climbing or nature conservation) being deeper and more complex than expected, which may explain why conflicts become so heated: a threat to the activity becomes a threat to personal identity.
Viewers
Landlife (Liverpool) has argued that by planting fields of sunflowers which can be seen from the tower blocks in inner city Liverpool, an improvement has been made to the lives of the people living there. Landlife's research (unpublished) with the residents of the block has shown the truth of this, even when only a few of the residents (although there are some) have any practical participation in planting, looking after and harvesting the crop: the seeds from the sunflowers are collected and sold to raise funds for the overall scheme. It connects people with the land, and it makes their lives more beautiful.
Even less involved, but still caring, are people who pass through a particular area of countryside regularly, see it and care about it. On the Brighton to London train line there is a small area of beautiful countryside visible when the train passes over a viaduct; it is one of the rare bits of 'unspoilt', but not uninhabited, countryside between London and Brighton. Many commuters will put down their papers and look out the window when passing this spot, and have been heard to express the worry that all these people looking at it so often will use it up. It is consumption of the countryside, but consumption which leaves the object unscathed.
Common or public interest
There are also people who want the countryside just to be there, and to be beautiful, even if they never see it or use it. Green economists call it 'existence value' because people do not want to use it, they just want it to exist: "Ordinary people are concerned about whales and dolphins, tropical rainforests and Scottish peat bogs, polluted molluscs and threatened snail darters, despite not having any use for these things, never having seen them and not even particularly wanting to. Many parts of the environment, they say, have existence value: people want them to exist, irrespective of any conceivable 'use' they might get from them." (Jacobs 1995, 19).
Further, there is a view that there are certain aspects of common property which people just want to exist (and want to protect) because they are good for society as a whole: "Environmental goods are public goods; it is collective and not individual choice which they require ... There is also quality of life: those contributions to wellbeing which come from public goods. Some of these public goods such as education, policing and parks - must be publicly provided and collectively paid for. Others are brought into being by regulation and the democratic control of externalities - pleasant urban centres, clean air and beautiful countryside" (Jacobs 1995, 18).
Professionals
A wide range of professionals influence the state of the countryside: planners, architects, agricultural economists, foresters, farmers, conservationists. The literature suggests that, if programmes are to become more participatory, a new relationship will be required between professionals and lay people (Chambers 1997; Freire 1996; Oakley 1991); a relationship that is different from the conventional approach of professionally generated top-down solutions. This is not a simple matter, as many professionals would argue that at least part of their role is to represent and protect the wider public interest against narrow sectoral concerns: professionalism in this sense is linked to a public service ethic. Essential and admirable as this ethic is, it can become hardened into an attitude that professional judgements alone must always define the best solution in any circumstance.
A more participatory approach requires that the professionals involved in planning or managing countryside programmes develop a new world view and paradigm. The old paradigm involved professional solutions generated in isolation and imposed on a context; the new paradigm involves a willingness to listen to others and to be flexible about solutions. This requires changes which are personal, professional and institutional (IIED 1994). However, the balance between participation and professional responsibility for quality is not very different from having to balance (as professionals often do) potentially conflicting demands such as between tight budgets and political pressures, their own aesthetic judgement and that of committees and many other demands on their professional tact and discretion.
Participation can be seen as a meeting of different kinds of experts. Action Planning Weekends and urban design action teams have used intensive sessions to work through specific problems and solutions to greater creative effect, recognising that all those involved are experts in their own fields. One developer involved in one of these events said that "meetings can take place amongst experts in their own fields discussing issues to the bitter conclusion. This is incredibly stimulating since thought processes build on themselves exponentially and realistic solutions to seemingly impossible problems become apparent" (Michael Baynes, quoted in Wates 1996, 16).
Professionals involved in participatory initiatives need to have certain attitudes and skills to make schemes work. These skills are likely to include flexibility, trusting and respecting the other people in the process, listening to and hearing what other people say, being prepared to change plans and ideas, being clear about the limits (if any) to the participation, and being honest and open (Bishop 1994; Chambers 1997).
There are different approaches to a new professional role which supports participation:?Facilitation. In this approach, the professional remains outside the process, and acts as a neutral technician to manage the process (Bishop 1994; Campbell 1994).?Capacity-building. This approach aims to enable the lay person to acquire new skills and confidence (Wilcox 1994; Chambers 1997). It can also involve a more structured
educational or training input (Fagan 1993), and training for the professional involved (IIED 1994).
?Dialogue. Dialogue allows the professional and the lay person to learn from each other, respect each others skills and to be equally involved in the process (Dudley
1993; Freire 1996).
?Support. The professional may also act by responding to requests for specific help, in which case they may not be proactive in relation to content or process.?Accountability. In a participatory approach, professionals become not only accountable to their peers, their employing organisation and/or paying clients, but
also to those people who are participating. This may require a far greater level of
dialogue about professional judgements to a wider range of people.
The literature suggests that the focus is shifting towards dialogue, because it implies an equality between the participants and requires them to be equally responsible for the process. Taking dialogue as the key approach extends capacity building to apply to everyone in the process, not just lay people. It places the professional at the centre of the process:
they are not simply the servants of the participatory process but key players. Their stake in the final decision is recognised, and they are no longer outside the process.
The importance of joint working in this way is widely recognised: "The environment is too important to be left to environmental professionals; it is also too important to be conserved, managed, developed and sustained without them. Agenda 21 agreed at Rio makes clear that progress will only come when all agencies work together" (Bishop 1994, 3; original emphasis).
Disadvantaged groups
There is sometimes a sense that participatory initiatives are aimed entirely at disadvantaged groups, whether defined as the poor, older people, people from ethnic minority communities, young people, women, people with physical disabilities.
People with disadvantages may find it especially difficult to participate because they have more immediate concerns, such as economic survival. Special efforts will therefore always be needed to reach and include people with disadvantages, and to ensure that no-one with an interest or concern is excluded from the process.
There are, however, dangers in limiting participation to disadvantaged groups. It may be that the participation process itself becomes marginalised along with the people: democracy and influence for the privileged, participation for the less privileged. This risks demeaning both the people and the process (Freire 1996, 27). It may also perpetuate the inequity between certain groups and strengthen hostility (or apathy) towards the participatory process. Volunteers
The involvement of volunteers in any participatory process is often taken to mean a free
work force. However, recruiting and managing volunteers requires resources and expertise and can place great demands on the recruiting organisation for support, resulting in the consumption of an enormous amount of (paid) staff time. In practice, there is no such thing as a free work force.
