Introduction The past decade has seen a comprehensive change in the way in which rural (and urban) Britain is politically governed. This is often described as a shift from government to`governance', a term that is widely used in political science, sociology, and political theory (Bevir and Rhodes, 2003). Concepts of governance are used to capturè`t he connection between steering and the practice of freedom in a high modern world, where everyday life is growing increasingly complex, dynamic and differentiated'' (Bang, 2003, page 2). This growing complexity is related to a blurring of boundaries between state and civil society (Goodwin, 1998; Stoker, 1998).`W here government begins and society ends, or the other way around, becomes more diffuse'' (Kooiman, 1993, page 4). This diffusion of responsibilities and accountability is apparent in the new ways of governing that blur the borderline between government and society. Examples include citizen panels, interactive spatial planning, and partnerships. We focus on the last of these, not least because partnerships have become a``significant vehicle for the implementation of rural development policy in Britain'' (Edwards et al, 2001, page 289). Moreover, the increased use of the partnership instrument within European rural policies such as the Rural Development Regulation points to the importance of this governance instrument in the rural domain. For this reason, the study of rural partnerships can reveal important lessons for the way that new forms of governance develop in practice. However, despite many studies on rural partnerships, relatively few studies have focused on processes within these partnerships (McAreavey, 2006).
This article addresses the construction of professionalism in rural partnerships inAchterhoek, a region in the east of The Netherlands, where public, private and community representatives are involved in the spatial reorganisation of agriculture. In contrast to the dichotomy between 'professional' and 'citizen' that can be found in the literature, we argue that professional identity is a multi-layered construct. Moreover, professional identity can be seen a source of political capital. Based on a qualitative case study of one partnership, we conclude that it is not just civic or community representatives who are unable to access all the relevant layers of professionalism. Partnership members from small interest organisations also lack the professionalism that stems from scientific knowledge. Even when these actors have access to scientific knowledge, only a few of them can identify with and align themselves with the dominant discourse. Community representatives are particularly prone to question the legitimacy of the professionalism that dominates such partnerships. They are proud of their experiential knowledge and draw on this to contest professionalism, which they disapprove of. If the governance of local partnerships is to be a bottom-up process more lay people and local inhabitants need to be involved. Their experiential knowledge could bring about a cultural change in governance that goes beyond the current decentralisation of decision-making to the local level.
is a cultural anthropologist, and her research interests are in the fi eld of sustainable tourism development. She has published on national park development, heritage tourism, cruise tourism, tourism innovation, tourism crisis communication, corporate social responsibility, NGOs and democratic accountability in the Eastern Caribbean.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.