Balancing the requirements of professional planning program accreditation and academia: A comparison between the USA and New Zealand

Abstract

The interrelationship of planning as a distinct academic discipline and planning as a professional activity would seem full of potential for fruitful mutual support. However, the needs of each may be quite different and create tension between the ‘academy’ and the ‘profession’. Academics have research activity requirements and academic perspectives that do not necessarily fit well with maintaining professional practice credibility; while the ‘guardians’ of professional practice seek certainty that planning graduates are ‘work-ready’ and maintaining the reputation, and employability, of the professional planner. In this paper we compare and contrast the requirements in the USA – for accreditation of academic programs by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) – and those of the New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI). We focus on the issues that the relationships between academics and practitioners create for the academy. We particularly draw attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the key differences between the two approaches and comment on their implications.