The literature on volunteers suggests that volunteers must be involved voluntarily (and not coerced by threats to benefits or similar circumstances), and that the needs of the volunteers must be considered as a priority (National Centre for Volunteering 1989; Allinson 1978). Where the literature records successful volunteer input, such as on environmental monitoring, the volunteers would perhaps be better described as local activists who are prepared to organise and contribute to a larger process (Alexandra 1996; Wildlife Society Bulletin 1995; Campbell 1994). The important lessons from these experiments seem to be that the feedback to the volunteers on the relevance and impact of their information is crucial, and that volunteers should have a role in designing the process in which they will be playing a part.
Where should participation happen?
Allied to the question of who is involved in any participatory process is the issue of at which geographical level participation should take place. There are two elements to this question, relating to notions of community and of the 'local'.
Community
As already noted, there is much debate in the literature over the nature of community, and the notion that participation is fundamentally linked to 'community'. However, while community may be both a set of people and/or a location, it is clear from the literature that community boundaries and identities are not fixed and are not understood in the same way by all those involved.
In terms of people to be involved in participation, stakeholders may be a better concept (as stated above). In terms of location for participation, the literature suggests that it should perhaps depend on the particular case: some initiatives may be of primarily local concern, some may have national importance and therefore require wider participation involving different groups.
Local
There has been much debate about the lack of commitment to the local in these days of a mobile workforce, extended families and easier travel. However, the mobility of people, at least in the UK, may have been overplayed: "over half of British adults live within five miles of where they were born" (Gray 1997).
Moreover, recent research by MORI suggests that "Overall, there is a clear focus of attachment on the most local area ... where strong attachment is found to a significant extent, it only exists at the most local level of the village or neighbourhood" (Gosschalk and Halter 1996, 14). In this country at least, local connections and local attachments do clearly still exist and remain important to people.
The traditional global concerns of the environmental movement remain, but there is also recognition that "Most people have an environmental horizon which is very local - the end of the street or the top of the next hill. Sustainability has first to make sense at that neighbourhood level, if it is every to reach global proportions" (Baines 1995, 14). The phrase 'Think global, Act local' was first widely used in the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, and reflects these conceptual links.
Locality is where environmental issues matter most to most people: "locality is crucial: it is local landscape, traffic and litter that make 'the environment' real for most people as a fundamental political issue" (Christie 1996, 30). The local remains important to people, and any exercise in participation would need to take local issues and concerns into account. Beyond the local
There will be some initiatives which are of importance beyond the local area, and participation will have to involve people beyond the local context. Stakeholders will always include those who live and work in a place but also all the other interests who have a stake in public goods (see above).
4.PARTICIPATION IN OTHER FIELDS
Although the key focus of this review is on environmental management, it is recognised that other fields, particularly social welfare, housing and international development, have substantial experience in developing programmes of participatory action, on which the Commission and others can draw. This section summarises the areas of expertise in these fields.
Social welfare
Social welfare services, provided by local authorities and other public bodies, and by voluntary organisations, have been developing participatory mechanisms for many years, especially in relation to community care.
Participation in this field has recently grown enormously (Upton 1994). The participation of volunteers in providing services (from meals on wheels to more technical services) has been a feature of social welfare for many years. More recently, there has been much more focus on user involvement in setting service and resource priorities, on identifying new service needs and on developing self help (Bemrose 1996; Lindow and Morris 1995; Tozer 1995; Wann 1995; Wilson 1994).
There has also been an increasing focus on the difficulties, and the importance, of maintaining an inclusive approach and reaching all parts of society, especially those who are often excluded, such as people from ethnic minorities, people with learning difficulties, disabled people, elderly and housebound people, people in isolated rural areas (Burton & Harrison 1996; Hallett 1987; Thornton & Tozer 1994; Thompson 1991).
The experience of participation in the social welfare field has also established lessons from longstanding debates on the ethics of participation (why involve users in the services provided for them), and the need to balance participation and statutory responsibilities (including legal responsibilities).
Housing
Public housing programmes, by local authorities, housing associations and other voluntary organisations, have involved tenants and residents at various levels for many years. Some of the priority areas which have emerged are outlined below.
?There has been participation in the design of new housing, including appropriate designs for specific circumstances, locations and in response to special needs (CDG
1992; Towers; Turner 1976), as well as self-guild groups (Ospina 1987; Turner
1976). This participation in the design and planning of housing has sometimes been referred to as the community architecture movement (Knevitt 1986; Wates and
Knevitt 1987).
?Tenants and residents have been involved in housing and estate management (AMA/LGMB 1994; Blewitt and Garrett 1995; DOE 1987 and 1977; Ospina 1987; Rao 1984; Taylor 1995), especially through tenants associations and federations (Davies et al 1991; TPAS 1988) and through housing management companies and housing co-operatives (Ospina 1987).
?There has been extensive participation in the regeneration of housing estates (Cole and Smith 1996; Fordham 1995; Hastings et at 1996; Huntley 1980; Stewart and
Taylor 1995; Taylor 1995). There is also increasing experience of participation in
housing issues leading on to involvement in broader issues such as economic
development, environmental improvement and cultural activities.
Participation in housing design, building, management and regeneration has led to the development of sophisticated support mechanisms and resources, such as training courses and materials (Birchall 1994), and the establishment of a national training centre for tenants. Second tier agencies such as secondary co-ops and tenants federations also provide support, training and other resources for participation (Ospina 1987).
International Development
It is generally accepted that the major institutional support for participation in development began in 1953 when "the UN began using community development as a general description for self-help activities taking place in developing countries" (O'Gorman 1995, 207). Community development, which has the twin aims of tackling poverty and social inequality, and increasing participation, has been closely linked with international development ever since.
Participation, through community development, became a vital element in UN programmes for the next decade, having been "incorporated in the proposals for the United Nations Development Decade, where community development was linked to the need for the mobilisation of human resources" (O'Gorman 1995, 207). Participation continues to play a central part in most recent United Nations development plans, as outlined in their Human Development Report 1993 and subsequent editions.
In international development, participatory action, based on community development models developed over past decades, has become central to many international aid initiatives. Programmes established over many years to fund people's collective initiatives to improve their economic and social status have "progressively grown into a new worldwide culture of development action termed 'popular participation in development' or simply 'participatory development'" (Rahman 1995, 25). Indeed, "International development co-operation agencies, including most UN agencies, are affirming popular participation as a necessary element of a strategy for poverty alleviation" (ibid, 26), especially as part of sustainable development.
