In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5   The real problem of journalism is that the term which grounds it—the public—has been dissolved, dissolved in part by journalism. Journalism only makes sense in relation to the public and public life. Therefore, the fundamental problem in journalism is to reconstitute the public, to bring it back into existence. — . , “The Press and Public Discourse” () In this and the next two chapters, the theory of democratic professionalism is grounded in the practices of three reform movements within three different professions : the public journalism, restorative justice, and bioethics movements. Though in many ways success stories, this is not the reason they are considered here. Rather, they are three of the most prominent and most widespread examples of how professionals have changed their thinking about their professional roles to encompass the broader, more collaborative democratic professional identity . They are also three of the most theoretical, so to speak, in that the practitioners and interested outsiders have been active in thinking, writing, and arguing about these reforms—oftentimes in just the terms discussed in the last chapter. These movements are all ongoing, but they have been around long enough for there to be considerable debate among both practitioners and outsiders about their virtues and vices. “Grounded” is meant, most generally, to give a face to the theory of democratic professionalism—show that there are real people doing real things that look like democratic professionalism. In particular, these chapters will describe the context and motivations of reformers, discuss internal debates, and relate how practitioners have managed internal tensions in the model to bear the burdens of a complex new role, make trade-offs, channel ambitions, and examine how they resolve, for better or worse, the ambiguities about professional authority raised in the last chapter. This kind of ground demonstrates the relevance— for practitioners and academics—of the concepts and arguments of democratic professionalism across a number of different professions. For each of these movements I will argue that greater clarity about democratic professionalism would help practitioners gain focus or redirect current assumptions and practices that cut against the spirit of the theory. We should not expect different professions to be democratic in the same way. While democratic professionalism entails commitments to sharing authority and knowledge through task sharing and to being an enabling intermediary between citizens and the social and political institutions that affect them, these commitments will be manifested differently depending on the kinds of tasks that can be shared and the kinds of institutions within which democratic professionals have influence. The journalists and editors motivated by democratic professionalism in Chapter  have a direct potential impact on public knowledge and civic engagement regarding the broadest range of social issues. The criminal justice and health care professionals of Chapters  and , in turn, have a direct potential impact on public knowledge and civic engagement regarding a very narrow range of social issues, yet the issues of meaningful and appropriate punishment and fair and humane health care decisions are among the most difficult the contemporary polity faces. Though we do not expect democratic professionals to be political activists, we do expect them to engage and facilitate more deliberative publics— some larger and less specialized, as in the case of public journalism; others smaller and more engaged in specific tasks, as in the case of restorative justice and bioethics .To paraphrase Dewey, democratic professionals should be judged on their ability to enable publics to recognize themselves, but they should be judged on terms that are sensitive to their specific contexts and institutional homes. Throughout these chapters, we will move back and forth using what we understand about democratic professionalism to raise questions about the cases while using what we know about the cases to better understand democratic professionalism . The methodological premise is that our developing theory can help clarify the democratic values articulated by these reformers while the tensions and problems they face can help clarify the theory. As they seek to reorient professional practices—making them more collaborative, more connected to participatory and deliberative publics—public journalists, restorative justice practitioners, and bioethics consultants make certain assumptions about their roles. Some of these assumptions are at present ambiguous and are capable of leading to both democratic professionalism and its opposite. A more developed and grounded theory of democratic professionalism will not completely remove these ambiguities, but it can focus constructively critical attention on them.     [18.191.216.163] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 11:58...

Share