Much of the most original, radical and profound thinking on participation comes from this international development experience. Concepts of empowerment, indigenous knowledge as an essential complement to Western professional knowledge, participatory evaluation techniques, participatory action research and community development have been current in this field since the 1950s and 1960s, and their use and acceptance have increased substantially over recent years. The material in this field covers issues such as:
?The changing role of professionals, in recognition of the increased contribution expected from the rural poor (Chambers 1983 and 1997; Warren et al 1995 on the
value of indigenous knowledge).
?Participatory approaches and techniques developed and assessed, such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) (Chambers
1983 and 1997; Fals-Borda 1991 on participatory action research; IIED 1994 on
RRA; Messerschmidt 1995 on rapid appraisal for forestry).
?Training and support for participatory approaches including Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) (Goethert and Hamdi 1988 on training to do microplans; IIED on
PLA; Pretty et al 1995 on PLA; Srinivasan on training in participatory techniques).?Evaluation for participatory projects and programmes (Feuerstein 1987; Marsden et al 1996; Marsden and Oakley 1990; Rubin 1995).
?Principles of participation (Cernea 1992; Chambers 1983 and 1997; Drijver 1990;
Dudley 1993; Hamdi 1995; Oakley 1991; Paul 1987; Rahman 1993; Scoones and
Thompson 1994; United Nations 1981; World Bank 1994).
An approach developed by voluntary international development agencies brings together a number of these strands, based on a recognition that the process of change is as important as the products of change. The Primary Environmental Care (PEC) approach, which has been promoted by Oxfam, Action Aid, IIED and IUCN (Oxfam 1992), reflects this link between process and product through its three linked elements:
?Empowering communities
?Meeting basic needs (such as food, water, shelter)
?Caring for the environment.
This conceptual model is designed to provide a framework for development in future, and to guide specific programmes. It is recognised by these agencies that such an approach could work equally well in the UK.
In addition, international organisations including the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Labour Office (ILO), World Health Organisation (WHO) and Organisation for European Co-operation and Development (OECD) have all invested in promoting participatory development through source books, policy statements, resolutions and some funding programmes. The World Bank established a Learning Group on Participatory Development in 1990 (Nelson and Wright 1996, 5), and the World Bank's latest Source Book on Participation is now available in full (and free) on the World Wide Web.
Summary of participatory action in other fields
In essence, experience in other fields shows that:
?Participation has long been accepted as a central principle in many public service sectors and programmes, in the UK and internationally: it has a long pedigree and
increasing status.
?There is a great deal of experimentation, experience and learning about participation in principle and practice from other fields that can be drawn upon to increase the
quality and quantity of participation in environmental management in the UK.
5.PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
This review is concerned primarily with participation in environmental planning and management, and there is a substantial literature on policy, principles and practice, specifically in this field. Some of the key issues from the literature on participation in planning, regeneration and sustainable development, as well as approaches promoted by national NGOs and the Countryside Commission itself, are outlined below.
Planning
Participation in planning is generally recognised to have been formally incorporated into mainstream planning practice following the report of the Skeffington Committee on Public Participation in Planning (Skeffington 1969): People and Planning. Skeffington advocated a number of mechanisms for increasing public involvement in the planning process, including community development techniques to increase participation in areas where there was little knowledge and experience of planning processes.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, and to date, there has been increasing participatory activity co-ordinated by planning departments in local authorities, both around the formal development of local, structure and unitary plans (Bishop 1994; RTPI 1996), and also, increasingly, associated with environmental audits, environmental policies and environmental strategies (LGMB 1993; NEST 1993). More recently, participatory action in planning has been focused around Local Agenda 21 plans (Church 1995 and see below under sustainable development).
The literature offers guidance associated with planning activities including for community action programmes and funding schemes (such as Manchester City Council 1992) and environmental networks and forums (Krishnarayan 1993; LGMB 1993). It also covers an increasingly wide range of participatory techniques associated with planning (AMA/LGMB 1990 and 1993; Bishop 1983; Bishop 1994; LGMB 1993 and 1996; RTPI 1996; Stewart, J. 1996).
Regeneration
National government regeneration programmes, usually operating through local authorities, have increasingly promoted public and community participation in local and regional strategies and initiatives. Urban regeneration policies, from the Urban Programme, through City Challenge to the Single Regeneration Budget, have increasingly demanded community participation, and partnership, as criteria for funding. Similar criteria operate on rural regeneration programmes such as Rural Challenge.
There is a rich literature on the benefits and problems of this approach, including the gap between the rhetoric of community participation in regeneration initiatives and the practice on the ground (Aston Business School 1991; Atkinson 1995; Carley 1995; Community Development Foundation 1995; Development Trusts Association; Forbes and Paddison 1985; Landry et al 1996; MacFarlane 1993; McConnell 1993; McGregor 1994; PIEDA 1995; Rural Development Commission 1997; Skelcher et al 1996; Smith 1983; Thake 1995; Warburton and Wilcox 1988; Women's Design Service).
Participatory partnerships have been particularly strong in this area: some partnerships to regenerate the built environment and neighbourhoods have been established for over 20 years (Bemrose 1996; Bishop 1983; Civic Trust 1994; Clark 1994; DOE 1994; LGMB 1993; Main et al 1989; Payne 1984; PLCRC 1996; Vittery 1989; Wilson 1997).
Sustainable development
Global
Sustainable development has become an extremely influential concept in all environmental programmes, particularly following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio in 1992. Participation has been central to sustainable development before that time (having a long history in international development, as outlined above), and continuing since.
The original definition of sustainable development, from the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, remains generally accepted and has been used as the basis for national and international policies on sustainable development. Brundtland defined sustainable development as follows:
"Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED 1987, 8).
The links between meeting human needs and environmental management have a long history. The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment "brought the industrialised and developing nations together to delineate the 'rights' of the human family to a healthy and productive environment" (WCED 1987, xi). This was followed by the Brandt Commission on International Development Issues (on which Brundtland herself served), which published its report North-South: A Programme for Survival in 1980.
Also in 1980, IUCN launched the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) in the UK and 33 other countries. WCS was concerned with "matching the superficially conflicting goals of development and conservation: development as a means of meeting human needs and improving the quality of life and conservation and the use of resources, especially living ones, in a sustainable way, safeguarding all their benefits for future generations" (Davidson and MacEwen 1982, 1). The importance of participation and community action was recognised: "Increasing pressure by individuals and community groups to participate in decisions which affect their locality has been a notable movement of the past decade ... there is increasing enthusiasm for local action which offers great scope for building a resource saving society" (ibid, 70).
The Brundtland Commission was set up in 1983. Brundtland argued that "In its broadest sense, the strategy for sustainable development aims to promote harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature" and the very first requirement in the pursuit of sustainable development is "a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making" (WCED 1987, 65).
Brundtland recognised that "The law alone cannot enforce the common interest. It principally needs community knowledge and support, which entails greater public participation in the decisions which affect the environment. This is best secured by decentralising the management of resources upon which local communities depend, and giving these communities an effective say over the use of the resources. It will also require promoting citizens' initiatives, empowering people's organisations, and strengthening local democracy" (ibid 63).
The issues raised by the Brundtland report were discussed at the UN General Assembly in 1989, leading to resolution 44/228 which called for a UN Conference on Environment and Development (HMSO 1994 (b), 27). At UNCED, in Rio in 1992, sustainable development was agreed in principle by national governments from around the world, and participation became formally established as a central element in the approach.
The importance of participation in sustainable development is reflected in Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration (see Appendix 1 for details). The European Union's 5th Environmental Action Programme, Towards Sustainability, took a similar view of the importance of participation. Within the UK, Sustainable Development. The UK Strategy (published in 1994 as the UK Government's response to Agenda 21), and in Biodiversity. The Action Plan (also published by the Government in 1994), both take up the theme. The importance of participation in these documents is outlined below.
第三章教师心理 【关键术语】 角色：指某个人在特定的人社会和团体中占有适当的位子，以及该社会和团体规定了的行为模式。（原为戏剧用语，主要指演员在戏剧舞台上依据剧本所扮演的某一特定人物。心理学中的角色指个体在社会生活中特定的身份和行为模式。）皮格马利翁效应：又称教师期望效应或罗森塔尔效应，指人们基于某种情境的知觉而形成的期望或预言，会使该情境产生适应这一期望或预言的效应。 自我应验效应：即原先错误的期望引起把这个错误的期望变成现实的期望。 维持性期望效应：老师认为学生将维持以前的发展模式，而对学生特别是差生的改变视而不见，甚至否认的现象。 教师专业发展：是指教师在整个专业生涯中，通过终身专业训练，习得教育专业知识技能，实施专业自主，表现专业道德，并逐步提高自身从教素质，成为一个良好的教育专业工作者的专业成长过程。 教学效能感：指教师对于自己影响学生的学习生活和学习结果的能力的一种主观判断。 教师控制点：指教师将学生的好的或坏的学业表现归为教师的外部或内部原因的倾向。 所倡导的理论：是教师容易意识到、容易报告出来的知识，它更容易受到外界新信息的影响而产生变化，但它并不能对教学行为产生直接的影响。 所采用的理论：这类知识直接对教学行为产生重要影响，但却不容易被意识到，而且不容易受新信息的影响而产生变化，而是更多地接受文化和习惯的影响。微格教学：即以少数的学生为对象，在较短的时间内（5~20分钟）进行的小型课堂教学。 职业倦怠：是由美国心理学家弗登伯格于1974年首次提出的，指工作强度过高并且无视个人需求所引起的疲惫不堪的状态。 反思：是教师着眼于自己的活动过程来分析自己做出某种行为、决策以及产生的结果的过程，它包括对于活动的反思、活动中的反思和为活动反思三种成分。情绪衰竭：是职业倦怠的核心维度，也是最明显的症状表现，特指丧失工作热情、情绪波动大，容易迁怒别人，感到自己的感情处于极度疲劳状态。 去人格化：指刻意在自身和工作对象间保持距离，对工作对象和环境采用冷漠、忽视的态度。 低个人成就感：指倾向于消极地评价自己，个人成就感降低，自我效能感下降，对自己工作的意义和价值的评价下降，工作变得机械化且效率低下，缺乏适应性。新手型教师：主要指刚走上功过岗位1~2年的新教师或是在中小学实习的师范大学毕业生，他们的关注点更多地放在自我的生存方面。 专家型教师：指从教15年以上，具有教学专长的教师，他们具有丰富合理的知识结构、高效的问题解决能力和敏锐的洞察力。 思考题 一﹑选择题
《高校教师职业道德修养》第三章试题 一单选题（每小题1.5分，共30分） 1 教师之所以成为教师的核心因素，其根本在于（）。 A 现代教育观念 B 创新精神 C 优秀的教学能力 D 高尚的职业道德 2 （）是高校完成培养高素质人才的基本前提。 A 优秀的师资队伍 B 高效的管理体制 C 完善的教学设备 D 自由的学术氛围 3 教育部颁布的《面向21世纪教育振兴行动计划》指出：“（）是实现我国经济和社会可持续发展的必然选择”。 A 高等教育的大众化 B 生态发展的科学化 C 科学技术的现代化 D 文化政治的民主化 4 目前，制约我国高等教育发展的一个重要因素在于（）。 A 教师能力有限 B 教育经费投入不足 C 民众需求不足 D 高校管理存在弊端 5 我国高等教育的发展要想与国际趋势接轨，首先必须（）。 A 引进国际领军人才 B 制定体现国际化的政策 C 加大经费投入 D 派遣更多学生出国留学 6 在新时期，要想实现高等教育又好又快的发展，高等教育创新发展首先必须要面对并解决的重要问题是（）。 A 必须要处理好西方文化输入对高校教师的正负面效应 B 必须要处理好社会主义市场经济对高校教师的正负面效应 C 必须要处理好高校教师思想道德发展的水平 D 必须要处理好高校教师校外兼职和本职工作的关系 7 著名高等教育学家潘懋元指出：如何更加主动地适应社会主义市场经济，（）仍将是今后一个相当长的时期高等教育改革的重要任务。 A协调民众受教育需求不足与高等教育大众化的矛盾 B 协调就业率不高与高校持续扩招的矛盾 C 协调市场经济法则与高等教育运行机制的矛盾
D 协调高校集中管理体制与教师学术自由的矛盾 8 教育发展以（）为本。 A 学生 B 教师 C 教材 D 科研 9 加强和改进高校大学生（），不断造就大批具有创新能力的高素质人才，是我们能够在激烈的综合国力竞争中站稳脚跟，实现中华民族伟大复兴的必然要求。 A 科学文化教育 B 思想政治教育 C 艺术素质的培养 D 民主观念的塑造 10 大学生诸多违法犯罪的主要原因在于（）。 A 政治信仰迷茫 B 理想信念模糊 C 心理不健康 D 社会责任感不强 11 校园案件的频发，特别是伤害类案件手段的残忍，使得社会民众惊叹高等教育的失败，最起码是不到位。同时（）问题，也被推到了风口浪尖上。 A 教师职业道德问题 B 高校扩招 C 学生素质 D 高校管理制度 12 在面对市场经济给高校教师带来激励积极作用的同时，注重加强（）的提高和现代化市场经济精神培育的同时，培养出适应现代化市场经济发展要求和新时期道德教育发展要求的有健康和健全人格的新一代教师。 A 教学能力 B 科研能力 C 职业道德素质 D 与学生沟通的能力 13 经济全球化的加剧，使各国争相培养人才，大力发展（），并吸引他国优秀人才。 A 中等教育 B 高等教育 C 科技教育 D 文化教育 14 在十届全国人大五次会议的《政府工作报告》中，温家宝总理指出：高等教育要切实把重点放在（）上，办出特色，提升水平。 A 提高质量 B 科学研究 C 服务地方 D 强化管理
第三章西方财政的基本理论 通过本章的学习，掌握各个时期财政学理论主要学派的观点等内容。 本章重点和难点：各个时期财政学理论的主要主张。 第一节宏观财政理论综述 第二节公共选择理论 第一节宏观财政理论综述 （一）古典宏观财政理论 （二）凯恩斯学派的宏观财政理论 （三）理性预期学派的宏观财政理论 （四）供给学派的宏观财政理论 （一）古典宏观财政理论 1.重商主义财政理论 2.古典主义财政理论 3.新古典主义财政理论 1.重商主义财政理论 重商主义财政理论主张国家对经济的干预，这一观点主要体现在政府的对外贸易政策上。重商主义主张限制金银币出口，实行高额关税，贸易壁垒，限制竞争，利用财政政策来干预经济的。 2.古典主义财政理论 以斯密为代表的古典经济学派主张“自由竞争、自由放任”、反对一切干预的自由主义思想。认为政府在市场经济中仅充当“守夜人、夜警察”的角色，“管得最少的政府就是最好的政府”。古典经济学派在宏观财政政策上主张财政收支平衡，反对赤字。 1.亚当.斯密的经济自由主义财政学说 亚当.斯密1776年《国富论》，产生了财政学。亚当.斯密——“财政学之父” 反对国家干预经济、反对提高税收、反对举借公债。 2.大卫.李嘉图对斯密财政学说的补充 李嘉图认为，任何赋税都来源于利润、地租或其他形式收入，主张实行负担最轻的税收。他所提出的税收理论被后人称为赋税转嫁论，给后来财政理论中的税种设置、收入分配理论研究提供了研究模式。此外，他反对财政补贴。 配第、穆勒、萨伊等古典经济学代表人物，都反对国家干预。认为“廉价的政府是最好的政府”，国家的财政支出不具生产性，应尽量减少，提倡减税、反对发行公债、反对实行财政补贴。 3.新古典主义财政理论 二十世纪初期，以英国剑桥大学经济学教授马歇尔和庇古为代表的传统庸俗经济学又被称为（第一代）“新古典经济学派” （Neoclassical Economics）。他们认为供给可以自动创造需求，资本主义经济有自然趋于充分就业均衡的倾向，因此宏观经济不需要政府干预。（二）凯恩斯学派的宏观财政理论 凯恩斯反对古典经济理论充分就业假定，认为边际消费倾向递减使得消费的增加
第三章教师观 第一节教师职业概述 一、教师职业 （一）教师与教师观 教师是学校教育工作的主要实施者，根本任务是教书育人。 《中华人民共和国教师法》第一章第三条对教师概念进行了全面的、科学的界定：教师是履行教育教学职责的专业人员，承担教书育人，培养社会主义事业建设者和接班人、提高民族素质的使命。夸美纽斯认为，教师是太阳底下最崇高、最优越的职业。 教师观就是关于教师职业的基本观念，是人们对教师职业的认识、看法和期望的反映。它既包括对教师职业性质、职责和价值的认识，也包括对教师这种专门治也的基本素养及其专业发展的理解。 （二）教师职业的性质与作用 1．教师职业的性质 （1）教师职业是一种专门职业，教师是专业人员 （2）教师是教育者，教师职业是促进个体社会化的职业 2.教师的作用： (1)教师是人类文化的传播者，在社会的发展和人类的延续中起桥梁与纽带作用； (2)教师是人类灵魂的工程师，在塑造年青一代的品格中起着关键性作用，加里宁称教师是“人类灵魂的工程师”； (3)教师是人的潜能的开发者，对个体发展起促进作用； (4)教师是教育工作的组织者、领导者。在教育过程中起主导作用。
（三）教师职业的发展历史 1．非职业化阶段 较为明确的教师职业出现在学校出现之后。原始社会末期出现了学校教育的萌芽——“庠”，那时以长者为师、能者为师。 2．职业化阶段 独立的教师行业伴随着私学的出现而出现。但教师职业基本上还不具备专门化水平，私学教师没有形成从教的专业技能。 3．专门化阶段 教师职业的专门化以专门培养教师的教育机构的出现为标志。世界上最早的师范教育机构诞生于法国。1681年。法国“基督教兄弟会”神甫拉萨儿在兰斯创立了世界上第一所师资训练学校，这是世界上独立的师范教育的开始。 我国最早的师范教育产生于清末。1897年，盛宣怀在上海开办“南洋公学”，分设上院、中院、师范院和外院。 4．专业化阶段 这一阶段，学校对教师的需求，开始从“量”的急需向“质”的提高方面转化。于是。独立设置的师范院校逐渐并入文理学院，教师的培养改由综合大学的教育学院或师范学院承担，这被称为“教师教育大学化”。由此教师职业开始走上专业化的发展道路。1966年10月，国际劳工组织和联合国教科文组织在巴黎会议上通过的《关于教师地位的建议》中提出：教师工作应被视为一种专业。后来，“师范教育”概念逐渐被扩充为“教师教育”。 1986年，我国颁布实施《中华人民共和国义务教育法》开始规定国家要建立教师资格考核制度。这实际上已经开始把教师当作专业技术人员。教师的专业技术人员身份在1993年颁布的《中华人民共和国教师法》中得到确认，该法规定：“教师是履行教育教学职责的
《新课程实用课堂教学艺术》课后思考题参考答案 第一章课堂教学艺术概述 1 ．谈谈你所理解的教学艺术。（P6 ） 教学艺术是一种特殊的实践艺术、过程艺术，从教学的角度对教学的艺术属性的理解及据此发展起来的艺术的教学方式、方法、手段、形式等等。 第一，教学艺术是“掌握”教学的一个独特视角、独特方式。教学活动是人类复杂的哺育下一代的过程，只有从“高低远近各不同”的角度来看，才能真正理解，掌握教学。教学艺术从美学的角度揭示了教学活动中特有的艺术属性。 第二，教学艺术是实践艺术和过程艺术的统一，也就是特定的教学价值观与特定的教学操作方式的统一。 第三，教学艺术具备一般的艺术特点，如形象性、情感性、审美性、创造性等。 第四，教学艺术中，艺术掌握的是教学，艺术的前提是教学。教学是艺术的掌握对象，教学也是教学艺术功能的边界限定，教学艺术包含在教学中，服务于教学。 2 ．课堂教学艺术有哪些特征？其关系如何？（P6 ） 教学艺术具有四个特点：①形象性：是教学艺术的最基本的特点，是指教师在课堂中的行为，是一切外观行为的综合表演。即教师的衣着打扮、表演态度、身姿动作、实验操作、口语板书等，并借助预言、表情、动作、直观事物、绘画及音响等手段，对讲授的内容进行形象的描绘，把抽象的理论形象化，变为学生易于接受的知识；②情感性：艺术教学则主要运用的是情感，以情动人。教学的情感性和教育性是紧密结合在一起的，教师的情感与学生的学习成绩之间呈明显的正比例关系。③创造性：是教学艺术的突出特点。表现在：首先，是备课钻研教材创造性地思考；其次，是创造性地设计教学实施方案；最后，是教学方案组织实施的创造性。④实践性：首先，整个教学艺术过程都是与教学实践紧密联系，不可分割；其次，教师的教学艺术水平也是教学实践中不断提高的。 第二章课堂教学设计艺术 1 ．谈谈你对教学设计内涵、外延的理解。（P13 ） ①、教学设计是把教学原理转化成教学材料和教学活动的计划。教学设计要遵循教学过程的基本规律，选择教学目标，以解决教什么的问题。②、教学计划是实施教学目标的计划性和决策性活动。教学计划以计划和布局的形式，对怎样才能达到教学目标进行创造性的决策，以解决怎样教的问题。③、教学设计是以系统方法为指导。教学设计把教学过程各要素看成一个系统，分析教学问题和需求，确立解决的程序纲要，使教学效果最优化。④、教学设计是提高学习者获得知识、技能的效率和兴趣的技术过程。教学设计与教育技术密切相关，其功能在于运用系统方法设计教学过程，使之成为一种具有操作性的程序。 2 ．简述教学目标设计前，对学习背景、学习需要和学习任务进行系统分析的必要性。（P14 ）教学目标是教学设计的关键，教学目标制定得是否合理直接关系着教学的成败，影响着教学内容、教学方法、教学媒体、教学评价及教学效果等各方面。 教学设施不同，学生背景不同，教师水平不同，所采取的教学方式也必然不同。一方面背景是由1 多方面因素构成的，在一定程度上促进或制约学习的发生和进行。学习者不可能脱离具体的背景进行认知和思考。学习背景和我们所说的教学环境是一致的。教学环境是按照一定的目的和需要
第三章公共选择理论相关案例 江苏试点人事改革国内首位“公推公选” 县长产生 华夏经纬网2003年12月8日讯：据中新网报道，今年10月中旬，江苏省在徐州沛县和常州金坛两地，“公推公选”县（市）长推荐人。这种“公推公选”县（市）级行政一把手的方式，在全国尚属首次，连月来成为全国关注的焦点。 经过一番公开角逐，国内首位“公推公选”候任县长于11月下旬在徐州沛县产生。 两轮民主推荐 10月21日上午9点多，刚处理完手头的工作，孟铁林就拿着准备好的毕业证书、学位证书和2寸彩照赶往徐州市中山饭店报名，这是徐州市开展“公推公选沛县县长”的第一天。从这天起，这位39岁的徐州市政府副秘书长，开始公开角逐沛县县长。 在规定的两天时限内，来中山饭店报名的徐州市干部共有70人。一位报名者告诉记者，由于江苏省委组织部和徐州市委为
报名者设定了门槛，“要不然报名的人会更多”。 这70名干部具有这样的共同点：学历高———大学本科以上；年纪轻———45岁以下；经验足———市级机关、市辖各县（市）区及市委管理领导班子的企事业单位的正副职，副职一般都任职2年以上，部分还有一定的县、乡工作经历。 据了解，过了第一道门槛的70位干部，在报名后的一周内，又面对了两次考验——两轮民主推荐。 10月24日上午，徐州市辖县（市）区四套班子成员，市委各部委办、市各委办局、公司、直属单位正、副县处职领导，即754名全市副处级以上领导全部被召集起来，每人在一张民主推荐表上，划上6个人的名字。经过计票，得票最多的前12位得以过关。 3天后，这12位胜出者，又被刷下去一半。这次的评判者为，徐州市在职副市级以上领导干部约30人。至此，被认为是“公推公选”工作的上半场“公推”宣告结束。 “‘公推’就是‘层层缩小包围圈’！”
宜宾学院教案《影视鉴赏》课程
案。第页
《影视鉴赏》 第三章:影视艺术特性 第一节课 主讲：郭五林副教授 2006年9月精制 第1版块：结合现场，引入话题。（1分钟） 第2版块：总体介绍，把握大概。（2分钟） ?第一节画面 ?一、影视画面的符号性 ?二、影视画面的镜头元素 ?三、影视画面的造型元素 ?第二节声音 ?一、人声 ?二、音响 ?三、音乐 ?四、声与画 ?第三节蒙太奇 ?一、蒙太奇的功能 ?二、蒙太奇的类型和特征 ?三、长镜头 第3版块：基础理论，从头说起。（23分钟） ?第一节画面 ?一、影视画面的符号性 ?二、影视画面的镜头元素 ?三、影视画面的造型元素 第一节画面 ?一、影视艺术画面 ?（一）什么是影视艺术画面？ ?通过电影摄影机和电视摄像机记录在感光胶片或磁带上，最后在银幕或屏幕上还原出来的视觉形象。 第一节画面 （二）影视画面的特性 1、再现性：影视画面是对现实时空的一种再现。 2、表现性：通过各种艺术和技术手段对现实的重新表现。
第一节画面 ?二、影视画面的镜头元素 ?（一）影视画面从内容上看：主要由人物形象、自然和社会环境的物质状态等构成。 ?（二）从形成上看：影视画面则由镜头运用、空间造型所创造。 第一节画面 ?（三）对影像效果的影响主要来自以下四个元素：景别、焦距、运动、角度。?1、景别：镜头与被拍摄物体距离的远近而形成的视野大小的区别。 ?景别主要分为远景、全景、中景、近景、特写。 第一节画面 ?2、焦距：镜头外射入的光通过透镜以后会被聚合成一点，这个点被称为焦点，从焦点到透镜中心的距离被称为焦距。 ?焦距记录和复制现实的技术手段，也是一种具有表现力的艺术手段，它参与影像造型、气氛营造、人物刻画、思想和情感表达，成为影视作品风格形成的有机元素。 第一节画面 ?焦距分类 ?（1）标准镜头：焦距为40—50毫米的镜头（接近于人的肉眼感觉和视野）?（2）短焦距镜头：焦距＜40毫米的镜头，又称广角镜头或鱼眼镜头（拍摄对 象被横向夸张，强化横向场面的宏伟性，增强纵向运动的速度感），可以达到180度的视角范围。 ?（3）长焦距镜头：焦距＞50毫米的镜头（使前后景相叠合，使横向运动的速度加快，使纵向运动速度产生缓慢感），远距离拉近，视野小，景深感小。 第一节画面 ?3、镜头运动
第三章教育教学管理 -CAL-FENGHAI-(2020YEAR-YICAI)_JINGBIAN
第三章教育教学管理章程 第十七条【教育教学管理架构】学校建立健全年级组、教研组、备课组等教育教学基层管理机制。 年级组长负责本年级的德育管理工作，统筹教师分工与管理、年级教育活动、学生管理工作等。 教研组长负责组织、领导、组织学科组教师进行集体教学研究。教研组定期开展教学研究活动，按学校安排参加各种培训和学术活动，贯彻落实教学计划，完成各项教学任务。 备课组长负责组织本学科组教师进行集体备课和教学研究活动，完成教育教学任务。 第十八条【德育管理】学校实行精细化的德育管理。 学校坚持全员德育原则，校长全面负责，教师人人参与，实行教书育人、管理育人、服务育人。贯彻党的教育方针，构建德育目标体系，健全德育管理机制，建立学校、家庭、社会三结合的育人网络，优化德育活动过程。 学校加强学生公民素养的培养，以学生发展为核心，扎实推进素质教育。加强基础道德教育，提高学生文明素养。通过强化中小学生的基础道德教育，切实推进小公民道德建设；坚持开展礼仪教育，提高学生文明素养。 学校以全面实施健康教育为抓手，进一步丰富校园文化生活，丰富学生社团文化建设，以学生发展为本，继续以读书节、体育节、科技节、艺术节活动为载体，充分挖掘每位学生的潜能。
第十九条【班级管理】加强特色班集体的建设与管理，充分发挥学生自主管理的作用。班主任要完善班级管理制度，实行民主管理，充分发挥学生的主动性，激发群体的自律意识和责任意识。努力营造班级育人环境，使班集体逐渐形成共同的理想、信念、价值观及公认的行为准则，推进班级文化建设。 第二十条【社团管理】学校应体现通过社团活动挖掘学生特长、锻炼学生才能、培养公民意识、提升学生素质等宗旨。学生社团要让每一个人都有自己的空间，它应该是课堂教学的延展和深化，通过社团活动真正提高学生的综合能力和个性特长。 第二十一条【课程管理】学校贯彻国家课程、地方课程和校本课程三级管理体制，认真执行国家和地方课程计划，积极开发校本课程，形成学校特色课程体系。 学校按照课程设置标准实施教育教学，确保开齐课程，开足课时。 学校充分发挥学科课程和综合实践活动课的整体功能，尊重人的成长规律和教育规律，对学生进行德育、智育、体育、美育和劳动技术教育，促进学生全面发展，学有所长。学校每年举办英语周、科技周、运动会和艺术节活动。鼓励学生利用课余时间积极参加科技、艺术、文体培训。 第二十二条【教学管理】学校采用班级授课制，教学组织形式为单式教学。
公共选择理论案例分析 ——基于我国农村村委会选举贿选现象的分析摘要：农村村委会选举中的贿选现象严重严重危害着村民自治的发展。对于候选者、选民的行为，可以从公共选择理论得到很到的解释。本文将从公共选择理论视角分析贿选现象，并就可能的治理对策进行分析。 关键词：贿选；公共选择；村委会；村民自治 一、案例介绍 村民委员会这一基层村民自治组织最初成立于20世纪80年代。随着1998年《村民委员会组织法》的颁布，村民自治的制度也在中国确立了下来。在我国，基层群众自治制度与人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度和民族区域自治制度并成为中国特色的政治制度。村委会在20多年的发展历程中，取得了许多可喜的成绩，有效的推进了我国基层民主事业的发展，是人民当家做主的直接体现。但是在推进中国特色社会主义道路的建设过程中，基层群众自治在实际的运行中也存在许多不和谐的声音，农村村委会的贿选现象就是其中的一个。 随着村民自治实践的深入，竞选手段不断出现，贿选等现象有增无减。在全国范围内来看，贿选已不是个别现象。有关部门根据从信访、上访以及地方掌握的情况显示村委会的贿选比例大致在1%-3%之间。①近年来，新闻媒体和有关部门曝光了许多贿选事件，他们揭露了在选举过程中，贿选者为了当选或使自己的支持者当选，采取各种手段贿赂选民，其手段和方式主要有实物贿选、请吃喝贿选、大金额贿选和承诺贿选。例如：河北省邢台市南大郭乡李马村村委会选举前，孝子山之母给选民发放了800袋大米；山东省枣庄市山亭区某村在村委会换届过程中，候选人李某提前到各家游说，并送上油坊的油票；陕西省礼泉县城关镇柴市村在第五次村委会换届中，出现了以5元、10元或20元一碗羊肉泡馍进行拉票，几天内收益3800多元；浙江省温州市龙婉区沙城镇10多村村委会选举中，出现了以500-1000元价格收买选票现象；山东省淮坊市临朐县某地区在换届选 ①https://www.doczj.com/doc/4f2357293.html,/system/2008/08/03/051414155.shtml，2008年08月03日
《当代行政学流派》课程作业 姓名： 学号： 班级：行管2班 指导教师： 重庆大学贸易与行政学院
目录 前言 (2) 第一章公共选择理论的产生和发展 第一节公共选择理论的产生 (2) 第二节公共选择理论的艰辛曲折发展 (3) 第二章公共选择理论的主要代表人物及其理论 第一节邓肯.布莱克——公共选择理论之父 (3) 第二节布坎南——公共选择理论集大成者 (4) 第三节戈登.塔洛克：寻租理论的奠基人 (5) 第四节 K . J . 阿罗：为一般均衡求解 (6) 第五节罗纳德.科斯：社会的成本 (7) 第六节曼瑟尔.奥尔森：利益集团背后的逻辑支撑 (8) 第七节安东尼.唐斯：中间选民定理 (8) 第三章中国学者的研究及西方公共选择理论的新发展 第一节中国学者对公共选择理论的研究 (9) 第二节西方公共选择理论的新发展 (10) 第四章公共选择理论的方法论及启示 第一节公共选择理论的方法论 (11) 第二节公共选择理论的启示 (12) 参考文献 (14)
【前言】 公共选择理论（Public choicetheory）是一种以现代经济学分析民主立宪制政府的各种问题的学科，传统上是属于政治学的范畴。公共选择理论以个人为基本分析单位，以理性经济人为基本的行为假设来研究集体决策和集体决策规则的选择。研究的领域涉及投票、政党竞争、选民行为、官僚体制、集体行动和立宪选择等一系列问题。公共选择理论用经济学的方法研究政治问题，改变了人们对政治的传统看法。公共选择理论和一般政治理论的主要区别在于其研究假设和研究方法的不同。只有准确把握公共选择理论的假设和研究方法，才能正确理解公共选择理论的分析结论。公共选择理论独特的研究视角和方法特征为我们研究政治问题、社会问题提供了有用的分析工具。 第一章公共选择理论的产生和发展 第一节、公共选择理论的产生 一、公共选择问题溯古 早在１８世纪，在科学思想浪潮的推动下，法国科学院的博尔达、孔多塞和拉普拉斯三位院士就各自独立地用数学方法对政治学中的投票问题作了深入的研究，其中，博尔达计票法和孔多塞对投票悖论的分析最引人注目。可以说这些研究已经触摸到了现代公共选择研究的核心，但尚未形成公共选择理论的初始构架。 二、公共选择理论的孕育 公共选择理论的发育与福利经济学的发展有着特殊的联系。美国著名的公共选择理论大师丹尼斯·缪勒给公共选择理论下的定义常常被西方学者引用：“公共选择理论被定义为非市场决策的经济研究，或者可以简单地定义为把经济方法应用于政治科学。公共选择的方法仍然是经济学的方法。”而公共选择理论的经济学“基因”源自福利经济学。１９世纪９０年代至２０世纪４０年代，福利经济学经历了空前的大论战，产生了新福利经济学和旧福利经济学的分化。旧福利经济学以边沁、庇古等人为代表，其理论核心以边际效用基数论为基础，建立福利概念；新福利经济学主张效用序数论，认为边际效用不能衡量，个人间效用无法比较，不能用基数数词表示效用数值的大小，只能用序数数词表示效用水平的高低。新福利经济学对序数论的提出，使１８世纪建立于排序方法基础上的孔多塞悖论重新受到理论界的重视。新、旧福利经济学关于基数论与序数论的论战，成为公共选择理论的“育婴房”。 三、公共选择理论的逻辑起点 １９４８年，邓肯·布莱克利用新福利经济学的分析框架，研究社会公众以投票为媒介进行的公共选择，重新发现了博尔达、孔多塞和拉普拉斯当年研究成果非同寻常的价值。邓肯·布莱克首次将福利经济学的研究方法引入对政治行为
《新课程实用课堂教学艺术》讲授提纲 （第一部分） 第一章课堂教学艺术概述 第一节生命化——课堂教学艺术的最高境界 一、传统教学的弊端： 二、生命化教学的涵义： 生命化教学是指在教师与学生以生命发展为基础，通过对生活世界的关注，使学生情感得到体验，人格得以塑造，个性得以张杨，同时使教师的职业生命活力得以焕发，师生生命在交往互动，共同经历中不断生成的过程。生命化教学主要关注以下几个方面： 1、教学的生命体验性：课堂教学要把生活世界还给师生，把人格塑造，个性张杨回归于教学的主体，这是教学的根本所在。 2、教学的交往互动性：交往是教学的本质属性。 交往双方具有怎样的本质力量，就会决定交往的内容和形式，决定交往活动的质量。 三、教学的生成发展性： 第二节：课堂教学艺术的概念 一、教学艺术本质的不同理解： 1、技巧说； 2、创造说； 3、审美说； 4、规律说； 5、素养（才华）说； 6、特征说： 7、交流说； 8、整体说。 二、课堂教学艺术的概念： 教学艺术是一种特殊的实践艺术、过程艺术，从教学的角度对教学艺术属性的理解及据此发展起来的艺术的教学方式、方法、手段、形式等等。它包含以下几个方面的含义： 第一、教学艺术是“掌握”教学的一个独特视角、独特方式。只有从“高低远近各不同”的角度来看，才能真正理解、掌握教学。 第二、教学艺术是实践艺术和过程艺术的统一，也就是特定的教学价值观与特定的教学操作方式的统一。 第三、教学艺术具备一般的艺术特点，如形象性、情感性、审美性、创造性等。
第四、教学艺术中、艺术掌握的是教学，艺术的前提是教学。教学艺术包含在教学中，服务于教学。 第三节课堂教学艺术的特征 1、形象性： 2、情感性： 3、创造性： 教学的创造性表现在以下三个方面： 首先，是备课钻研教材创造性地思考；其次是创造性地设计教学实施方案；最后是教学方案组织实施的创造性。 4、实践性： 第四节课堂教学艺术的功能 一、陶冶功能： 二、转化功能： 三、谐悦功能： 四、整体功能： 第2章课堂教学设计艺术 第一节教学设计概述 什么是教学设计？主要有以下几种观点： 1、“措施”说； 2、“方法”说；3 、“操作”程序说；4、“方案”说；5、“计划”说；6、“技术”说。 所谓教学，是在教师的引导和学生的参加下由教育机关专门组织起来的教和学的统一活动，其目的是使学生掌握一定的知识、技能并获得身心各方面良好的发展，是教和学相结合的统一的活动。所谓设计，就是为创造某种具有实际效用的新事物而进行的探究。设计就是规划和组织，是对设计对象进行安排，使其相关，从而对其进行控制；设计是计划或布局安排的意思，是指用某种媒介形成某种事情的结构方式。第一，教学是一个有目标的活动；第二，设计就是为实现某一目标所进行的决策活动。就是指教师为达成一定的教学目标，对教学活动进行的系统规划，安排与决策。（1）教学设计是把教学原理转换成教学材料和教